Dialling code sydney australia uk Videos

Please excuse my awkward phrasing and grammatical errors in parts of that paragraph. My English degree is weeping for me. 

Its a bummer Shorten does not get much air time, I watch his clips, he is trying to make noise.

+Dale Beetham It's very neat

Its not a secret, its a very common conspiracy theory. 

+denny beck We face a very scary, uncertain and unprecedented future. The solutions are there but ultimately it comes down to how you dislodge the coal industry without it having a massive impact on our lives - because like it or not we all rely on it. I don't personally have any answers other than wishful thinking but I believe there will be a vast change in attitudes as the upcoming generations make their way into the world. Our bad decisions will be their reality.

+laurejon Global warming poses some of the most complex risk management issues known to the human race.Of course, when you think of 'risk management', you automatically think of insurance companies.Insurance companies are one of the biggest of big businesses on the planet. They account for about 7 per cent of the global economy. But if insurance companies want to stay in business, they have to deal with reality. They long ago accepted the science of global warming.In 1973 — over 40 years ago — Munich Re, one the biggest insurance companies in the world, began to see the results of global warming on its policy payouts.Worldwide, insurance companies annually pay out about $50 billion for weather-related catastrophes. These payouts have doubled each decade since the 1980s. The insurance companies are very confident that this increase is due to global warming. Lloyds of London have publicly stated that they: "view climate change as the industry's number-one issue."So what should we do? Have we ever successfully dealt with something as big and bad as this before? Yes. Let me give you three examples.First, DDT. DDT was a great insecticide, and temporarily increased agricultural yields. But later, we discovered DDT damaged the egg shells of birds - even in penguin eggs in Antarctica, where no DDT was ever sprayed.Second, acid rain. Coal has various contaminants, including sulphur. Burning coal produced rain containing sulphuric acid. In 1979, a very hard rain fell on Wheeling, West Virginia. It had a pH of 1.5 — more powerful than the acid in your stomach, and only a little weaker than car battery acid.Third, ozone hole. Around 1930, Thomas F Midgley Jr invented the perfect refrigeration gas. His CFC was non-corrosive, non-toxic and non-inflammable. But it took until the 1970s to realise that CFCs were punching a hole in the protective ozone layer.In each case, big business accidentally created a near-disaster, and in each of these cases (DDT, acid rain and ozone hole), governments stepped in and prevented it from happening.With global warming, big business unknowingly created a big problem. This time, governments are not rushing to fix this.Why? There are various reasons.First, over the centuries, vast investments have been made in burning carbon fossil fuels — and enormous profits have been made. Companies don't want to lose these colossal profits.Second, 'carbon entanglement'. All governments have financial interests in bringing carbon fossil fuels to market, and taking their share of the income stream. This usually makes up only a few per cent of total government revenues. But for some countries — such as Russia, Mexico and Norway — bringing carbon fossil fuels to market accounts for about one third of their revenues. In the case of the OPEC (that's the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries), fossil fuels provide the majority of government revenue.Energy-related emissions make up the bulk of our carbon dioxide emissions, and luckily, they are the easiest to completely eliminate with existing technologies. Two thirds of current electricity generation depends on burning carbon fossil fuels. Some 95 per cent of the world's transport systems still rely on burning fossil carbon fuels.It turns out that going to a non-carbon economy would actually be cheaper than burning carbon. This is because of the combination of the plummeting price of renewable energy, and the so-called 'hidden externalities' of burning carbon.Consider just one hidden externality: air pollution. It kills about seven to eight million people worldwide each year. The health costs of air pollution amount to some 4 per cent of the GDP of most countries, and 10 per cent of China's GDP. Do fossil fuel companies pay for these costs? No.Consider another hidden externality: subsidies. Fossil fuel companies get about $0.6 trillion each year in subsidies — about 1 per cent of the total global economy. Why?Paul Krugman, the 2008 winner of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences analysed two reports. One was by the blue-ribbon international group, the New Climate Economy Project, while the other was by the International Monetary Fund. These serious and thorough analyses found that limiting carbon emissions would have, according to Krugman: "hardly any effect on economic growth, and might actually lead to faster growth".Whatever mix of government policies that will arise around the world, there has to be one consistent factor — the complete elimination of any emissions from the burning of carbon. Instead of annually dumping 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, we should dump zero.But we have a very brief window of time. We have to begin to acknowledge and deal with the risks associated with global warming now. Otherwise we will end up powerless observers, with the ability to limit future harm having slipped from our hands.

+Juliette Kratochvil Juliette you absolutely took that person to task, fantastic work. Its always good to watch someone actually prove to someone else why they are ignorant(moron), it takes time and effort so thanks for that ; ).

