Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 120808	2011-09-27 08:47:00	Climate change ... an Australian perspective ... sorry.	SP8's (9836)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1233874	2011-09-27 08:47:00	Sorry it's an Australian example and long ... but puts CO2 emission's into perspective This explains Carbon Pollution. ? What is now being attempted is the Legitimising of a new Tax by deception. It will be equal to the putting up of the GST to 12.5% This is a totally unacceptable impost upon the Tax payers. Here's a practical way to understand Julia Gillard / Bob Brown Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Read the following analogy and you will realize the insignificance of carbon dioxide as a weather controller. Imagine 1 kilometre of Atmosphere and we want to get rid of the carbon pollution in it that's being created by human activity. Let's go for a walk along this 1 Kilometre of Atmosphere together. One Kilometre consists of 1000 Metres The first 770 metres are Nitrogen. The next 210 metres are Oxygen. That Totals 980 metres of the 1 kilometre: 20 metres to go. The next 10 metres are water vapour: 10 metres left. 9 metres of the remaining 10 are Argon; Just 1 more metre left. Now a few different gases make up the first bit of this last metre. Still looking for the Carbon Dioxide. Well it makes up the last 38 centimetres of the kilometre. About a foot and a half of one Kilometre 97% of that one foot is produced by Mother Nature itself. Yes, It's natural. Out of our journey of one kilometre, there are just 12 millimetres left. Just over a centimetre - about half of one inch. That then is the amount of carbon dioxide that global human activity puts into the Worlds atmosphere. And of those 12 Man Made millimetres Australia puts in 0.18 of a millimetre. Less than the thickness of a Human hair. One hair thickness out of one kilometre! As a hair is to a kilometre - so is Australia 's contribution to what Julia and Bob calls Carbon Pollution. Imagine Brisbane Queensland 's new Gateway Bridge ,ready to be opened. It's been polished, painted and scrubbed by an army of workers 'till its 1 kilometre length is now surgically clean. Now accept that Julia and Bob say we have a huge problem, the bridge is polluted by a human hair laying on the roadway. We'd laugh ourselves silly. There are plenty of real pollution problems in the World to worry about. It's hard to imagine that Australia 's contribution to the carbon dioxide volume in the world's atmosphere is one of the more pressing ones. And I can't believe that a new tax on everything in Australia is the only way to blow a polluting hair of a bridge. Pass this to your friends while its being debated in our Federal Parliament. Have your friends see how they are being conned!!! What Brown and Gillard are trying to pull will only make your lives harder to live and won't solve a single bloody thing.	SP8's (9836)
1233875	2011-09-27 18:18:00	Interesting perspective. However, to somewhat counter that, try to drive your car the length of a kilometre and see if you can keep your carbon emmission to less than a hairs width on that scale. Hmm. You can't. Your carbon emmission from that short trip has totally swamped the pre-existing level of carbon, and you've left behind many times more CO2 than there ever was there. Now picture that CO2 as an inky black gas, rather than colourless. There was a hairs width of inky black gas before your drive. Now there's metres of the stuff from your drive alone, and there's 100 other motorists spewing this inky poison out of their cars as well. Your sparkling and polished bridge is now a filthy mess. Please take the bus next time!	Paul.Cov (425)
1233876	2011-09-27 18:43:00	www.stuff.co.nz So if there's Just over a centimetre - about half of one inch. That then is the amount of carbon dioxide. Why aren't the plants dying of suffocation? That sounds good in theory but isn't how it works.	pctek (84)
1233877	2011-09-27 18:44:00	Interesting perspective. However, to somewhat counter that, try to drive your car the length of a kilometre and see if you can keep your carbon emmission to less than a hairs width on that scale. Hmm. You can't. Your carbon emmission from that short trip has totally swamped the pre-existing level of carbon, and you've left behind many times more CO2 than there ever was there. Now picture that CO2 as an inky black gas, rather than colourless. There was a hairs width of inky black gas before your drive. Now there's metres of the stuff from your drive alone, and there's 100 other motorists spewing this inky poison out of their cars as well. Your sparkling and polished bridge is now a filthy mess. Please take the bus next time! Whatever you save here, the 2.5 billion Indians and Chinese make it far below insignificant. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of cities, larger than the population than NZ. Some cities rival Australia's population, we are nothing compared to them. How about we get over ourselves and just get on with out lives? Just because you want to act clean and green for no other reason but to feel good about yourself... The CO2 individuals (as a group) cause is insignificant compared to big industry. Hell how much CO2 does the US Army cause? How much did those ICMBs that attacked Libya cause? After that tell the government to give us a decent efficient public transport. If we did, maybe we wouldn't need to drive so much. And then, get them to pull out all diesel trains from service.	Cato (6936)
