Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, trinube said:

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

I highly doubt that there is anybody here who does not care about air and water pollution, so why bring it up?

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

He can’t watch Q&A, steals time from reading Bolts latest where he asserts Chernobyl wasn’t all that bad really, we just got a bit scared 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I highly doubt that there is anybody here who does not care about air and water pollution, so why bring it up?

The sort of response resorted to by virtue sigallers trying to win a moral argument because they can't win the scientific one...

So you don't think dumping millions of tons of plastic into the ocean or millions of tons of pollution into the air won't have an effect on the planet and therefor its inhabitants?

Share this post


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

So you don't think dumping millions of tons of plastic into the ocean or millions of tons of pollution into the air won't have an effect on the planet and therefor its inhabitants?

Of course it will

How is that relevant to what we are discussing though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Parkside said:

He can’t watch Q&A, steals time from reading Bolts latest where he asserts Chernobyl wasn’t all that bad really, we just got a bit scared 

You never miss Q&A though, do you parky?

What are you going to do when Tony Jones steps down?  He's like the Yoda of smug wankers  

Share this post


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

Of course it will

How is that relevant to what we are discussing though?

I was just waiting for you to confirm human-generated climate change exists.

Seems as relevant as anything else in the preceding 266 pages.

Share this post


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

I was just waiting for you to confirm human-generated climate change exists.

Seems as relevant as anything else in the preceding 266 pages.

I've already done that several times

I also expressed doubt about the extent of it and the effectiveness of proposed solutions though, which is probably what you're still grappling with 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roxii 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.

Patti Smith and others have written songs about this since the 70's. On how, even 'intelligent' humans, have still not worked out how to manage their waste.

As for sea level change, it's obviously happened before, but with less population, less people were affected. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the world was to meet all its obligations per the Paris accord - then by 2100 the average temp will decrease by 0.05 degrees. But at what cost. Cost that could be better spent of hospitals, education, poverty etc. Currently wind and solar farms are not able to supply the worlds energy. It at present supplies about 1 per cent. The worlds energy consumption increase by approx 3% per annum. The creation of solar and wind power cannot keep up.

I don't think that anyone denies that mankind pollute etc, but there is no way it is at the levels where we are facing disaster.

The waiting disaster is tax and tax and tax and spend on a solution that will result in little change.

And if we want clean energy so much why are we not looking at nuclear when its readily available and we own most of it.

Figure

paris_graph_vers_2_660_w.jpg

Edited by IronmanFoz
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

What are you going to do when Tony Jones steps down?  He's like the Yoda of smug wankers  

Love him you must.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Prince said:

lets get back to the topic of this thread.....

I think the central tenet of this thread from its' very beginning is how much of a smug wanker one contributor continues to be.

  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I also expressed doubt about the extent of it and the effectiveness of proposed solutions though, which is probably what you're still grappling with 

It seems you're grappling with it more than me. You say you believe but question the extent.

As per my previous posts, I don't think the extent of the effects matters greatly - removing pollutants from the air, minimising fossil fuel burning, keeping the oceans healthy and not ripping down rainforests just seems the right, and logical, thing to do to help the planet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Parkside said:

I think the central tenet of this thread from its' very beginning is how much of a smug wanker one contributor continues to be.

well either their daddy didn't love them or they really love the attention

Share this post


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

I think the central tenet of this thread from its' very beginning is how much of a smug wanker one contributor continues to be.

Indeed...

21 hours ago, Parkside said:

He can’t watch Q&A, steals time from reading Bolts latest where he asserts Chernobyl wasn’t all that bad really, we just got a bit scared 

 

Share this post


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

It seems you're grappling with it more than me. You say you believe but question the extent.

As per my previous posts, I don't think the extent of the effects matters greatly - removing pollutants from the air, minimising fossil fuel burning, keeping the oceans healthy and not ripping down rainforests just seems the right, and logical, thing to do to help the planet.

