Galileo Movement

[GTR-N1]

May I recommend that we take a hard look at The Galileo Movement and if you believe real experts, get behind it!

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/galileo_movement.php

Do your own research rather than remain a 'mushroom'

* Your cars do NOT contribute to global warming.

* By the second year of a carbon tax introduction, older cars and performance modifications are under threat

* CO2 occurs as a consequence of global warming; not a cause of it!

* CO2 contributes to the greening of the planet through our biosphere

* Global cooling is more of a danger than warming

* Many other facts available on links on Galileo Movement website > stop the 'carbon' tax which is really a carbon dioxide tax > there are links where you can help!

PS I've posted this in Gen Automotive rather than Wasteland; because it deserves to be here.

PPS I'm a Science graduate, but I know nothing compared to the real Climatologists who say that if we allow a carbon tax to go ahead, we're being dudded - big time

Comments?

[ARTZ]

I think Terry that a big part of the problem is, although you live in the Blue mtns where Im sure the air is crispy clean and fresh the bulk of the people pushing this movement are city dwellers breathing in smog all day.

Im not argueing for the carbon Tax at all, its ridiculous, but if you think about who the bulk of the people voting for it are, it kind of make sense thats its happening and we probably wont stop it. There is no harm in trying but the Greens got alot of votes last election remember

[Sarumatix]

Don't even know where to begin to start on that except to say.. ur wrong.

[Pipat3]

Thank you ^^

[10 4]

Global warming is a pile of crap.

[beemae30]

Sarumatix not trying to start an argument here but back your view with facts please? Terry has justified his view.

[mad082]

global warming is a load of crap. even people like Al Gore have admitted this. that is why they now say "climate change". climate change is real. what is debatable is whether humans have anything to do with it. we probably aren't helping the situation, but i don't think we are the cause of it (because NASA has found that the temps on mars are increasing) and that it is just the natural course of the planet. we have very little data on the historical climate of this planet. the data we do have is from but a blink on the radar as far as the age of this planet goes. there is scientific data that shows the planet has been much colder and much warmer than current temps.

also, scientists use the phrase "effects of climate change" in the titles of their research subjects when applying for grants because it dramatically increases the chance of being given the money.

[beemae30]

Hugh i entirely agree with you. It is yet another political tool they are using against the masses which do not understand the complexities of this planet/ solar system.

[Sarumatix]

I am not the most qualified person to debate this, B.EnvSci (Hons) Monash Uni (Climatology), but since I have been asked to qualify my opinion..

* Your cars do NOT contribute to global warming.

If global warming (subset of climate change) is occurring, it is driven by CO2 (and other long wave re-adsorbing gases like H2O) levels in the atmosphere, cars emit CO2 (and H2O) by combining Oxygen (O) with Carbon ©and Hydrogen (H). Shutting your eyes doesn't progress the debate.

* By the second year of a carbon tax introduction, older cars and performance modifications are under threat

Not sure where this information comes from, from the little information the government has released on a 'price on carbon' there hasn't been anything detailed about targeting performance cars :S. I hope this isn't true.

* CO2 occurs as a consequence of global warming; not a cause of it!

Misrepresentation, CO2 exists in the atmosphere in a cycle, like water. Some processes put carbon in the sky (like evaporation puts water in the sky) some processes put it back into the ground (like how it rains). Cause and effect in this case is irrelevant, you are looking for positive feedback and negative feedback, and what drives them. This perspective is far more complicated than... global warming makes the atmosphere CO2 rich. I can't be arsed going into specific examples of this but there are many, for example the thermohaline circulation of the ocean, or the clearing of the amazon, or coal power. All of these topics are hotly ongoing debates with the majority of work that I have read leaning towards atmospheric carbon being a key driver of climate change.

* CO2 contributes to the greening of the planet through our biosphere

As above, this is missing the point entirely. There are many things which add and remove CO2 from the atmosphere (and into other spheres such as the biosphere), the argument is actually over what impact it has. CO2 greening the planet for example is not clear cut because increased growth in plants can lead to increased rates of bushfire which then increase atmospheric carbon. Similarly the last volcano was actually better than carbon neutral because it grounded so many aeroplanes (they'll have to update all the text books now to remove Volcano's from natural sources of atmospheric carbon ).

