NationStates Jolt Archive

I just watched last night a rather long interview between the Australian news program Lateline and the Aus PM Howard, which I thought was very interesting indeed. I wished to share this with NSG and the Australians on this forum to discuss the main issues raised in the interview and your views as Australians on them. Sorry I couldn't seem to find the video interview itself, but it shouldn't take long for them to put it up in Vodcast or whatnot. I won't say my opinions on these issues just yet, but for now I thought I would just share this with you.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1840963.htm

Very interesting. Thanks. Of course, it's not surprising that he would be so reluctant to acknowledge the consequences of climate change. It's a shame the interviewer didn't bring up Kyoto. But maybe he knew what the reply would be to that.

Very interesting. Thanks. Of course, it's not surprising that he would be so reluctant to acknowledge the consequences of climate change. It's a shame the interviewer didn't bring up Kyoto. But maybe he knew what the reply would be to that.

I'd say so. He has been asked on it thousands of times and there isn't anything else to get from him on that topic.

On a related note:

TONY JONES RULES!

I think little Johnny did quite well, except on the David hicks part.

but it's true that if Australia allowed all of it potential uranium mines to start producing at full potential (and without so many regulations) the world price on uranium would drop to a point were it would become much more viable for countries like India and china to use, therefore cutting down greenhouse gas emissions. The problem is it's the same groups who sit there and complain about global warming that also protest when it looks like new uranium mine is going to start up.

for the non Australians on NS Australia largest export is Coal, which is the focus of this debate to refuse to sell it to dirty coal generators such as china would seriously hamper our economy whether the people in the cities want to acknowledge it or not (yes I’m a yokel from the country). We could however substitute this export easily with or untapped uranium reserves which have been locked up in political battles for the past 20 or so years, with no real effect on the countries overall economy.

and as a geologist (no not in the coal or uranium industries) I have to say that the big issue with the global warming causing the drought is highly skeptical as 10,000 years ago Australia had vast inland seas which dried up long before the industrial revolution in Europe. (There are more arguments then that but I’m tired)

and as a geologist (no not in the coal or uranium industries) I have to say that the big issue with the global warming causing the drought is highly skeptical as 10,000 years ago Australia had vast inland seas which dried up long before the industrial revolution in Europe. (There are more arguments then that but I’m tired)
Geologist =/= Metereologist.

Seriously though, the question is not so much whether the current drought is caused by climate change as it is whether climate change is going to prolong it or cause more droughts in the future. And the current reports indicate that it most likely will, and that the agricultural industries are going to suffer substantially from it.

Geologist =/= Metereologist.

Seriously though, the question is not so much whether the current drought is caused by climate change as it is whether climate change is going to prolong it or cause more droughts in the future. And the current reports indicate that it most likely will, and that the agricultural industries are going to suffer substantially from it.


I have studied paleoclimatology as a subject and yes climate change does have an effect on weather patterns but the earth has been slowly getting warmer since the last ice age and link to human induced climate change and the drought are highly debatable when you say current reports you should say a few of the current reports because there is by no means a consensus on the issue.

and as far as meteorologist go I would trust a paleoclimatologist far more than any meteorologist because they have been researching this sort of stuff for decades where meteorologist have no real experience in the field of global warming and cooling they've just jumped on the band wagon, many without doing there homework.

I have studied paleoclimatology as a subject and yes climate change does have an effect on weather patterns but the earth has been slowly getting warmer since the last ice age and link to human induced climate change and the drought are highly debatable...
Indeed. They've been debated on this forum for a long time, but so far the people who agree that climate change is made a lot worse by human activity and that human activity could slow it down have won every time.

...when you say current reports you should say a few of the current reports because there is by no means a consensus on the issue.
I was referring to the Emissions Trading Investigation that was released a little while ago.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/report-offers-hot-air-on-climate-change/2007/02/07/1170524162294.html
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1821155.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wausiclimate0131/BNStory/International/home

...and as far as meteorologist go I would trust a paleoclimatologist far more than any meteorologist because they have been researching this sort of stuff for decades where meteorologist have no real experience in the field of global warming and cooling they've just jumped on the band wagon, many without doing there homework.
Hey, it's certainly not my field of expertise. Yet the consensus is pretty clear, it's acknowledged by every major government, by the UN, and by the various scientific associations.

You still get a lot of publicity for the odd person out who'll cry foul, but fact of the matter is that despite the general trends, the global climate is a complex animal, and even small changes can have big effects. Not to mention that over the last two decades or so we've left the trend for dead as far as rising temperatures are concerned, if I recall correctly.

Indeed. They've been debated on this forum for a long time, but so far the people who agree that climate change is made a lot worse by human activity and that human activity could slow it down have won every time.


I was referring to the Emissions Trading Investigation that was released a little while ago.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/report-offers-hot-air-on-climate-change/2007/02/07/1170524162294.html
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/index.html
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200701/s1821155.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070131.wausiclimate0131/BNStory/International/home


Hey, it's certainly not my field of expertise. Yet the consensus is pretty clear, it's acknowledged by every major government, by the UN, and by the various scientific associations.

You still get a lot of publicity for the odd person out who'll cry foul, but fact of the matter is that despite the general trends, the global climate is a complex animal, and even small changes can have big effects. Not to mention that over the last two decades or so we've left the trend for dead as far as rising temperatures are concerned, if I recall correctly.

look i agree that human activities are having an effect on the climate, i'm just saying that i dont personally belive this drought in australia is a result of that over other contributing factors.

look i agree that human activities are having an effect on the climate, i'm just saying that i dont personally belive this drought in australia is a result of that over other contributing factors.
And that may well be true. But I think if you agree that average temperatures are rising, then you'll have no choice but to agree that this current drought can be made to last much longer by CO2 pollution, and that human activity will cause future droughts.

