Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

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.

I call them non-solutions because they are not solutions, unless you want to either bankrupt Australia or take us back to the 1800s

Leaving aside the rather important factor of reliability, wind and solar simply do not have the physical capacity to replace coal for areas such as Sydney.  Unless you want to bury Wollongong in solar panels 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, XCOM.! said:

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.

Do you have a link to the study/survey/whatever that forms the basis of your claim?

I'm curious as to what was actually asked

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Do you have a link to the study/survey/whatever that forms the basis of your claim?

I'm curious as to what was actually asked

FFS do your own research.

I've made my thoughts clear, and I'm not going to labour the point any further.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

Your link refers to 97% of scientists, not 98%.  And it does not address the follow-on questions regarding the scope of the question asked

That is at best highly misleading, and at worst fraudulent

  • Confused 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Come on. You know that NASA are the biggest conspirators in this whole thing. They even fake all those round Earth photos to keep us believing what they want.

Nobody believes that NASA are faking photographs of the earth Ex.  Mankind has moved on from the time when the 'scientific consensus' was that the earth is flat

I would caution anyone who places too much stock in the views of James Hansen though, given that he is right up there with Tim Flannery in terns of dud predictions

You might as well reference Michael 'hide the decline' Mann

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, asmithaxe said:

Yet we still see an overwhelming majority of climate scientists saying that same thing. The main people who voice a dissenting opinion are NOT climate scientists.

Confirmation bias is a real and pernicious blight on all areas of science.  It doesn't take much of a history lesson to know that.  If the people dissenting are well credentialed scientists of any field their voices should carry significant weight in any discussion about the use of scientific method or interpretation of results and conclusions made.

I'm not in the camp of climate change not being real and I find the debate around whether or not it is human induced tedious.  There is no way known that any nation is going to take significant action quickly enough to change anything if it is unilaterally disadvantageous to their people.  FFS the UN struggles to get universal agreement on anything significant let alone this.  As far as I'm concerned, spend money on adapting so at least it isn't wasted no matter what the cause or outcome.

In the meantime, listen to the dissenting voices and examine their arguments.  Dismiss them if they have flaws in their method or reasoning, but never simply because other experts say to.  Otherwise climate science is little more than religious doctrine. 

Edited by Stikman
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Stikman said:

In the meantime, listen to the dissenting voices and examine their arguments.  Dismiss them if they have flaws in their method or reasoning, but never simply because other experts say to.  Otherwise climate science is little more than religious doctrine. 

Nah

It's much easier to just call them 'deniers' than to bother refuting their arguments 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change is real, I've seen the crocheted temperature blankets to prove it.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want a reference 

your reference sucks 

let me tell you how you are all wrong 

I don’t provide references because I am morally and intellectually superior 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So while we rearrange the deckchairs, is there any good to come out of climate change regardless of whether it is man made or not?  

If not then surely we should be combating it by any means possible regardless of cost.  How many more species are we prepared to lose, especially when we don't know the long term effects of these extinctions. 

The argument that if climate change is natural and we should let it go is usually made by the same sort of folks that demand sea walls so their waterfront property doesn't fall into the sea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Massive biases and a rort.

just link where many people made a motza out of pink batts and the people who are now scamming the NBN. And yes I have spoken to people who admit it’s a rort.

Like the unqualified girl you'd spoken to who was earning $500k a year as a childcare worker..? ☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

I want a reference 

your reference sucks 

let me tell you how you are all wrong 

I don’t provide references because I am morally and intellectually superior 

Those last couple appear to be references to XCOM and yourself...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BarryBevan said:

let me tell you how you are all wrong 

I don’t provide references because I am morally and intellectually superior 

 

15 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Those last couple appear to be references to XCOM and yourself...

 

 

As Stickman so eloquently put it, 

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

In the meantime, listen to the dissenting voices and examine their arguments.  Dismiss them if they have flaws in their method or reasoning, but never simply because other experts say to.

Ironjimbo,

I have not been able to find any decent scholarly articles that actually debunk Anthropogenic Climate Change. Plenty of articles out there, but not properly researched or reviewed. Could you PLEASE point out some good ones that have swayed your thinking, and maybe they could sway others, mine included. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Those last couple appear to be references to XCOM and yourself...