* Global cooling is more of a danger than warming

Climate change has only two outcomes, warming and cooling. Both of them suck big time for humans, infact the weather atm is fantastic for us. There have been several periods of bad climate that science has clearly identified including some nasty glacial periods where areas like England were inhabitable. Such ice ages aren't particularly scary for us because of the time frame in which they occur 100000 years. Sadly then this historical information is largely useless because the risk we are currently facing is from a _potentially_ accelerated event due _arguably_ to anthropogenic (human) sources. The question then isn't whether or not climate change is occurring but whether what we are currently doing is having an impact upon it, and if so, how much. Sadly without completing our global burn all the terrestrial carbon we can find science experiment it is very difficult to predict. Heck it's hard to predict the weather next week right? But if for example we were to push the climate too fast and for example stop the thermohaline circulation of the Atlantic ocean.. we're pretty F--ked mate. You certainly wont be worrying about whether petrol is 5 cents dearer a litre.

* Many other facts available on links on Galileo Movement website > stop the 'carbon' tax which is really a carbon dioxide tax > there are links where you can help!

My understanding is that what is proposed is not a new _tax_ but a price on carbon. Similar to the water rights system used in the Murray. The government is installing a trading system for carbon emissions (which it doesn't stand to profit from). It is not new, infact Europe has had a similar system since 2004.. and the world hasn't seemed to have stopped turning over there.

Yeah and, I thought it was pretty obvious that the price on carbon relates to emissions and hence atmospheric carbon which is 95% carbon dioxide in real terms. Really any pollution which can act as a greenhouse gas should be counted.. carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, etc.. however generally these systems work on a getting the basic framework going first.

So to add something to this debate that is tangible, consider the nay saying about old cars being given the chop. In a world in which atmospheric carbon is counted for.. new cars which require a variety of very expensive materials and a lot of crude oil to make (smelting, plastics, paint, transport.. ) will have to factor in the cost associated with dumping these gases into the environment throughout the entire manufacturing process. Old cars which have already been built only have to account for emissions made, so in a similar way to how diesel only pays itself off after 10 years or so.. perhaps new cars will be the same? To me that's a good thing.

[Global_Warmer]

Global warming is a pile of crap.

I agree!!!

[Global_Warmer]

I agree!!!

I mean IT's a load of crap... Not me....

[GTR-N1]

Still not sure if you've tapped into Galileo Movement site and searched; because you certainly haven't seemed to refute.

If your mind is already made up, I don't blame you.

We now have 1000s of scientists on both sides of the fence - but most of the recognised climatologists are on one side; and they are the poorer scientists.

The ones getting rich? Well...

* Fact: Volcanoes every year emit more than 130,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Furthermore, this has been happening since time immemorial.

CO2 emitted by our cars/trucks/buses can't even eat into that!

* Fact: Mt Pinatubo in '91 emitted about 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2 not mention Sulphur Hexafluoride (another greenhouse gas). It took more than 6 years for cars/trucks/buses to tip the balance from the eruption of just one volcano. Kiluea is going all the time. Yasur is going all the time. Unzon is going all the time.

* A simple regrowth of forests (that have been decimated and still are in decline) in our biospheric cycle can balance out the CO2 from cars. And yet, the volcanoes continue to erupt.

* Some glaciers are getting shorter. There are others getting longer. The receding of ice in Greenland has exposed evidence of farm houses and agriculture from centuries gone by. During those eons, the south Pacific islands that are now under threat would have been covered by water. They may be again.

* Another cycle of global warming? I'm not worried one bit. But then there's evidence that global cooling has already breached the cusp.

* And one more thing; the enviro minister has just announced that the government won't be making imposts on cars during the first term of carbon taxing - which let's face it, is carbon dioxide taxing Suramatix. But we all know what the prime minister + treasurer said about how we shouldn't get hysterical about a "carbon tax" even this term eh? When is a lie not a lie?