Yes that is simple math, though I would encourage any family that has a solid foundation of education and ethical standards (towards humanity and the planet) to have as many children as they can afford/want. Because at the moment it appears that we have an abundance of ignorant people that are propagating our planet. I believe we need more intelligent educated and ethically superior people to grace this planet before its too late. 

+denny beck Well two children makes you neutral from a population point of view. Beyond two kids and you are adding a +1 to the population statistics. My point is that we need to be collectively conscious of ourselves and the impact that our choices make on the planet. How many kids you have is just one part of the bigger picture.

Umm the part of your comment that I captioned? An easier way to answer you question, assuming you want me to narrow it down from my childish sentence above would be to ask the question; do you really need a 2nd child?? 

+denny beck What's your problem exactly? 

Wow im so stupid, thanks. now I must live in shame.......oh wait that you.

+denny beck No, I typed it though.

+Dirkardo StEvergreen Did you actually just say "do you really need a third or fourth child"? 

+laurejon I agree. Which is why I was opting for the dual approach.  Rely on our natural fossil and ore reserves in the immediate future, but ensure we are thinking ahead and putting in basic infrastructure and capital into an area whereby we can establish ourselves as a significant player. Getting our foot in the door now is going to be way cheaper than in the future.I see it as being the more difficult but more ideal way of satisfying everyone up; even those bourgeois liberals and environmentalist.

+laurejon Which is why I opt for a dual approach.  Fossil and Renewable. Prepare for a time where the cost of renewables WILL be cheaper than Fossil fuels.

+laurejon You can say that about any topic; ANY. Religion, political persuasion, football team, car make, even schools have this mentality.And I am real.  Energy is a high geopolitical tool of great strategic importance.  To throw away our gifts in this nation is foolhardy, regardless of whether or not climate change is real. If the rest of the world thinks so, then you must fully grasp the new opportunities.

People can be a sceptic all they want, but when many countries around the world are taking this serious, I think it is a big mistake to ignore the economic side of this in terms of research and manufacturing.  The latter the one he's kind of in hot water for.Think of the money we could make if we could exploit both the fossil fuel and renewable energy industries.  We have a lot of land which has virtually no human population and infrastructure and great opportunities to build infrastructure like Geothermal and Solar in remote/rural areas. We have neighbours who have small land masses and cities with high numbers of dwellings and people. Hint: Sell excess energy from renewables to these guys.But no. We have to have one or the other.Fucking morons :/

+AngryAussieYes indeed! I've done all I can. There's no convincing the ones who don't want to be convinced.Anyway time for me to get off this computer and head down the beach I think haha. Have a nice day :)

+Juliette Kratochvil People like that are a complete waste of time. You give them conclusive, peer reviewed science and they just respond with rubbish.

+laurejon Now, onto debunking that age old myth: You say that the globe has been cooling for 17 years (or since 1998) and therefore global warming is no longer happening. That is actually wrong for a number of reasons.

 Below I will explain it all however my statistics and facts etc have not come from thin air. They have come from solid raw data that you will have to consult yourself seeing as how I can't provide graphs or figures on a youtube comment. :)To claim global warming stopped in 1998 overlooks one simple physical reality - the land and atmosphere are just a small fraction of the Earth's climate that we as humans inhabit. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an energy imbalance, the atmosphere is warming, oceans are accumulating energy, land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get an accurate perception on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat content. Rule number 1: You need to focus on the WHOLE not the parts.Hottest day/year record breakings aside -- and it's TRENDS that matter when monitoring Climate Change, not the exceptions that cause scattered outliers and fluctuations in the statistical data. Trends only appear by examining ALL the data, globally, and taking into account the other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking individual points and isolating data which ignores the surrounding variables and only focuses on volatility--that gives you a false interpretation. And that is a mistake a lot of climate change deniers make when analyzing data. Rule number 2: You need to focus on the TRENDS not the volatility.There's also a tendency for climate change deniers to exclusively concentrate on surface air temperatures when there are other, more useful, indicators that can give us a better idea how rapidly the world is warming. Oceans for instance -- due to their immense size and heat storing capability (called 'thermal mass') -- tend to give a much more accurate indication of the warming that is happening.  Records show that the Earth has been warming at a steady rate before and since 1998 and there is no sign of it slowing any time soon.  More than 90% of global warming heat goes into warming the oceans, while less than 3% goes into increasing the surface air temperature.However, if you want to look focus on surface air temperatures consider this. In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced above average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy signal.
So to conclude, the planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998. Therefore global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
Also, somebody else on another thread just mentioned to me then that global tandem surface air temperatures have stopped rising in tandem with the gases as a rebuttal to my points. And yes that may be true but if it is then it's simply because carbon dioxide is not the only driver of air temperature. There are many cycles in nature that influence air temperature, such as the sun spot cycle, the electromagnetic radiation fluctuations in the sun and many global cycles. And these all play a part in causing volatility of the air temperature as a function of time.Therefore there have been many periods of time in the past where air temperature data has dropped below the trend line and then risen above the trend line again, and this could just simply be another one of these episodes. The danger of complacency is in not recognizing that human induced carbon dioxide is not a cycle. Natural cycles start at one point, rise, and then go back to where they started but human induced carbon dioxide is NOT a cycle. It's open ended with an upward trend. And that explains why the volatile air temperature data fluctuates above and below an UPWARD TREND line. It is the TREND that's important not the volatility. So by focusing on the volatility you're focusing on the WRONG issue.& as another point, we actually do know to what extent carbon dioxide will correlate with temperature in practice by the study of the air trapped in layers of ice laid down in ancient times. The study of ice cores, namely oxygen isotopes to reveal temperature data and carbon dioxide levels provides us with this information over a period of approximately 600,000 years.

