Aussies Living Simply

Magnetic Pole Shift

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #492531
    GothmotherGothmother
    Member

    Magnetic pole shift? It’s not something we can plan for and mitigate against, so it’s a distraction not worth worrying about, a bit like chunks of rock floating through space that might run into the earth one day. We can do something about our continued polluting of our home.

    so are you saying that because humans can’t vontrol magnetic pole shifts they should be discounted as possible real causes of climate change? do we only want to recognise causes of climate change that we can connect to human activity ( no matter how small) and completely ignore that there may be some other reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with humans at all? it may well be that there IS absolutely nothing humans can do about climate change.

    we can lower pollution and that is a good thing but it well may have squat to do with slowing climate change.

    learning to live with climate change might be more vital than trying to reverse it.

    Doesn’t anyone think it is a bit strange that the only “Climate change cause” getting any attention is CO2 which is an extremely small part of emmissions?

    #492532
    GeoffGeoff
    Keymaster

    Gothmother post=306975 wrote: so are you saying that because humans can’t vontrol magnetic pole shifts they should be discounted as possible real causes of climate change? do we only want to recognise causes of climate change that we can connect to human activity ( no matter how small) and completely ignore that there may be some other reasonable explanation that has nothing to do with humans at all?

    It’s not a matter of whether they are real causes or not. We cannot prevent such a shift, so we cannot prevent it’s impact on our climate, just the same as we cannot prevent volcanoes. We need to concentrate on the things we can change. Inevitably some people will pick up that it could be pole shifts that might cause some degree of climate change and they’ll attribute all climate change to that one cause out of many, and claim once more that we should do nothing about the damage that we do, that we can prevent.

    learning to live with climate change might be more vital than trying to reverse it.

    I think we have no choice but to learn to live with it, our window of opportunity has pretty much closed, and the confusion sown by the deniers early on has had it’s effect. Sad as it is, I personally think it’s too late, too late for climate change, too late for peak everything, so too late for peak humanity, and we need to start adapting.

    Doesn’t anyone think it is a bit strange that the only “Climate change cause” getting any attention is CO2 which is an extremely small part of emmissions?

    It’s actually due to a misunderstanding or misrepresentation because of the phrase “carbon dioxide equivalents”, which describes the measure of the impact of a wide variety of pollutants. The media seems to have picked up the phrase but left off the “equivalents” and then confused the whole argument by propagating the misinformation that it’s about CO2 rather than about a whole range of gasses. If you look at the stuff the scientists are writing you’ll see they’re examining and discussing a wide range of climate change inducing substances.

    #492533
    pennypenny
    Member

    My whole point was that CO2 is not the only thing affecting climate change and that everything needs to be factored in so we can make good decisions for the future. I do thing we need to look after the earth and stop uncontolled land clearing etc.

    #492534
    Anonymous
    Guest

    not very often we get to hear the admittion that clearing forests is causing problems if not the whole problem, but hey there is no money to made from rehabilitating the habitat, ths whole scam has always been about artificially inflating coal fired power to a point where nuclear power looks affordable. but that is where the inhumanity of the pundants comes in for co2 c/c they realy don’t care the amount of suffering when power, water,food etc.,. are out of reach of the poor.

    if they wanted to even look like doing it right they would bring in an affordable power source first then shut the coal ones down and hey stop coal mining as well. like they found in sweden a 20% carbon slug on fuel did not change the habits of the affluent yuppies, it’ll be the same here so any measure will have to be reapplied more heavily and hurt those that can’t give anymore.

    still fail to see how our less than 2% has any effect on the planet. and there fore can’t see how reducing that by 5% will look like anything but a smudge on glass, same as when we move to cut it by 60% a whole 60% of less than 2% wow massive amount hey? meantime asia, china, korea and japan will be providing their population affordable power driven by our coal, funny that hey as well as our natural gas cheap, natural gas that could power us affordably while another source is developed.

    do it back to front the only way to have a human impact. cutting one’s nose off to spight one’s face.

    len

    #492535
    AbbysMumAbbysMum
    Participant

    Len, in some ways your correct, especially when you say they do not care about the poor. The wealthy will always be wealthy and it is not so much about luck or hard work as about what family you were born into and the old boys’ network, which is alive and well.