Nobody disagrees with points 1, 3 and 4

Lumping point 2 in with them is quite dishonest 

Share this post


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

Nobody disagrees with points 1, 3 and 4

Lumping point 2 in with them is quite dishonest 

FFS Jimbo, dishonest? You're hilarious. Perhaps you should breathe some of it to test your hypothesis of my dishonesty? Please explain to us plebs how burning fossil fuels doesn't put shit in the air. 

Actually don't bother, it would appear your head is so far up your clacker you can't acknowledge the obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, burning wood and coal in open fires and stoves makes up some 38% of the UK's emissions of fine particulate matter, which has been identified by the World Health Organisation (WHO) as one of the most damaging pollutants.

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/environment/environmental-protection/news/101062/michael-gove-vows-ban-wood-burning-stoves

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Nobody disagrees with points 1, 3 and 4

Lumping point 2 in with them is quite dishonest 

Yep. Nothing wrong with a bit of this. Great for the lungs, and brilliant for the environment.

Image result for smog

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


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

Yep. Nothing wrong with a bit of this. Great for the lungs, and brilliant for the environment.

Image result for smog

molecules of freedom

Share this post


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

or they really love the attention

I think we have a winner

Share this post


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

FFS Jimbo, dishonest? You're hilarious. Perhaps you should breathe some of it to test your hypothesis of my dishonesty? Please explain to us plebs how burning fossil fuels doesn't put shit in the air. 

Actually don't bother, it would appear your head is so far up your clacker you can't acknowledge the obvious.

If you're so worried about carbon dioxide emissions, you should stop exhaling...

Share this post


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

Yep. Nothing wrong with a bit of this. Great for the lungs, and brilliant for the environment.

Image result for smog

Are you suggesting that the haze in this picture is carbon dioxide?

Or are you suggesting the cars are burning coal?

Share this post


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

If you're so worried about carbon dioxide emissions, you should stop exhaling...

Give us all a break, you go first.

Share this post


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

Are you suggesting that the haze in this picture is carbon dioxide?

Or are you suggesting the cars are burning coal?

No. Point 2. Burning fossil fuels.

Share this post


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

No. Point 2. Burning fossil fuels.

Which releases some particulate matter such as sulfur, but the vast majority of what is released when coal is burned is heat, water vapour and co2

Share this post


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

Which releases some particulate matter such as sulfur, but the vast majority of what is released when coal is burned is heat, water vapour and co2

And you think I'm being dishonest?

Lets see what 60 seconds in google turns up.

A 2011 report by the the American Lung Association found that coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources

Coal combustion releases nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health

Black carbon, also called soot, arises from sources such as diesel engine exhaust, burning biomass, cooking fires, and coal plants. It is made up of tiny carbon particulate matter that contributes to global warming by absorbing heat in the atmosphere and reducing albedo, the reflection of sunlight, when deposited on snow and ice. It is also a big component of air pollution around the world.

Burning coal produces a variety of solid wastes known as coal combustion waste or coal combustion products. These include coal ash (fly ash and bottom ash), boiler slag, and flue-gas desulphurization products.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses.

Natural gas emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Oil emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, and benzene. Coal emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, and benzene.

Yeah, those fossil fuels are great for us air breathers. Now I know what you wanted us to hold our breath.

Share this post


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

Which releases some particulate matter such as sulfur, but the vast majority of what is released when coal is burned is heat, water vapour and co2

So the acid rain caused by Sulphur dioxide released from burning coal was a myth? Or maybe another Government conspiracy to tax people more.

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


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

And you think I'm being dishonest?

Lets see what 60 seconds in google turns up.

A 2011 report by the the American Lung Association found that coal-fired power plants produce more hazardous air pollution in the United States than any other industrial pollution sources

Coal combustion releases nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter (PM), mercury, and dozens of other substances known to be hazardous to human health

Black carbon, also called soot, arises from sources such as diesel engine exhaust, burning biomass, cooking fires, and coal plants. It is made up of tiny carbon particulate matter that contributes to global warming by absorbing heat in the atmosphere and reducing albedo, the reflection of sunlight, when deposited on snow and ice. It is also a big component of air pollution around the world.

