Comments on: Our Waste

By: ScruffyDan

ScruffyDan — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 17:09:15 +0000

“The point is think. References, do not an argument make.”

The evidence for climate change that is available to the casual person of interest, such as you lance (or me for that matter), is simplified to the point of being misleading, false, or useless.
This is completely independent of the underlying reality of climate change or the evidence available to experts in the field.

That is why I place my trust in the ‘vast majority’ of the experts.

By: grf

grf — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:35:08 +0000

Further to what I was saying before, a new example:

“KOALAS and other leaf-eating animals face a bleak future, with new research showing eucalyptus leaves are becoming inedible because of climate change.

Australian National University science professor Bill Foley says: “What we’re seeing, essentially, is that the staple diet of these animals is being turned to leather. This is potentially a very significant development for the future of some marsupial populations. Life is set to become extremely difficult for these animals.”

James Cook University researcher Ivan Lawler found through experiments in greenhouses that increased levels of carbon dioxide reduced the levels of nitrogen and other nutrients in eucalyptus leaves and boosted tannins, a naturally occurring chemical toxin. ”

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23487281-11949,00.html

By: Saskboy

Saskboy — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 14:29:52 +0000

No, but I independently came up with the argument (because it’s pretty simple and straightforward), and the IPCC agrees with me. The reason so much doubt exists is because there is an active campaign to confuse people with details that encourage laziness and waste for continued record profit for people who control energy resources.

By: lance

lance — Sat, 05 Apr 2008 09:15:40 +0000

scruffy, think about “vast majority” in relation to science and how the two can’t, by definition, mix.

Then think about how effortlessly you fell into the consensus trap.

The point is _think_. References, do not an argument make.

Cheers,
lance

By: ScruffyDan

ScruffyDan — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:38:46 +0000

“I don’t have any delusions that any organization speaks for all members”

How about the vast majority? IS that to much of a stretch for you?

By: Saskboy

Saskboy — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:16:19 +0000

You’re discounting the spin off effects of our innovation and leadership in the world. We’re doing the same dirty things as the dirtiest countries in the world, and throwing waste and opulence on top because we have the drinking water, and space for landfills to spare!

By: lance

lance — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:10:59 +0000

No, I don’t think they’ve all been overrun by pinko commies, but I don’t have any delusions that _any_ organization speaks for all members or without motives that extend beyond their membership.

You’re right Saskboy, 0.16% wouldn’t be the result because Canada wouldn’t stop creating CO2. That’s the percentage of global reduction if Canada stopped producing CO2.

We do breathe after all. What’s the number now? 20% by 2020 or something? So our planned reductions are 20% of our 2% contribution of the 8% that CO2 adds to the GH effect) . . . 0.00032% of global GHG. . . .

We’re on the way, boys!

Cheers,
lance

By: Saskboy

Saskboy — Fri, 04 Apr 2008 06:05:16 +0000

I too would be very surprised if hear the “National Academies of Science from Australia…” wasn’t mostly staffed by SCIENTISTS! Can you think of anyone else interested in that kind of tedious research, or career positions? If you’ve got some proof Lance, please link us up.