    As for C/C well it is why I posted this, because in all honesty I am totally lost. I hear that the carbon put out by 1 active volcano in a day equates to what man puts out in a year and there are 250 at any one time active worldwide. Is this correct? Is it true that the biggest source of carbon given off into the atmosphere is what is given off by the oceans? OR has anyone heard of a Japanese man/ company who has found a way of turning plastic back into oil? Well apparently this is correct but apart from a UTube video I have heard no more and apparently his discovery was out in 2009. Again I do not know. It is not for lack of trying to find out the answers, however, both sides of the debate only tell the sensational elements of C/C, and this is what the average person has to wade through. While sensationalism creates attention, it is also scary and it is easier to turn away from it and deny it’s existence, easier to put one’s head in the sand and it is no wonder that Joe Blow on the street has given his power over to someone else, anyone else, to sort out the mess, because should the wrong decission be made, it is someones elses fault. Prior to giving over his power should he fluctuate and perseverate over the decission or seem vague over what C/C is really about he can consult the experts. Both sides of the debate speak with power, authority and ease and appear to know the subject intimately, but pity help Joe Blow should he raise voice and/ or speak out or question for he is trivialised and denigrated as not knowing anything, but how does one learn if not by asking questions. Both sides in the C/C debate have vested interests in it and at the end day when the fur stops flying they will kiss and make up and say each was right because they, who were to the left, will adapt the argument in such a way that it will be put down to a misinterpretation, and the side on the right, well they will have over exaggerated what is happening and will have to come back to a more middle point of view and agree with the opposition.

    I have said a lot about what I do not know but what I do know is this, I know that I think it is disgusting how man is leaving the planet, the pollution is B****y awful and we do not seems to have a conscience about it. I know that man’s inhumanity to man is not restricted to how we treat our third world neighbours and that we care so little for the other sentient beings which walk this planet with us, and I know we are all extremely self centred, and yes I do look in the mirror when I say that . I believe Gothmother is correct when she says we are going to have to learn how to live with climate change and Penny was also correct when she says that CO2 is not the only thing affecting C/C, but it is the only thing which man can do anything about.

    I could go on but I shall not it serves no purpose to vocalise my frustrations with the system. What I think is needed is transparency and that is not about to be achieved with this or any debate. Thank goodness we had Wiki Leaks, three cheers for Julian!

    Susan

    #492536
    Anonymous
    Guest

    i saw it written that a volcano puts 14 years of carbon into the atmosphere, the silly thing about this whole co2 factor is none can prove it eiteh way,the science for it say all they have is theory, backed up by best guess scientific mathematical calculation, all the “for” stuff i have seen that is all it says, there is never, never any real proof, only what is in the mind of the beholder.

    me and others ahve asked similar questions they the supporteers of it don’t answer them, or they answer them with another question, sorry that does not count.

    the expect all to trust and worship them, they say they can project waht will happen if this co2 thing continues yet they can’t project the fix time or cost.

    why don’t we do the simpler things first stop wholesale habitat destruction, replant the habitat, stop all those motor sports that waste fuel to run them, there are lots of thing instead of bashing teh populas around the head with a hunk of wood called carbon tax to be followed by a brand new investment industry carbon trading, once this pandora’s box is open it can never be closed.

    they can’t keep people oppressed forever the people will rise it is happening now it has happened before.

    all the links the supporters post are somehow honest though the science is in bed with the polititions, all the links whatever the opposition post are lambaked as being backed by mining or oil interests who are in bed with the polititions, what is the diffrence?

    yep been judged by others merits plenty of time.

    len

    #492537
    Hummer HumbugHummer
    Keymaster

    gardenlen post=307010 wrote:

    all the links the supporters post are somehow honest though the science is in bed with the polititions, all the links whatever the opposition post are lambaked as being backed by mining or oil interests who are in bed with the polititions, what is the diffrence?

    yep been judged by others merits plenty of time.

    len

    So, in all honesty Len, you believe everyone is sleeping with the government and every word spoken or written has otherwise, ulterior motives ?

    #492538
    Anonymous
    Guest

    yep that’s the one humbug,

    once men and money come together with gov’ especially fringe gov’ there is corruption.

    don’t forget but hey being in bed with someone is the only answer the supporters have against the non-supporters. or is it ok for the um “good guys” to say that but the baddies can’t have any defence.

    edited in: hey it gets better! no need to shut down the coal fired power stations our premie juat stated that most of them have been running on coal seam gas for up to 15 years, great stuff hey? so what is the issue the real issue then proven in fact that is.

    len

    #492539
    Hummer HumbugHummer
    Keymaster

    Fair enough Len.. although for someone such as I who holds the cup half full, always… it’s a little sad to read that.

    I think we always need to look forward to the future, whatever it may hold.. and optimism far out-weighs pessimism, in my book .