Burning coal produces a variety of solid wastes known as coal combustion waste or coal combustion products. These include coal ash (fly ash and bottom ash), boiler slag, and flue-gas desulphurization products.

Sulfur dioxide (SO2), which contributes to acid rain and respiratory illnesses. Nitrogen oxides (NOx), which contribute to smog and respiratory illnesses.

Natural gas emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, and nitrogen oxides. Oil emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, and benzene. Coal emits carbon dioxide, carbon monoxide, sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides, mercury, arsenic, and benzene.

Yeah, those fossil fuels are great for us air breathers. Now I know what you wanted us to hold our breath.

I've been saying for years that I'd rather live next to a nuclear plant than a coal one, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make 

The smog you can see in the pic posted earlier is likely from cars and trucks than from coal plants though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am surprised that you all missed Q&A this week with David Karoly - Atmospheric Scientist. He gave it to Alan Jones and how wrong he is on his crusade. I managed to listen to his interview from 2011 whereby he agreed 100% with what Jones says about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So for those that have not heard of the figures here goes:

The earth's CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 0.04%

Of that 0.04% , The Annual Production of CO2 by nature (Fires, farming, volcanoes etc etc etc) is 97%

                           Human contribution is 3% (that means Human contribution is 3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

                           Australia contribution is 1.5% of the above 3% (therefore 1.5% of 0.0012 = 0.000018%

Australia contributes 0.000018% of the worlds CO2. Some may recall Julia Gillard's government wanted to reduce Australia contribution by 5%...... = 0.0000009%

So the question is: why are we spending huge amounts of money for minimal improvement at great cost and for something that essentially is not 100% proven. Of course we agree that we do contribute to the problem but not enough to waste billions on it.

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I am surprised that you all missed Q&A this week with David Karoly - Atmospheric Scientist. He gave it to Alan Jones and how wrong he is on his crusade. I managed to listen to his interview from 2011 whereby he agreed 100% with what Jones says about the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

So for those that have not heard of the figures here goes:

The earth's CO2 in the atmosphere is less than 0.04%

Of that 0.04% , The Annual Production of CO2 by nature (Fires, farming, volcanoes etc etc etc) is 97%

                           Human contribution is 3% (that means Human contribution is 3% of 0.04% = 0.0012%

                           Australia contribution is 1.5% of the above 3% (therefore 1.5% of 0.0012 = 0.000018%

Australia contributes 0.000018% of the worlds CO2. Some may recall Julia Gillard's government wanted to reduce Australia contribution by 5%...... = 0.0000009%

So the question is: why are we spending huge amounts of money for minimal improvement at great cost and for something that essentially is not 100% proven. Of course we agree that we do contribute to the problem but not enough to waste billions on it.

 

 

Good question 

Um...  You're a denier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Paul Every said:

You really can't see a huge hole in the "logic" applied to those stats?

Logic and IJ - surely you jest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2019 at 3:11 AM, IronmanFoz said:

If the world was to meet all its obligations per the Paris accord - then by 2100 the average temp will decrease by 0.05 degrees. But at what cost. Cost that could be better spent of hospitals, education, poverty etc. Currently wind and solar farms are not able to supply the worlds energy. It at present supplies about 1 per cent. The worlds energy consumption increase by approx 3% per annum. The creation of solar and wind power cannot keep up.

I don't think that anyone denies that mankind pollute etc, but there is no way it is at the levels where we are facing disaster.

The waiting disaster is tax and tax and tax and spend on a solution that will result in little change.

And if we want clean energy so much why are we not looking at nuclear when its readily available and we own most of it.

Figure

paris_graph_vers_2_660_w.jpg

Reference?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2019 at 3:11 AM, IronmanFoz said:

If the world was to meet all its obligations per the Paris accord - then by 2100 the average temp will decrease by 0.05 degrees. But at what cost. Cost that could be better spent of hospitals, education, poverty etc. Currently wind and solar farms are not able to supply the worlds energy. It at present supplies about 1 per cent. The worlds energy consumption increase by approx 3% per annum. The creation of solar and wind power cannot keep up.