[Sarumatix]

* Fact: Volcanoes every year emit more than 130,000,000 tonnes of CO2. Furthermore, this has been happening since time immemorial.

CO2 emitted by our cars/trucks/buses can't even eat into that!

A quick google search reveals:

Americans consume 378 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to nine million barrels of gasoline(American Energy Independence).

A barrel is 158.987 litres

So 158.987 x 9000000 = 1,430,883,000 litres of gasoline per year (so not including diesel etc)

1 litre releases 2.4 kilograms of CO2.

So in the US alone from gasoline alone in 1 year 596,201.250 tonnes of CO2 are released.

So the US contributes from passenger cars alone as much CO2 as 1/200th of all the volcanoes in the world. So if this was all the CO2 that needed to be accounted for we'd be pretty sweet except it is just the US and just passenger cars. The numbers are all readily accessible for working out cars world wide but lets face it, cars are just one fraction of the sources of anthropogenic CO2.

Australia alone released 1.35% of global CO2 emissions or 480,749,500 tonnes of CO2. Yup Australia alone contributes almost 4x the annual load from all the volcanoes in the world and we don't even have any volcanos. So just like how citizens were asked to take shorter showers and not wash their cars at home, even though coal power accounts 37 percent of our total emissions, you can bet your bottom dollar we'll be asked to take shorter trips while coal will continue to enjoy heavy subsidy . Do I think that is fair? No. But remember next time the debate comes up about pricing carbon from coal power stations, that it is a decision between more expensive power bills and more expensive cars .

Sadly the world actually consumes around 82.78 million billion barrels a day, deforestation, etc etc, which accounts for approx 32,253,432,200 tonnes to be released this year or 248.1 x all the volcanoes in the world.

Mt Pinatubo in '91 emitted about 20,000,000 tonnes of SO2 not mention Sulphur Hexafluoride (another greenhouse gas). It took more than 6 years for cars/trucks/buses to tip the balance from the eruption of just one volcano. Kiluea is going all the time. Yasur is going all the time. Unzon is going all the time.

An interesting point that ties in with my earlier response. This volcano actually resulted in a net reduction in global mean temperature.

The June 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo was global. Slightly cooler than usual temperatures recorded worldwide and the brilliant sunsets and sunrises have been attributed to this eruption that sent fine ash and gases high into the stratosphere, forming a large volcanic cloud that drifted around the world. The sulfur dioxide (SO2) in this cloud -- about 22 million tons -- combined with water to form droplets of sulfuric acid, blocking some of the sunlight from reaching the Earth and thereby cooling temperatures in some regions by as much as 0.5 degrees C. An eruption the size of Mount Pinatubo could affect the weather for a few years.

It isn't so much about how much of what goes in, but how it affects the positive and negative feedback loops. Sadly SO2 is a great way to produce acid rain so it isn't without its problems either.

A simple regrowth of forests (that have been decimated and still are in decline) in our biospheric cycle can balance out the CO2 from cars. And yet, the volcanoes continue to erupt.

Could.. but currently doesn't, not even remotely, because cars aren't the only source of CO2 as discussed two points above. Is your war against emissions from cars only? If so, I recommend you invest your time into trying to get as many industrial processes included in a price on carbon as you possibly can.

Some glaciers are getting shorter. There are others getting longer. The receding of ice in Greenland has exposed evidence of farm houses and agriculture from centuries gone by. During those eons, the south Pacific islands that are now under threat would have been covered by water. They may be again.

Sigh, such an old point that has been thrown around almost as much as 'evidence' of the death of Jesus and the Noah's ark. Can't be bothered finding the evidence, just do a google search dude, Just no.

Another cycle of global warming? I'm not worried one bit. But then there's evidence that global cooling has already breached the cusp.

An ice age is just, if not more, scary than 2 degree higher average temps. Infact a lot of models predict increases in temperature will result in sudden drops in mean temperature, such as the thermohaline circulation stopping. You should be extremely worried about that happening, up there with a comet hitting us or the poles reversing, oh crap what have I done . Yup shit happens, a lot of it unavoidable. The question is can we avoid some of these potential disasters? If so how? That is the question you should be putting your resources if you want to keep tootling around in fancy cars .