Do you own a mirror can you read just this page. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

 

Ironjimbo,

I have not been able to find any decent scholarly articles that actually debunk Anthropogenic Climate Change. Plenty of articles out there, but not properly researched or reviewed. Could you PLEASE point out some good ones that have swayed your thinking, and maybe they could sway others, mine included. 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/10/25/so-far-this-year-400-scientific-papers-debunk-climate-change-alarm/

Enjoy 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And before you start, I do not necessary think that mankind has no effect on the climate.  As I said earlier, I have doubts about the extent and whether we can or should do anything about it 

And anyone who thinks that consensus has anything at all to do with science has no business whatsoever accusing anyone else of being a 'science denier'

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Thanks.

Any favourites? 

All of them demonstrate my point in their own way, so not really 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you've read them all? Or any?

Surely after reading 400 papers, you have a favourite or 2.

 

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think they key part people tend to forget is climate is and has always been in a constant state of change.

The planet has already been through 5 ice ages! First of all the scientists were claiming global warming, and then when those claims didn't stack up and they changed to climate change.

This is what annoys me-there is a lot of money at stake and a lot of money to be made and people are taking advantage. Take for example the whole plastic bag con-instead of getting a double use out of plastic bags to carry your grocery's in and then use as a bin liner people are now buying bin liners. PLUS companies are ripping off people-at Rebel Sport on the weekend they wanted to charge me $1 per plastic bag!! 

There are three key questions:

1) Do we really think we are powerful enough to have any impact on mother nature, assuming climate change is a fact of life and has been since day 1?

2) If trillions if dollars is to be spent on combating climate change is there any real expectation we can make any difference?

3) Should the real question be why are we content to pollute the air leaving an environment that is worse for our kids and future generations?

I think we should be doing everything we can to combat pollution-just don't sell me on bullshite that we can have any impact on climate change, sell me on the reality that we want clean air and unpolluted oceans.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with what you're saying @more, especially around the pollution issue. 

Whilst there has always been climate change, what we really need to identify is "what affect we are having on it now", and is it "terminal"? You can look at it the same as a car that can only put out a very small amount of power going over a series of rolling hills. It speeds up on each downhill & slows down on each uphill, but it keeps going over each hill. It's just like the planet going through its normal climate cycles. Adding the minuscule effect we are having to the planet could be compared to something as simple as reducing the aerodynamics of the car. On that uphill slog the aerodynamic change may only make 1% difference to what has been happening for the past 10 cycles, but that may just be all it takes to stall the car.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

So you've read them all? Or any?

Surely after reading 400 papers, you have a favourite or 2.

 

Still nothing hey?

 

I just read a few in there claiming TCC (total cloud cover) as a major determinant in surface warming. Stuff I did at Uni 15 years ago said exactly the same thing. But I don't see how this fits in to "debunking Arthropogenic Climate Change" Most of what I've previously read says a major reason for lower TCC over the past century has been deforestation. Surely if TCC is caused by man's activities, then any follow on Climate Change would have to be considered Arthropogenic, at least in part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point is, and it's a valid one, that the IPCC's depiction of the absolute nature of the consensus on their position statements are at very least specious.  There is no shortage of reports from those formerly inside the IPCC as to the political nature of the report making process.  Have a look at this article from over 20 years ago about the second report that the IPCC produced and which was probably the greatest driver towards our global warming crisis.  For those who can't be bothered reading I will quote from the author, former head of the National Academy of Sciences and a " I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB834512411338954000

What is curious to me is that a very large proportion of geologists are sceptical (if not dismissive) of the level of human influence on our changing climate.  Why are so many involved in the science with the longest vision (in terms of chronology) seemingly the most dubious on the effect we may be having?  Here's one example below from the list of Sceptic papers posted before:

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0958305X16686488

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

The Climate Change Experiment: How Long will the Drought Last?

 

Robert G V Baker

 

1 – 2 pm, Thursday 23 May, 2019

CO2 Lecture Theatre, Earth Sciences Building

 

Earth’s climate system is currently experiencing the impact of a centennial minimum in solar activity. This has not been widely reported in the media, but it has substantial implications for human wellbeing, including the likelihood of significant drought periods in eastern Australia. Previous minimums, namely, the ‘1900’ Minimum and the Dalton Minimum at the beginning of the 20th and 19th centuries, respectively, were associated with significant droughts. For example, 1902 and 1905 were the lowest rainfall years in the modern Australian record.