I don't think that anyone denies that mankind pollute etc, but there is no way it is at the levels where we are facing disaster.

The waiting disaster is tax and tax and tax and spend on a solution that will result in little change.

And if we want clean energy so much why are we not looking at nuclear when its readily available and we own most of it.

First, I agree with nuclear - been saying it for years. It's bordering on criminal that it's not even on the table for the major parties.

Cost is an interesting one. You're saying the levels of pollution aren't an issue and the money is better spent elsewhere. If we keep on the path we're on, the reef's going to die. That's $6.5 billion a year in tourism - 10 years close to $100 billion with inflation. Now consider what will be required to support farmers who are suffering continuing droughts - not to mention the reduced outputs of farms adding greatly to the cost of basics like produce, meat and milk. Beef and lamb exports declining, livestock markets dropping.

MY boss farms cattle and his herd has halved in price. He couldn't sell them if he wanted to and it's costing thousands of dollars a week to feed them. They're not even fit enough to slaughter.

These losses have to be funded from somewhere and to quote you that will be in the form of tax and tax and tax.

The great problem here is we've had our head buried in the sand for twenty years when we should have been doing something all along. I'm as far from a greenie as you get - can't stand them - but I do think we need to do something to stop the decline we're seeing. There are huge costs to NOT doing anything, just as there is to do something.

At some point in time the money will have to be spent - we may as well start now because it's not going to get any cheaper but it is going to become more urgent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

You really can't see a huge hole in the "logic" applied to those stats?

Just stating what Karoly agreed 100% with but then disagreed with on Q&A where no one was there to question/counter him. As usual an ABC agenda and stacked audience and guests.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

If we keep on the path we're on, the reef's going to die.

No it won't

The reef (and the rest of the planet) have survived through much hotter and much colder temperatures and much higher CO2 levels than today 

Claims like "90% of the reef is dead" do nothing for the discourse 

 

Edited by IronJimbo

Share this post


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

Character assassination in 3, 2, 1...

No need, the Danish Ministry of Science did it already.

Share this post


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

No need, the Danish Ministry of Science did it already.

By calling criticism of his work  "dissatisfactory", "deserving [of] criticism" and "emotional?"

Share this post


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

No it won't

The reef (and the rest of the planet) have survived through much hotter and much colder temperatures and much higher CO2 levels than today 

Claims like "90% of the reef is dead" do nothing for the discourse 

 

Watched a David Attenborough program last night on "The great Barrier Reef'. The reef was part of the landmass originally as part of the limestone hills. The sea levels were much much lower and this has occurred on several occasions. So the sea level rising equation went out the window!

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Watched a David Attenborough program last night on "The great Barrier Reef'. The reef was part of the landmass originally as part of the limestone hills. The sea levels were much much lower and this has occurred on several occasions. So the sea level rising equation went out the window!

Shhhh...

🤫

Share this post


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

Central Australia used to be covered by ocean, maybe things are just returning to how they used to be 🤔

Maybe

But then again, maybe we can stop it if we bankrupt our economy...

Share this post


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

Maybe

But then again, maybe we can stop it if we bankrupt our economy...

Would you choose diamonds over water if you were dying of thirst

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Would you choose diamonds over water if you were dying of thirst

I would choose diamonds, sell one and buy some water

Would you rather saw one of your arms off or agree with a conservative?

Edited by IronJimbo
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

No it won't

 

42 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

I would choose diamonds, sell one and buy some water

Would you rather saw one of your arms off or agree with a conservative?

 

1 hour ago, IronJimbo said:

But then again, maybe we can stop it if we bankrupt our economy...

 

I'm out of this thread - it's pissing me off how nonsensical people can be. I don't want to end up in the mental health thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


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

I would choose diamonds, sell one and buy some water

Would you rather saw one of your arms off or agree with a conservative?

So by that thinking, we can **** the environment, then buy a new one with the money we've saved. Brilliant idea.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2

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...