Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

I have been in logged forests both in Tasmania and Victoria that have been logged. If you didn't know it had been logged or if you didnt see the odd stump you would never know the difference. 500 years is a total exagerration.
.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

This to me is beyond any sense of reason. Co2 is NOT a polutant and is not a safety issue regardless of how much is leaked. We could not put enough C02 into the Ocean to do any harm no matter how hard we try. Take the moral high ground and collect the bucks.

Originally Posted by woodbe

Seems you agree with the incumbents more than you would have us believe. "Alternative energy supplies cannot supply base load power"

Bunkum.

Originally Posted by woodbe

What were the species you saw in your expert inspection of these forests? (/sarc)

woodbe.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Woodbe, it is not polite to describe Rod's view as bunkum, even when he disagrees with you.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

By definition, base load power is always available when needed.
[..]

Even when the winds not blowing!
[..]

Works great at night and on dull, rainy days.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Their is a PV revolution every two or three years, but they never seem to get them out of the laboratory. PV products on the market have only improved marginally over the last 25+ years. Industry relies on massive government subsidies to survive.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Physics is impressive but there are still massive chemical and metalurgy problems to solve. Trace chemicals plus heat leads to rapid electrolysis of metal machinery and piping.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

There are some extremely high tides in the Kimberlies so let's dam a few bays and install tidal power stations like the French and Canadians have done. Will you write the environmental impact study and husband it throgh the political process?

Wave power is great at the laboratory level, a little more difficult to translate into commercial reality.

Originally Posted by GraemeCook

Classical economics agrees with you, Woodbe. Energy supply is a function of price. Incease the price sufficiently and people will make the energy. It might mean that wheat is diverted from making flour into making ethanol, but if people want to eat then they will pay the price!

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Do I need to be an expert to make a reasonable observation?

Originally Posted by woodbe

And in Tasmania, 500 years is realistic for re-emergence of temperate rainforest. That is, if it can.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by woodbe

But you are presenting your views as superior. You described my views as 'a lot of guff'

The point is that the plantation forest replaces a diverse mix of species with an enforced monoculture with less of that stuff you don't believe to be important, and a huge release of that same stuff in the process.

And in Tasmania, 500 years is realistic for re-emergence of temperate rainforest. That is, if it can.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by intertd6

And who in their right mind has ever clear felled a tasmanian temperate rainforest in modern history, a few have been drowned & selectively logged for the valuable species of timber. But you would be confusing the ash forests which have a natural cycle of being burnt to a cinder every couple of hundred years after a wildfire then having to regenerate fresh all over again.
regards inter

Originally Posted by woodbe

So, what you seem to be saying here Rod, is that all the climate scientists who agree with AGW in one form or another are all so morally bankrupt as to put a research grant before the truth.

That's a particularly depressing world view you have taken on, but putting that aside for one moment, if these scientists are so easily swayed by a few bucks, why are you so sure that there are no bucks flowing to the anti-AGW scientists. After all, you don't need much imagination to see examples of corporations who have lots of cash and interests in keeping the status quo...

woodbe.

Originally Posted by Rod Dyson

Now for a bit of balance read this (if you can stomach it)

Here’s how the public can come to know the truth about climate: repetition. Learning and comprehension require repetition. Think about repetition being used to learn multiplication tables, or in advertising, or in political campaigns, etc. Certainly dire climate explanations require even more repetition because it is difficult emotionally as well as cognitively. But we haven’t yet even begun to tell that story, we are so spooked by our own reactions and what we think others’ reactions will be.

Full article here We have met the deniers, and they are us | Grist

This guy if a huge asset to us that are skeptical of the force fed, shakey science being fed to us by the UN.

Originally Posted by Adam Sacks

Even though we’re believers, not skeptics, our denial is far more insidious and subtle. So subtle, in fact, that we’ve managed to convince ourselves that we’re not in denial at all. Quite the opposite. Why, the thought is too absurd even to contemplate.

But it’s true.

We’re deniers every time we say “80 percent by 2050,” or even “80 percent by 2020”; every time we refer to tipping points in the future tense; every time we advocate substituting “clean” energy for “dirty” energy; every time we buy a squiggly light bulb or a hybrid vehicle; every time we advocate for cap-and-trade, or even a carbon tax; every time we countenance the mention of loopy geoengineering schemes; every time we invoke the future of our children and grandchildren and ignore the widespread suffering from global climate disruption today.

Every time we say these things and more, we’re promoting denial of dire climate reality, the reality that’s spinning out of our grasp so fast that we conduct our frenetic climate “solutions” efforts in a kind of stupor, obsessing with parts-per-million statistics, keeping desperately busy to ward off our own utter collapse borne of despair.

The reality we’re denying? We’re denying that we’ve put so much carbon into the atmosphere already that positive feedback loops are well on their way to amplification hell.[1] We’re denying that time lags between carbon emissions and their effects are frighteningly relevant, and that the disastrous effects we’re seeing now are from emissions of 30 years ago. We’re denying that non-linear responses of physical systems cannot be calculated and therefore are perilously ignored. We’re denying that our consumption and waste have far exceeded planetary capacity, possibly irreparably so.[2]

Originally Posted by woodbe

We agree on something here Rod! I'm wondering if you read the whole article?



He's a huge asset all right, doesn't mince words either, does he?

woodbe.

Originally Posted by woodbe

So, what you seem to be saying here Rod, is that all the climate scientists who agree with AGW in one form or another are all so morally bankrupt as to put a research grant before the truth.

That's a particularly depressing world view you have taken on, but putting that aside for one moment, if these scientists are so easily swayed by a few bucks, why are you so sure that there are no bucks flowing to the anti-AGW scientists. After all, you don't need much imagination to see examples of corporations who have lots of cash and interests in keeping the status quo...

woodbe.