The recurrence interval for such droughts is associated with dominant solar cycles, including the ~21yr magnetic Hale Cycle, the centennial ~86yr Gleissberg Cycle and its ~107yr harmonic. Recent focus has been on the anthropogenic implications of climate change. This seminar, however, poses the question: Do similar emissions from the Sun past and present have similar impacts on Australian climatic responses? Empirical results suggest we are currently experiencing similar solar signals to past centennial drought phases. Reasons for a connection between this solar activity and rainfall patterns seem to be a complex interplay between the role of the Sun’s magnetic field, or lack therein, moderating external galactic cosmic rays and internal ultra-violet radiation from the Sun’s core. This creates the potential in the atmosphere for increased or decreased ionisation and cloud formation over the Pacific Ocean.

By using the southern oscillation index (SOI), paired with the progression of the sunspot record ~107 years apart, it can be shown that on both occasions, the SOI is tracking similarly in both early 20th and 21st century time series. The comparison allowed for the current drought to be previously predicted and management strategies could have been adopted, before its onset. Further, it allows for a future estimation of the likelihood of this drought’s continuation, extent and severity, based on the progression or cessation in the similarity in this centennial solar minimum event. Whilst the Sun is largely ignored in the current analysis dynamics of Australian climate, such research should be an integral component of long term water management in Australia

 

Lol I just noticed the room number!

Edited by ComfortablyNumb
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, roxii said:

So while we rearrange the deckchairs, is there any good to come out of climate change regardless of whether it is man made or not?  

Maybe. It's possible that somewhere like Greenland could have mining opportunities open up as areas become accessible and that would mean money and jobs in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, A2K said:

Maybe. It's possible that somewhere like Greenland could have mining opportunities open up as areas become accessible and that would mean money and jobs in the future.

Like what happened during the medieval warming period that nobody wants to talk about anymore?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whatever is going on, I wish this f#$%ing drought would end.  But no relief in sight.

Armidale is on Level 4 water restrictions, looking down the barrel of Level 5, and we have a really good water supply dam (Malpas Dam @ Black Mountain) engineered for a population 4x our current size.  It's down to 50%.

Our garden is dying fast.  We are capturing greywater to try to keep it alive, but it's not going so well.

And as for my fishing streams 😪

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

Whatever is going on, I wish this f#$%ing drought would end.  But no relief in sight.

Armidale is on Level 4 water restrictions, looking down the barrel of Level 5, and we have a really good water supply dam (Malpas Dam @ Black Mountain) engineered for a population 4x our current size.  It's down to 50%.

Our garden is dying fast.  We are capturing greywater to try to keep it alive, but it's not going so well.

And as for my fishing streams 😪

but it rained on the leafy North Shore yesterday, climate change is a left wing conspiracy

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, more said:

3) Should the real question be why are we content to pollute the air leaving an environment that is worse for our kids and future generations?

For me, this is the crux of the question. Why would anyone think it is better to pollute?

I'm not a scientist and am cynical enough to think that anyone can come up with a study to support or deny their preferred claims. It's simple - don't pollute the air, don't piss in the ocean and don't rape the land. Why would anyone disagree?

Surely it's just commonsense.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trinube said:

For me, this is the crux of the question. Why would anyone think it is better to pollute?

I'm not a scientist and am cynical enough to think that anyone can come up with a study to support or deny their preferred claims. It's simple - don't pollute the air, don't piss in the ocean and don't rape the land. Why would anyone disagree?

Surely it's just commonsense.

Depends if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant 

The Gillard government didn't, even when she was out there calling it 'carbon pollution' to try to justify taxing it

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

Whatever is going on, I wish this f#$%ing drought would end.  But no relief in sight.

Armidale is on Level 4 water restrictions, looking down the barrel of Level 5, and we have a really good water supply dam (Malpas Dam @ Black Mountain) engineered for a population 4x our current size.  It's down to 50%.

Our garden is dying fast.  We are capturing greywater to try to keep it alive, but it's not going so well.

And as for my fishing streams 😪

115 years ago droughts and flooding rains were commonplace enough to be used as defining characteristics of our country

Now we blame both on plant food

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, more said:

Do you even triathlon?

I knew I shouldn't talk in metaphors... 

Just for the record, I have never pissed myself on the bike

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm so happy we've reached the post election phase of "We have a clear mandate" for everything. :wallbash:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Tyno said:

I'm so happy we've reached the post election phase of "We have a clear mandate" for everything. :wallbash:

Well Billary claimed a clear mandate pre-election...

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Tyno said:

I'm so happy we've reached the post election phase of "We have a clear mandate" for everything. :wallbash:

Seemed to work for Comrade Andrews when he pissed away $1Billion dollars of tax payers money on absolutely nothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

Depends if you consider carbon dioxide a pollutant The Gillard government didn't, even when she was out there calling it 'carbon pollution' to try to justify taxing it

Does it matter what the Gillard government thought? I'm not going to tell you how to debate your topics IJ, but you seem to be fixated on the politics rather than the problem.