    Of course this is a personal choice! 🙂

    #492540

    gardenlen post=307010 wrote: i saw it written that a volcano puts 14 years of carbon into the atmosphere,

    What you read was a lie. Humans put out thousands times more CO2 than a volcano. Next time check the claim before believing it as it will save your face much egg gardenlen.

    When you get a chance, check out my rebuttal of one who made a similar claim. The link option for posting isn’t working so you’ll have to search for it:

    “NIMBY’s oppose wind farm and win” (page 6)

    The poster and someone else made the mistake of failing to check some basic facts before making such claims and I had the pleasure of correcting their mistake. All the evidence you need is right there.

    They never gave me a thank you for it but that’s people for you I guess.

    Like I said, be sure to check before making wild claims. I won’t always be here to protect you from such embarrassing errors.

    #492541
    Anonymous
    Guest

    i’m no pessimist, i have optimism and hope above all hope that the promoters of this scourge will see sense and do it right instead of in a dictitorial manner.

    and what makes the words written about volcano’s any more a lie than the theoretical words of climate science?? top judgement that, a real vote winner, what do volcanos put into the atmosphere then? it can bring down jet planes.

    i don’t need your protection and your rebutals are only your side of the story with whatever evidence you drag up that also does not work in factual fact not theoretical fact, but the words written show waht i mean about the self importance of that peer group. a barrow is being pushed and don’t get in their road they will steam roll you, sounds like youth without wisdom of time invovled.

    who do science think they are to judge that their group is more emminent than another group of scientist?? somewhat elitist by the sound of it.

    yep went and looked at the wind farm thingy, yep like always those who have vested interests just post oodles of supporting links, that i’m sorry does no prove the case nor does it refute it, again very stand overish and dominating from above. yet all links posted with the one thought as they support they are tehn promoted as factual and honest. different co2’s what next?

    len

    #492542
    GeoffGeoff
    Keymaster

    Len, let me put it really simply, without any science, in 3 points, and you can determine how you’ll fare into the future:

    1. The rich will profit from attempting to save the earth. It’s the way they live.

    2. The rich will profit from destroying the earth, which is happening now.

    3. The poor will never be rich, no matter what. If we don’t at least try to save the earth, the poor will be lucky if they can even be poor.

    Ask the people who are being paid big dollars by the oil companies, to spread the same opinions that you’re spreading, how they’re going to do in the future.

    #492543
    Anonymous
    Guest

    ok got it, so simple hey!! chuckle.

    the poor will suffer so that those of you who are affluent and rich can carry on regardless, patting each other on the back for being so successful as the souls of the poor are walked over and trodden on.

    now IF there was some identifiable issue that could be targetted so as to bring a positive result all good and well then, but the fix is for an imaginary issue that has no grounds in fact just the theory of science.

    so teh poor won’t have aplanet that must mean the rich will be living on mars??

    i unlike others here don’t get paid to have an opinion, i voice what the majority are saying very many of whom are not online. but an opinion i no less have and i will never believe hairy fairy stuff from men of inffluence who can be inffluenced by power and wealth.

    too easy hey. go to teh top of the class len, is that correct teach’?

    len

    #492544

    gardenlen post=307044 wrote:

    and what makes the words written about volcano’s any more a lie than the theoretical words of climate science?? top judgement that, a real vote winner, what do volcanos put into the atmosphere then? it can bring down jet planes.

    len

    Before we go any further, I must ask:

    What would you consider evidence?

    I showed you data from the United States Geological Survey yet you feel it is not good enough. Tell me what you think is good evidence and I will use it.

    You complain a lot but you offer nothing in return. I corrected your error and I got no gratitude. Instead you deny the truth but offer no argument, evidence or reason for disbelieving me. It is quite apparent that you are determined to ignore all evidence unless it fits with your preconceived notions.

    I can’t help but wonder…if you believe only what you want to believe, does not this mean your beliefs have value only to yourself?

    Some of us are more interested in the truth and the truth cannot be found by ignoring facts which make one feel uncomfortable. Truth cannot be altered by thumping the table making a fuss.

    So I have to ask: What would you consider evidence? Tell me so we can use it to find the truth.

    You have made an erroneous claim regarding volcanoes and CO2. I corrected you. You did it again just recently and again, I corrected you. You tell me I am wrong. Thank you for that but I have yet to see ANYTHING from you to back this up.

    Is there a logical argument to prove me wrong?

    Is there evidence to prove me wrong?

    Do you have a reason to think I am wrong?

    #492545
    Anonymous
    Guest

    evidence it needs to be tangable and in real time, a camera shot of something might do it, any conjecture, or graph or mathematic is fabrication to suit the converted.

    like i say to people if you can’t see it or photo it then it must be magic.

    len

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 34 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.