Global warming - more bad news !

[Finn]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent. It will never happen on a large enough scale.

[Ocean1]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent.

Go wash your fekin mouth out, feck's sake there's wimen and kids in here dude.

[Hitcher]

Two words regarding Bio Fuels in NZ. Resource Consent. It will never happen on a large enough scale.

Three words as an antidote: National Policy Statement. If this Government is seriously committed to meeting the Kyoto targets it recently espoused, legislative restrictions such as resource consents can be made less of a hurdle.

[Ocean1]

Three words as an antidote: National Policy Statement.

Right, that's it, I'm fuken outa here, the language is fuken appaling.

[The Pastor]

Yup, but conditions here aren't good for any of the crops that can be optimised for ethinol production. South America is doing well with that industry but both growing conditions and the economic environment there are favourable.

We could turn left over bits of sheep and cows into fuel and, (there's a lot of small interests doing just that) but political ineptitude prevents a more widespread uptake of the technology. On one hand the gubmint mandates a requirement for diesel to contain 5% biofuel by next year sometime, on the other hand environmentally driven regulations make it extraordinarily economically unatractive to do so. So we're exporting tallow to Aus, where they do it for us, and buying back the blended diesel at premium prices...

Interestingly tallow (animal fat) is a lucrative product for purposes other than biofuel, to a point where it's probably too expensive an option for fuelling vehicles. It's used for all sorts of purposes in food production, including manufacture of some margarines.

In the greater scheme of things too, there's not really that much of it to make a significant difference. This is also true of waste vegetable oils. While the odd individual may be able to adapt and run a vehicle on it, there's probably only enough of the stuff in New Zealand to power a few thousand vehicles.

Hell yeah! animal products in petrol? THEM VEGANS WONT BE ABLE TO EAT ANYTHING(everything gets driven to the supermarket - even seeds are havested using machines)! they wont be able to go anywhere!!!


MUHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA its an evil plot to force vegans into hiding!

I love it.

[davereid]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

The second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Yeah right. Floating ice that melts won't have any effect on sea levels.

At least they have now added antartica and glaciers to the story to give it some credence.

Of course thoses of us alive in the 60s will remember the scientists telling us that another ice age was on its way.

But the real one is Kyoto. I just can't really see where the money goes. I'm sure once I work that out, I'll have a better idea of whats really happening.

By the way, I've got some pet rocks to sell. As they have exactly the same effect on world CO2 emmissions as trees, they must be worth a few bob..

[Mr Merde]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

The second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Yeah right. Floating ice that melts won't have any effect on sea levels.

At least they have now added antartica and glaciers to the story to give it some credence.

Of course thoses of us alive in the 60s will remember the scientists telling us that another ice age was on its way.

But the real one is Kyoto. I just can't really see where the money goes. I'm sure once I work that out, I'll have a better idea of whats really happening.

By the way, I've got some pet rocks to sell. As they have exactly the same effect on world CO2 emmissions as trees, they must be worth a few bob..

We are still comming out of an Ice Age, geologically speaking.

Its only been about 20,000 years which in the scale of the 5 billion years of the earths existance plotted to a 24 hour clock is what? 1/2 a second.

The dinosaurs lived in a world that was semi to sub tropical. Antartica had no ice and flora and fauna abound.


Surely that means things get warmer and will continue to do so.

The rift that runs down the Atlantic ocean pumps out more sulphur and polutants than all of humanity has in its existence. Shal we plug it?

[Ocean1]

There are a couple of things I can't really follow with global warming.

Lots of lies is the first thing.

Perhaps not lies exactly, as such. But it’s become a political football with possibly the highest spin rate we’ve ever seen. A function of the fact that environmental extremism has become the home of the rabid socialist left. The un-stated agenda is a direct counter to the economic power of the capitalist world and the control it's fiscal weight allows over international politics. Fear of extinction and the will to protect our children and descendants is the tool, a very effective one.

This, however:

Lets get over the idea that planting a tree is good for the world.

Trees are actually carbon neutral, just like pet rocks.

The only time a tree actually performs as a carbon sink, is if you cut it down, treat it and buils a house with it.

Is wrong. Flora locks up carbon in direct proportion to it’s class and mass, carbon is released when the tree (for example) is burnt, some is also released when it’s processed for timber. As a contributor to atmospheric Co2 it’s still a relatively minor concern, routine volcanic activity dumps far more into the atmosphere.

On the other hand while green plants help reduce Co2 they also increases the amount of vegetative decay, which increases the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times more influential as a greenhouse gas than Co2. Confused yet?

And this:

ThThe second one that bugs me is the original claim that the artic ice was melting, and sea levels would rise.

Is perfectly correct, best guess on the rise in sea levels caused by just the Greenland glacial ice mass is about 2 metres. The numbers aren’t hard to find, get your calculator out.

[idleidolidyll]

Much of the spin fighting the concepts of global warming and climate change have come from amerikan scientists and from projects DESIGNED to counter the so called anti-capitalist argumenst.