Sometimes things have to be done because it's the right thing to do. Minimising the sh!t we throw in the air and ocean - whether it can be proven to be more widely damaging to the planet or not - is simply the right thing to do.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

https://skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm

One of the most often cited arguments of those skeptical of global warming is that the Medieval Warm Period (800-1400 AD) was as warm as or warmer than today. Using this as proof to say that we cannot be causing current warming is a faulty notion based upon rhetoric rather than science. So what are the holes in this line of thinking?

Personally sea level changes worry me a lot less than warming, climatic extremes, and most definitely pollution, but the argument of using sediment levels (which may or may not have been moved due to tectonic activity) from 2000 years ago and comparing that to static gauges used in the past 50 years to say sea level changes now are nothing to worry about, leaves me with a few doubts also. 

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, trinube said:

Sometimes things have to be done because it's the right thing to do. Minimising the sh!t we throw in the air and ocean - whether it can be proven to be more widely damaging to the planet or not - is simply the right thing to do.

But only if the banks and multinationals continue to make billions in profit. 

I mean surely if we root this planet we can just buy another one with all those profits can’t we?? 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://theconversation.com/we-asked-people-to-do-climate-change-maths-their-answers-depended-on-their-politics-117503

Interesting this popped up today. Initially this line of research was on the gun debate, now climate change

"These findings build on the theory that your desire to give an answer in line with your pre-existing beliefs on climate change can be stronger than your ability or desire to give the right answer." better you are at maths, stronger the trend to actually ignore the maths, it seems

Quote

If people remain entrenched in their ideological corners when threats come along, and are unwilling to face facts, societal problems can fester, potentially becoming much more difficult to resolve later.

Just imagine scientists had discovered human activity was damaging our atmosphere. They said this problem would cause Earth’s climate to get hotter and threaten our livelihoods. Politicians and the people they represented saw this as a legitimate issue worth acting on, regardless of their political views. Imagine the world united to fix this problem, even though it would cost a lot of money.

In fact, we don’t need to imagine too much, as this isn’t just a hypothetical situation. It actually happened when scientists found evidence the use of industrial chemicals was depleting the ozone layer. 

In 1987, for the first and only time, all 197 members of the United Nations agreed to sign the Montreal Protocol regulating the man-made chemicals that destroy the ozone layer. More than 30 years later we can measure the benefits of this agreement in our planet’s atmosphere.

Unlike the current climate change debate, people largely saw this risk as a matter of science, not politics. 

But it seems people are increasingly encouraged to see risks like this through a political frame. When this happens, facts can become irrelevant because no matter how smart people are, many will simply deny the evidence to protect their side of the political debate.

Societies need to make good choices for their survival and those choices need to be based on facts, regardless of whether everyone likes them or not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, trinube said:

Does it matter what the Gillard government thought? I'm not going to tell you how to debate your topics IJ, but you seem to be fixated on the politics rather than the problem.

Sometimes things have to be done because it's the right thing to do. Minimising the sh!t we throw in the air and ocean - whether it can be proven to be more widely damaging to the planet or not - is simply the right thing to do.

- Gillard is relevant because she clearly demonstrated the duplicity of people eho call carbon dioxide a pollutant.  It is no such thing 

- Stripping billions out of the economy for no benefit was wrong then, and it is wrong now

- The shit we throw in the air and ocean is a completely separate argument, usually resorted to by virtue sigallers trying to win a moral argument because they can't win the scientific one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, IronJimbo said:

- The shit we throw in the air and ocean is a completely separate argument, usually resorted to by virtue sigallers trying to win a moral argument because they can't win the scientific one

No - it's a fairly simple point made not to counter a scientific response, but to make the planet more pleasant to live on for us and our kids. It requires no discussion of the economy, Gillard or anything else - just commonsense.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, trinube said:

No - it's a fairly simple point made not to counter a scientific response, but to make the planet more pleasant to live on for us and our kids. It requires no discussion of the economy, Gillard or anything else - just commonsense.

The topic is climate change nube.  Carbon dioxide does not make air or waterways dirty

If you want to talk about actual pollutants, you should probably start another thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

The topic is climate change nube.

Really, I could have sworn it was politics. Perhaps you should start a new thread...

If you happened to be watching Q&A you would have just heard a real scientist giving quite a reasonable dissertation of the effects of CO2 on the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...