Jump to content

XCOM.!

Members
  • Content Count

    162
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

63 Excellent

About XCOM.!

  • Rank
    Transitions Addict in Progress

Previous Fields

  • Year of first Tri race?
    1759

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. FFS do your own research. I've made my thoughts clear, and I'm not going to labour the point any further.
  2. I'm not sure why you proclaim "Windmills and solar panels are not solutions" - they would appear to be perfectly valid options for low-carbon electricity generation. They require storage solutions (e.g. Redox and Hybrid Flow Batteries, thermal-salt storage, etc) and that's an area of development we could contribute to and benefit from. As for the other statement, I'm not sure what vox-pop you are referring to, but please read my post again - "98% of publishing climate scientists supporting the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report". In fact it's actually reported to be less than 0.1% now, but I'll be generous and stick with the older official published survey figures. That is not 98% of scientists, it's 98% of "publishing climate scientists" - this is not a dishonest statement, it's simply the state of consensus among those scientists actually working and publishing in the field of climate science. The dissenting scientist in that group primarily disagree on the modelling to date (i.e. projected rate, extent and reversibility of change) with only a very small minority of the dissenting group questioning the cause.
  3. Right... The only sides of the fence qualified to argue are those scientists working in the field, and everything else is just noise. It's not about me being personally convinced, as I suspect like yourself, I'm not a qualified climate scientist, and I'm not about to start going down the "it's all a conspiracy" or the "I don't believe the experts" route, as that's just another version of "anti-vaxxer" mentality. Instead, it's about acknowledging the advice of the 98% of publishing climate scientists supporting the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report, and their projection of a dire situation. Of course, it's possible that the 2% of dissenting scientists *COULD* be right (regarding the IPCC projections and/or cause of climate change) but on a crude basis of odds, it's highly unlikely they are... and so it's about risk assessment and the cost associated. As a tax-payer, I would prefer to see public funds be invested in development of solutions to the problem, and not in pointless lip-service programs or investing in exacerbating the problem simply to support denialist dogma and vote buying. However, if you are so convinced they are all wrong, then perhaps you might consider selling your own house and mounting a campaign to illuminate us all to the "facts" according to you.
  4. Right, the old "unless you can guarantee success we shouldn't do anything because it's expensive" argument. There is only one 98% guarantee available at the moment - do nothing and we will pay dearly for it. Reducing CO2 emissions is currently the only game in town, and power generation is the primary source. Whether that means renewables + storage or nuclear (preferably LFTR technology) or other non-emitting power-generation tech, we can't choose to do nothing without accepting the risk and cost that may be imposed on our children. If you think we struggle with keeping a lid on 'illegal immigrants' now, just wait until entire areas of the planet become uninhabitable. We will then either have to spend a small fortune building a fortress, or contribute sufficient foreign aid to avoid that migration from happening - either way, if the projections are correct, doing nothing will not be a no-cost option. Of course, we could invest in developing tech for this, that may even be advantageous to our economy, but why do that when we could spend public funds building a new coal-fired powerstation.
  5. No, it's just choosing to ignore the risk and potential cost. As I stated, if the 98% of climate scientist are correct, and the IPCC projections are anywhere near accurate, then the risk of catastrophe is serious. Low laying heavily populated regions such as Bangladesh or drought affected regions, would see mass exodus and strain resources that will risk wars, etc. Even if you ignore the human cost, that's nevertheless an economic cost that needs to be accounted for, not just ignored and dismissed.
  6. No, the actual question is how many people are you prepared to kill by choosing to ignore the warnings and do nothing.
  7. For the record, no publishing scientists deny the climate change data - that's the realm of the tin-foil-hat 'nasa conspiracy' you-tube crowd. 98% of publishing climate scientists support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, as detailed in the last IPCC report. There are some scientists who question the accuracy of the IPCC projections, and a small number who question the cause, but none who question the data. So for the non-qualified layman (that's most of us) it basically comes down to risk-analysis and mitigation. If the 98% of climate scientists are right, then we ignore them at our peril.
  8. XCOM.!

    TV Shows

    I don't watch TV (because I don't own one) but this is reportedly a pretty good adaptation of Margaret Atwood's novel.
  9. When I were lad, we'd live in a hole in the road covered in canvas, and think ourselves lucky.
  10. XCOM.!

    Skin checks

    Basic stats - someone dies of melanoma in Australia every 5hrs, and typically it's because they weren't diagnosed until it had reached stage-3 or worse. Treated early, it's eminently curable, treated late, it's very hard to stop. If you have a family history of melanoma, you can pretty much consider yourself with odds of 100% that you will have to deal with it at some time, and so regular checks are a must. In my case, mother, father and aunt - with the last 2 dying of stage-4 diagnosed too late - means I get checked every 6mths.
  11. XCOM.!

    Skin checks

    Spent time in hospital last week, dealing with the 'M' word - in skin vs. sun, skin always loses. Still, they tell me chicks dig scars, so I should be a magnet.
  12. XCOM.!

    Israel Folau

    I thought that in all court mediation processes, the mediator is a Judicial Registrar, who is trained and accredited in the laws covered by the court's jurisdiction. i.e. not just any old paper shuffler.
  13. There's no doubt that insurance companies would have access to plenty of details from accident reports that would allow them to make such categories if they were significant, but I suspect that "young male" trumps whatever ethnicity they are, in terms of risk factor. Add "V8" or "Turbo" to that, and you'll be paying big-time.
  14. Seriously? Are you asking me to explain and/or justify the USA's actions? I would have thought it pretty clear we are discussing Australian law here.
×
×
  • Create New...