It makes me gasp that people think our last 150 years of industrial revolution HASN'T had any effect on the planet. I suggest you guys and gals look up the tonnage of waste and pollutants dumped into the environment, look up their toxicity and ask yourselves where they go when we pump them out in such vast quantities.

Many of you remind me of a conversation I had in China a few years ago. I was on a bus and struck up a conversation with a young Chinese woman (I speak the ling0). I specifically asked her about a project in Gansu province to chop the top off the mountains at the end of a cul de sac valley so that the pollution could be blow downwind and clean up the air in the city. I asked her where she thought the pollution went and she answered that it went up into the sky and got so thin it disappeared forever.
That is basically the argument many here are making and I suggest you carefully examine the 'science' you're reading. Look at who is behind it and what their possible motivations are. You'll find that quite often it is corporate sponsored research in which case it will be designed to give the answer the company wants. In other cases it will be US Govt research on behalf of corporations with the same result.

there are many sources but here's a good place to start when looking for REAL science on climate change and global warming:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...climate-change

[davereid]

This, however: Is wrong. Flora locks up carbon in direct proportion to it’s class and mass, carbon is released when the tree (for example) is burnt, some is also released when it’s processed for timber. As a contributor to atmospheric Co2 it’s still a relatively minor concern, routine volcanic activity dumps far more into the atmosphere.

On the other hand while green plants help reduce Co2 that increase also increases the amount of vegetative decay, which increases the amount of methane released to the atmosphere. Methane is 21 times more influential as a greenhouse gas than Co2. Confused yet?

And this:
Is perfectly correct, best guess on the rise in sea levels caused by just the Greenland glacial ice mass is about 2 metres. The numbers aren’t hard to find, get your calculator out.

Hmm I'm not convinced...but I'm not big on tree stuff, I'll certainly take a tree dudes word.

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about. But (sigh) I can't find any of the early stuff to quote so I'll just have to shut up !

I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

[idleidolidyll]

Dave

google greenland ice and you'll be very afraid.

it's been out there a long time now but the media is owned by corporations by and large and THEIR motivation has been to prevent this info reaching the cowed masses

[BIGBOSSMAN]

Global Warming = load of bollocks.

[Ocean1]

Much of the spin fighting the concepts of global warming and climate change have come from amerikan scientists and from projects DESIGNED to counter the so called anti-capitalist argumenst.

Correct, a good reason to ignore any opinion which can be seen to have any but purely scientific interest.

It makes me gasp that people think our last 150 years of industrial revolution HASN'T had any effect on the planet. I suggest you guys and gals look up the tonnage of waste and pollutants dumped into the environment, look up their toxicity and ask yourselves where they go when we pump them out in such vast quantities.

Many of you remind me of a conversation I had in China a few years ago. I was on a bus and struck up a conversation with a young Chinese woman (I speak the ling0). I specifically asked her about a project in Gansu province to chop the top off the mountains at the end of a cul de sac valley so that the pollution could be blow downwind and clean up the air in the city. I asked her where she thought the pollution went and she answered that it went up into the sky and got so thin it disappeared forever.
That is basically the argument many here are making and I suggest you carefully examine the 'science' you're reading. Look at who is behind it and what their possible motivations are. You'll find that quite often it is corporate sponsored research in which case it will be designed to give the answer the company wants. In other cases it will be US Govt research on behalf of corporations with the same result.

No doubt. Plenty of unqualified opinion available. Discriminate between "toxic" and "environmental" impact though.

there are many sources but here's a good place to start when looking for REAL science on climate change and global warming:

http://environment.newscientist.com/...climate-change

Did you bother to look and see what Nigel Calder had to say in the clip I posted?

[Ocean1]

Hmm I'm not convinced...but I'm not big on tree stuff, I'll certainly take a tree dudes word.

It just seems to me, that a tree grows and absorbs CO2 in its biomass. Then it dies, falls to the forest floor and decays, releasing the CO2.

I'm not a tree dude. I'm perfectly happy to be advised by them, although there's more than one discipline required to get the full picture.

I completely agree about Greenland and other land based ice, rising water levels.

But I never remember Greenland being quoted, it was always the floating ice cap that was talked about. But (sigh) I can't find any of the early stuff to quote so I'll just have to shut up !

I guess it comes down (for me at least) to some skeptical questions

Is it really getting warmer ?
If it is, is it really human activity ?
If it is human activity can will Kyoto reverse it, or just cost a lot of money ?
Do we want to reverse it - is it really that bad ?
Lots of money in Kyoto - where does it all go ? (suspicious bastard)

Look at the quantity of ice above mean sea level dude, that's the only important stuff.

Good look at historical temperatures: http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm

[Ocean1]

Dave

google greenland ice and you'll be very afraid.

it's been out there a long time now but the media is owned by corporations by and large and THEIR motivation has been to prevent this info reaching the cowed masses

Meh, who gives a fuck, it'll happen tolerably slowly.

As for the media? who the hell listens to 'em, at least for more than to learn which particular social angst is fashionable... If you don't like their product you've got the same choice as anyone else when it comes to supporting them.