NOW this is a mere explanation of why those myths are incorrect. However, you don’t have to trust me. I recommend you consult with the actual peer reviewed scientific data yourself. I did not conduct this research. I just know the facts brought about by this research. I am not a scientist (although I am studying at uni to be one). But I do know my facts. Check them out for yourself. Thank you.

+laurejonUmm..no it's not. Please stop politicizing this and linking me to the telegraph etc. I only know the science.Do you know what peer reviewed is? I don't think you do lol. Maybe the scientific and academic databases I use are not open to the general public, or need a password--but if you are aware of a scientific experiment go into google scholar and type the surnames of the experimenters and the title of their experiment, if it is peer reviewed it will be published in a legitimate scientific journal. Maybe also explore the NASA site. That's the only advice I can give you.I don't know what you're trying to suggest linking me to the Telegraph....but you're trying to ignite a discussion with the wrong person because I don't wish to talk about media controversies or politics or whatever. Lol I only know scientific facts that's it. Strictly the facts. Not the circumstances surrounding them, not the propaganda or fear mongering perpetuated by the media, not the cons of the government, not the credibility of some "experts" on a panel...just the science. That's it.I can be opinionated when I want to be but only when it's reasoned with rationality and a good amount of education and research to validate such opinions--I don't know enough about politics and the policies being implemented to combat climate change enough to have an opinion on it. I never rattle an opinion unless I am 100% happy with what I am saying. And unless I do the research, I don't deserve an opinion, because what is an opinion if it isn't educated?Come back in a few months after I've dedicated some time to studying all this, but until then I don't have what you're seeking for. I cannot comment on how this threat can be reduced other than that from what the science tells us fossil fuels are no longer an economically viable and environmentally friendly option for the world, which alludes to me that Tony Abbot saying "coal is good for humanity" is merely a cover up for him that indirectly implies he is in cahoots with the big corps. I'm sure there is corruption on either side of the politicized debate. I'm not a greens supporter or anything. Like I said. I only know the SCIENCE. So please stick to the science and don't go off on tangents trying to stump me with unrelated rhetoric or random links to a Telegraph article.

+laurejon "No increase in temperature for over 17 years and counting. That wasn't an IPCC prediction was it ?"Ok common climate change denier myth you mentioned there laurejon. I'm eating breakfast now but I will gladly debunk that for you later. Stay tuned.

+laurejonOk you keep insisting on debating solutions and policies and the "how do we fix this"..I made it clear I can only comment on the science, which tells us the what. Please stop trying to incite a political debate when you know I don't care to enter one. I can gladly debate the science you dispute.I do however know that fossil fuels have a finite capacity and that from what the science tells us, coal is anything but "good" for humanity. Thank you.

+laurejon"Governments predicted". Not scientists. And no scientist ever provides opinionated solutions in the peer reviewed scientific journals that consist of the experiments--all we have is the raw data to interpret, and when interpreted correctly we are able to see what it displays, reflects, infers for the future from the statistical upward or downward trend lines. I only comment on the what, not on the how do we fix this.Also, you're focusing too heavily on the people behind things. The scientists but not the science.It doesn't matter what was peer reviewed in the past, you can't insist on old data to validate claims for today. Science upgrades monthly. What was predicted decades ago has no effect on us today if it has since been disproved. You have to keep on the ball and not dwell in the past.Are you referring to one of the common climate change denier myths? "The climate is always changing because we have had centuries of ice ages cycled with warmer periods that had lower levels of CO2 than today"?...