And that may well be true. But I think if you agree that average temperatures are rising, then you'll have no choice but to agree that this current drought can be made to last much longer by CO2 pollution, and that human activity will cause future droughts.

if you look at the record we've had bigger and longer droughts in the last 10,000 years this one is nothing out of the ordinary, it's just been the worst in the last 100 years and theres alot more people around who want to water there gardens, and have a shiny freshly washed SUV in there garage.

if you look at the record we've had bigger and longer droughts in the last 10,000 years this one is nothing out of the ordinary, it's just been the worst in the last 100 years and theres alot more people around who want to water there gardens, and have a shiny freshly washed SUV in there garage.
Yes.

But do you, or do you not accept that if temperatures rise and the weather patterns change in the way they apparently will, there will be a chance of more and longer periods of drought?

if you look at the record we've had bigger and longer droughts in the last 10,000 years: this one is nothing out of the ordinary, it's just been the worst in the last 100 years and there are alot more people around who want to water their gardens, and to have a shiny freshly washed SUV in there garage.

There, I fixed some of your spelling and put in some punctuation. Your post still doesn't make much sense, but I'll leave that to you.

Yes. But do you, or do you not accept that if temperatures rise and the weather patterns change in the way they apparently will, there will be a chance of more and longer periods of drought?

I already said that climate change effects weather patterns; I’m just saying this is not one of them. I get really sick of people blaming every bad weather phenomenon on global warming, when it's happened numerous times in the past and will happen numerous times in the future. In the long run climate change is going to happen one way of the other regardless of what we do.
That not to say we shouldn’t cut down on emissions, it just something to think about.

And while there is a chance that climate change will bring more droughts for longer period you must also concede that it could bring more rainfall for longer periods, I mean just look at north Queensland at the moment you can barley get any where because of all the flood waters.

There, I fixed some of your spelling and put in some punctuation. Your post still doesn't make much sense, but I'll leave that to you.

You know your arguments getting weak when you have to criticize you opponents spelling.

I already said that climate change effects weather patterns; I’m just saying this is not one of them.
Well, the report seems to disagree with you.

And while there is a chance that climate change will bring more droughts for longer period you must also concede that it could bring more rainfall for longer periods, I mean just look at north Queensland at the moment you can barley get any where because of all the flood waters.
...once again endangering the banana harvest. :(

Well, the report seems to disagree with you.

Ok which report?

...once again endangering the banana harvest. :(

yeah I was in Cairns for cyclone Larry, the irony was I hade actually just done an assignment on how we should be expecting more super storms in north Queensland (category 4-5 cyclones) because of reef sediment records showing they were more abundant then previously believed. (Coral cores can tell you a lot about paleoclimate, I did my honors degree in marine sedimentology)

You know your arguments getting weak when you have to criticize you opponents spelling.

I didn't take a position.

"There" = a place.
"Their" = belonging to someone.
"They're" = they are.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just, you put it at a disadvantage by not bothering to learn primary school English.

Ok which report?
http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/pubs/chapter4.pdf

There's references there to the various CSIRO studies too.

You're entitled to your opinion. Just, you put it at a disadvantage by not bothering to learn primary school English.

Sorry, maybe I should have done English at uni rather than science, then my argument would be more valid.

http://www.greenhouse.gov.au/science/guide/pubs/chapter4.pdf

There's references there to the various CSIRO studies too.

From what I’ve read so far it’s a meteorologist report, which was the whole point of the previous argument, they only deal on a short term basis citing results observed and reported over the last ~40years.
I’ll have to finish reading it before I give a full argument, but it is stating in general not this specific drought, and it deals mostly with ‘possibilities’.

Sorry, maybe I should have done English at uni rather than science, then my argument would be more valid.

The validity of your argument is irrelevant if people can't understand your argument. If you cannot communicate effectively, whatever you say will simply be dismissed, regardless of it's merits.

The validity of your argument is irrelevant if people can't understand your argument. If you cannot communicate effectively, whatever you say will simply be dismissed, regardless of it's merits.

So typing 'there' instead of 'their' will utterly confuse and disorientate you, good to know

Well I rarely agree with Howard on anything, but I have to say that for a country with over 70% of the worlds known uranium reserves, we should be pushing our advantage with this natural resource, both in creating viable nuclear power generation and exportation, which I think in view of the Non-proliferation issues is irrelevant as China is already sitting on 10 tonnes of Uranium.

But I do disagree with him in that I do not think their is a market solution to every problem, and at some stage the government must interfere on behalf of the public (not private or foreign) interest. I would personally support nationalization of all power generating industries, and use revenue to further develop clean coal and nuclear technologies.

Well I rarely agree with Howard on anything, but I have to say that for a country with over 70% of the worlds known uranium reserves, we should be pushing our advantage with this natural resource, both in creating viable nuclear power generation and exportation, which I think in view of the Non-proliferation issues is irrelevant as China is already sitting on 10 tonnes of Uranium.

But I do disagree with him in that I do not think their is a market solution to every problem, and at some stage the government must interfere on behalf of the public (not private or foreign) interest. I would personally support nationalization of all power generating industries, and use revenue to further develop clean coal and nuclear technologies.

I totally agree.

So typing 'there' instead of 'their' will utterly confuse and disorientate you, good to know

Ha, ha. Seriously, every extra bit of "translation" a prson has to do to understand your point, every run-on sentence, missed punctuation point and capital letter, or egregiously bad use of grammar, will make people judge against you, regardless of the actual merits of your work.

You may feel that such is irrelevant to a forum such as this; that since it is "only" an internet board, you can be as sloppy as you wish. But even here your typed words are judged and either appreciated or despised by your peers, and your communication methodology is part of that.