And one more thing; the enviro minister has just announced that the government won't be making imposts on cars during the first term of carbon taxing - which let's face it, is carbon dioxide taxing Suramatix. But we all know what the prime minister + treasurer said about how we shouldn't get hysterical about a "carbon tax" even this term eh? When is a lie not a lie?

So after all that, as I said, there is no current evidence to suggest cars are being targeted. Relax dude seriously. Change is scary I know but no need to go running about like a chicken with its head cut off just yet. Link me your source on this, i'm keen to see if they used the terminology 'first term of carbon taxing', because lets face it Kerry, that isn't carbon dioxide taxing.

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Humans add to global warning, fark, even Abbot and libs think its true.

If humans do NOT do anything in the scheme of things to add to the environment chanes then I guess LA, Shanghai, KL, Sydney, Tokyo, London were hazy, smoky and polutted for time immemorial????

Scientists have measured temperature change over the eons and there is a natural swing and balance to the system, however, our average temperatures and the changes to our climate are happening a whole lot quicker now. So, whats caused it?

Im a realist, I can see that there is an issue. How will it affect us? What will it do in the long term? Who fkn knows?

Or we could just sweep it under the carpet, give it a pat and say "she'll be right mate".

Im sure that do just ifne.

[beemae30]

Thanks for that saru alot of points there i had never heard before. I do agree the climate is shifting. And in retrospect we are accelerating the cycle of the planets eco-system. But at the end of the day people are too worried about their own money/ jobs etc. Humans are a selfish bunch and the goverments just make it worse. I am willing to bet we will just run the planet into the ground because we cannot allow/invent a better form of power production.

[scathing]

May I recommend that we take a hard look at The Galileo Movement and if you believe real experts, get behind it!

"Real" experts like Alan Jones? A man with no formal qualification in any sciences, and whose last public attempt to criticise the NBN technology as obsolete used evidence that actually endorses fixed-line networking? If this man's "wealth of experience compliments the basic science that is the Galileo Movement's core" then these people would know as much about basic science as the people criticising Galileo's assertions that the world is round since basic observation shows a flat surface.

I found this op ed an interesting rebuttal to Jones and his Movement.

[BoyWhoCriedWolf]

Thats a great article and Mr Jones is a money driven commentator with the steering done by Murdochs choker chain.

Down boy.

[badhairdave]

I am not the most qualified person to debate this, B.EnvSci (Hons) Monash Uni (Climatology), but since I have been asked to qualify my opinion..

With hons in climatology you are more of an expert than the founders of the Galileo movement.

Case Smit:

Case was founder and owner of Environmental Health Services (Aust) Pty Ltd, an organisation that monitored and advised on the effects of their environment on people's health. Science degree, BSc (chemistry & metallurgy), Certified Industrial Hygienist, Chartered (Environmental) Professional; He's a grandad.

John Smeed:

John is a retired, national engineering excellence award winning professional engineer - www.johnsmeed.com.au. He founded and built a successful Sydney based Australia-wide operational, design-construct air conditioning company with 140 staff including 14 professional engineers. He maintains control of an environmentally excellent Australian combustion technology company and still undertakes occasional international engineering consulting briefs for unusually challenging air-conditioning projects.

A hygienist who did a BSc in an unrelated field 45 years ago and an air conditioning installer.....

When over 90% of climatologists are saying humans are having an effect on the climate, i listen. I give no f**k for what the rest of the scientific community (or some random retiree's) are saying because they are not experts in the field.

[FrangaR33]

I remember watching an ABC documentary during year 9 geography which would now be *does math* 10 years ago and a group of scientists were discussing global warming and green house gas emissions. In this discussion they concluded that the current possible warming of the globe is possibly the prelude to an ice age and that the amount of water vapour required for an ice age is massive because when an ice age does occur it happens very rapidly over a peroid of weeks according to research.

This charts reconstructed temperatures from several sources and maps them out over the past 2000 years

As you will notice even now the highest recorded anomaly was only 0.4C over the average yet in the Medieval era it reached -0.9C so the deviations in temperature can be quite large even without industrialised man ruining the party.