+Juliette Kratochvil Australia is a resource rich nation and that makes Australia a powerful nation. Remove resources from the equation and what is going to put bread on our table ? Green Energy is nothing but a fad that will always be countered by fossil fuels as being the backbone of a nation.

+Juliette Kratochvil Well the current trend is cooling. Explain that one please ? No increase in temperature for over 17 years and counting. That wasn't an IPCC prediction was it ?

My original comment does sound emotionally charged because hey, I'm furious that our prime minister does not appear to be prioritizing this threat to our planet. But that doesn't mean the science isn't objective or accurate.

+Dirkardo StEvergreenI agree it does all start with the individual. I cannot comment on exactly what we can do to solve this and what policies should be in store. I'm not even aware of the statistics behind the success of the Carbon Tax or the Emissions Trading Scheme etc.ALL I am aware of is the science. The science doesn't say, "this is what we can do to solve this". All the science tells us is the what, "what is going on, what can be predicted for the future based off this data, what are the trends". etc. That's all I can comment on because I can humbly admit I am not politically aware enough to have an opinion on exactly the most economically viable and environmentally friendly solution for such a problem, nor did I ever once say I did. I know the science. And I am aware of the common climate change denier myths and misconceptions that have already been debunked by the science.

+laurejonYou're the one making this political. All I reflect on this the neutral unbiased peer reviewed scientific consensus. As I said I don't know much about political greed and corruption. I do however know the science. Science in itself has absolutely no agenda. By definition it can't because all that shapes scientific theories is evidence, and as a dynamic process science will always upgrade its views in light of new evidence. It's the ultimate masochist. It spends its whole life disproving itself. That's why I love it. I love the fact that science isn't set in stone and that it progresses the more we discover.Are you suggesting that the peer reviewed science I use to formulate my own opinion has been manipulated toward an agenda? Because if so you are suggesting a conspiracy with no basis for such a claim or even evidence to back it up. It's pure speculation and by extension it's plain wrong. I'm guessing this is the kind of hysteria they brainwash deniers with to convince them that the science is not to be trusted right?There is a reason scientific data needs peer review--its a full proof system that ensures that the data you are citing is indeed neutral, unbiased an has no corporate agenda so you can trust it. You don't have to trust the people, the politicians, the ngo's or corporations, media or whatever else. You do however have to trust the science. It is the only way to move forward.However what many deniers have done is fallen for the pseduo-science that falsely interprets data using common graphical tricks such as hiding the scale or values, only picking one area or location of the world and cutting out or ignoring recent warming due to insistence on using old data that has since been upgraded. A lot of their sources that they base such information on have been rendered speculative due to their manipulation of data and consequently statistically invalid because it is isolated out of context, ignores surrounding variables, misinterprets correlation coefficient measures and has been either manipulated or funded by those with corporate agendas. It is also clear from the emotive hyperbolic and non scientific language of many of the sources that climate change deniers use, suggesting conspiracy and arousing paranoia, that it is in fact NOT scientific. Real science uses extremely neutral language and sticks to the point. It doesn't speculate or go off on accusatory tangents unlike these other sources.I don't gather my information from unverified illegitimate sources like politicized websites or magazines that often mold the evidence to adhere to an ideology. I only use proper scientific and academic databases that house the real peer reviewed scientific journals.Don't ask me about politics. I don't even know yet what policies I support. I'd need to do more research. But I do know that climate change is serious enough for immediate action and that our prime minister is doing jack about it. If you have any questions on the science go right ahead. That's one area I am more than sufficient in and don't have "a lot to learn". Thank you.

And you know all of this because.............................................Because someone taught it to you. You have much to learn. My five year old daughter is also now an expert in climate change.................someone taught her also. When the so called "Global Leader of the free World" cuts oil production (US is the worlds largest producer, and consumer of fossil fuels) then we deniers might well start believing. Meanwhile it appears the US that is leading the Climate Change programme is using it to become the key supplier of fossil fuels.

Well said. We need to start taking our impact on this planet far more seriously than we have been. However, it's important to note that change begins with the individual. Tony Abbott is a disgrace, there's no argument there, but political decisions can only go so far. We have to recognise that we are all part of this problem, not just our elected leaders, and it starts with the decisions we make and how we consume. Do you really need to throw out a perfectly good tv just to get something a bit bigger? Do you really need a third a forth child? Is it necessary to have every light on in the house. Etcetera. As a father, I do fear for the world that my kids will inherit. But the thing that has occurred to me is that many people are pointing the finger at big polluters and yet these industries exist largely because of the demand we have created.

Good cause. This PM can't even speak Russian. Yet is payed TOP dollar... :(

I like the occasional essay. I admire your passion :)

Wow. I really rambled on. Anyway if you manage to read all that you're a champion.