1233878	2011-09-27 20:57:00	supposedly, The Amazon forest is a HUUUGE producer of methane(far worse then CO2) Better bulldoze that as well. We will never get the actuall facts any more, too many self interested groups on both sides bend the truth to suit. co2 is 0.0387% by volume(2009) , yet no one can deny its importance in our atmosphere. Thats not even 1/2 a percent. This nonsense about how many mm it is the 1st post is meaningless dribble. Lets blame the US army for global warming. Very informed argument there.	1101 (13337)
1233879	2011-09-27 21:32:00	This nonsense about how many mm it is the 1st post is meaningless dribble. In my own defence ... I did warn everyone that it was from an Australian perspective ... what the hell do you expect ... accuracy !!! ... :p	SP8's (9836)
1233880	2011-09-27 22:09:00	You notice everyone's calling it climate change now. That's because they are not 100% certain it's warming and it may in fact be cooling. So they cover their arses and call it climate change. I also think CO2 taxes are ridiculous, but believe it's just the powers that be trying to find a way to control pollution (and make a buck while doing it). As a race we need to grow up and realise there is no good excuse to pollute and no need to use climate change as a reason not to. Whatever effect we are or are not having on the planet we should not be carelessly spewing crap into the ecosystem. Despite all the advances in science even our small planet is far too complicated for us to 100% accurately predict it's patterns. The real problem in my opinion is the continuously growing population, space and resources are limited and it can't go on forever. If the world wasn't rapidly getting overcrowded pollutuion wouldn't be much of an issue. Already they say much of the worlds population (maybe as high as 50%) would starve if we didn't use GE crops to increase our food production. You could say we need more food, I say we need less people.	dugimodo (138)
1233881	2011-09-27 23:27:00	The first myth to dispel, is that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant in the atmosphere, it is a natural constituent essential for plant life. Calling CO2 pollution, is merely thinly disguised spin to create the illusion that a Government imposing major new taxes is somehow doing the right thing. To claim that excess man made carbon dioxide has been irrefutably proven to cause climate change is nonsense, how many would like to be tried for a major crime where there was that level of proof required. Whatever one may think or be told to the contrary, the driving force behind pricing carbon, and the business of trading carbon credits is money, unbelievably large amounts of it - Politicians and other scurrilous wide boy traders cannot resist the temptation to get in on the act.	KenESmith (6287)
1233882	2011-09-27 23:35:00	Interesting perspective. However, to somewhat counter that, try to drive your car the length of a kilometre and see if you can keep your carbon emmission to less than a hairs width on that scale. Hmm. You can't. Your carbon emmission from that short trip has totally swamped the pre-existing level of carbon, and you've left behind many times more CO2 than there ever was there. Now picture that CO2 as an inky black gas, rather than colourless. There was a hairs width of inky black gas before your drive. Now there's metres of the stuff from your drive alone, and there's 100 other motorists spewing this inky poison out of their cars as well. Your sparkling and polished bridge is now a filthy mess. Please take the bus next time! Ahhh, but by the time you do a second pass the Carbon level when you start is the same as it was before your first pass. It’s not accumulative otherwise the World Carbon Dioxide level wouldn’t have remained at its minuscule level for as long as it has. However, the vegetation along the banks of the Brisbane River is always grateful for a feed. ;) I just returned from Queensland on Sunday and the Aussies are right onto Ju”liar” Gillard and Bob Brown. Gillard and Brown are trying to force their Emissions Trading Bill through before a General Election is forced upon them. The Bill has been described as “The longest suicide note ever written” and a survey found that Rudd was the only Labour Minister likely to hold his seat if an election was held in Queensland. You’ve got to hand it to the Aussies, they don’t let their Politicians pull the wool over their eyes and are indeed ruthless when dealing with errant ones. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1233883	2011-09-27 23:36:00	The first myth to dispel, is that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant in the atmosphere, it is a natural constituent essential for plant life . . 7 billion people - all stop exhaling . And due to the latest news on how polluted NZ cities are, another reason to ban breathing .	pctek (84)
1 2 3 4