Also to be quite honest I think all the climate change supporters have their priorities completely wrong, climate change wont be a threat to human existence for centuries, we will have to adapt to rising sea levels etc but humans have gone through far worse. (this is based on man made climate change being correct, which I do not believe is correct)

However there are enviromental issues that will be a threat to human existence and quality of life in the much nearer future. For instance deforestation will effect weather patterns and the availability of arable land, this is fact not some issue drummed up for monetary support. The deforestationof the Amazon basin has already reduced part of the rainforest to farmland and finally something that resembles the beginning's of a desert.

Secondly and perhaps more importantly the population of the earth is set to exceed 9 billion by 2050, all these people need to eat, need to drink water and simply put there isnt going to be enough. There already isnt enough. For instance if you google India's water situation you will find a BBC news article that states that they are currently running much of their farming operations off of bore water as they dont have enough in their catchments to maintain food production at such high levels. Simply put population growth is the to borrow Gillard/Rudd rhetoric "The greatest moral challenge of our time". But you watch it get swept under the rug because its impossible to tell people to keep their family sizes down in the Middle East, Asia, Africa and South America (also i'm not being racist North America, Europe and Australia's populations would already be shrinking without migration so we are a non issue).

Also if you play the climate change card on the issue of population growth who among us is going to tell over a billion Chinese and Indians as of 2011 that they cant have cars, air con, electricity, running water? and theres going to be a hell of a lot more of them in 2050. Climate change is very difficult nigh on impossible to tackle because China, India and the rest of the developing world cant very well tell their populations that they cant have a western standard of living because they need to save the planet, their governments will have revolutions on their hands.

Edited June 5, 2011 by FrangaR33

[Crackfox]

A quick google search reveals:

Americans consume 378 million barrels per day, which is equivalent to nine million barrels of gasoline(American Energy Independence).

A barrel is 158.987 litres

So 158.987 x 9000000 = 1,430,883,000 litres of gasoline per year (so not including diesel etc)

1 litre releases 2.4 kilograms of CO2.

So in the US alone from gasoline alone in 1 year 596,201.250 tonnes of CO2 are released.

So the US contributes from passenger cars alone as much CO2 as 1/200th of all the volcanoes in the world. So if this was all the CO2 that needed to be accounted for we'd be pretty sweet except it is just the US and just passenger cars. The numbers are all readily accessible for working out cars world wide but lets face it, cars are just one fraction of the sources of anthropogenic CO2.

Australia alone released 1.35% of global CO2 emissions or 480,749,500 tonnes of CO2. Yup Australia alone contributes almost 4x the annual load from all the volcanoes in the world and we don't even have any volcanos. So just like how citizens were asked to take shorter showers and not wash their cars at home, even though coal power accounts 37 percent of our total emissions, you can bet your bottom dollar we'll be asked to take shorter trips while coal will continue to enjoy heavy subsidy . Do I think that is fair? No. But remember next time the debate comes up about pricing carbon from coal power stations, that it is a decision between more expensive power bills and more expensive cars .

Sadly the world actually consumes around 82.78 million billion barrels a day, deforestation, etc etc, which accounts for approx 32,253,432,200 tonnes to be released this year or 248.1 x all the volcanoes in the world.

1. You say America uses 1,430,883,000L of gasoline per year and that 1L gasoline=2.4 kgs. How then does this equal 596,201.250 tonnes of CO2?

2. I found it hard enough to believe that every man, women and child in America consumes over 1 barrel of oil per day, even enough only 72 million barrels of oil are produced each day in the world. Then you go on to say that on average each citizen of the world consumes 13.79 million barrels of oil EACH DAY. So every aids riddled child in africa living on $0.30 each day also happens to consume $137,000,000 US of oil PER DAY.

If you have a uni degree relating to this subject yet cant even get simple facts/figures or year 7 maths right how can you expect anyone to take anything you say seriously? On second thoughts, perhaps it would be better to ask the question, why the **** are people taking you seriously?

PS: Im not saying I believe or don't believe climate change, just that I don't believe you