Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

Besides , both sides or the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, XCOM.! said:

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.

The actual question is how many million people are you willing to impoverish in order to try and probably fail to do something about it

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

The actual question is how many million people are you willing to impoverish in order to try and probably fail to do something about it

No, the actual question is how many people are you prepared to kill by choosing to ignore the warnings and do nothing.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

Edited by IronJimbo
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

How many have been impoverished by climate change as compared to killed by climate change policy?

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

How many have been impoverished by climate change as compared to killed by climate change policy?

I'm not aware of anyone being killed by an event definitively linked to climate change

I am aware of many, many people who struggle to pay their power bills, to cite but one example

Share this post


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

Given that more people have been impoverished by climate change policy than have been proven to have been killed by climate change, I would suggest that my question is more topical

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I suppose  as one example if you don't think that that those more regular bigger than normal typhoon/cyclone/bushfire has been created/increased due to climate change and thus an increased body count then none.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cool

So what do you propose we do about it?  What difference will it make, and how much will it cost?

Share this post


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

I suppose  as one example if you don't think that that those more regular bigger than normal typhoon/cyclone/bushfire has been created/increased due to climate change and thus an increased body count then none.

My understanding is that there have been less cyclones here, and less tornadoes in the US

If you have evidence to the contrary, happy to have a look at it 

Share this post


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

Cool

So what do you propose we do about it?  What difference will it make, and how much will it cost?

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

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.

 

Both statements above are ridiculous! And not true!

But given you are so convinced.......... what you should do is sell your house and take a gamble. Invest all your proceeds into a company that’s going to solve the worlds climate change issues. Are you going to make that bet........ well are you punk!

I am guessing not!

Edited by IronmanFoz
Typo

Share this post


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

You realise 3 x times the population equals 3 x the expenditure, right?  Come and try and get Drs appt, your kid into a decent school, a hospital appt. All these things are 'free' over here but it comes from somewhere.

I love it when folks that live 12,000 miles are experts on what's happening here. (it's why I don't comment on Brexit thread). Trust me, the streets here aren't awash with so much cash that the Gov. (any Gov) has enough to 'piss it up a wall'.

The biggest difference here was that years ago, there was a massive push for 2nd Gen clean diesel cars.  A few years ago in most western EU countries, you'd be flat out seeing a petrol car. The golden egg was lower CO2 emissions but lately that mantra has changed back in favour of petrol. (higher CO2 but less other nasty toxins).

Diesel sales have plummeted by something like 60%. EVs are becoming very popular here, things holding them back are non standardised charging and the stupid subscription models but by far the biggest issue is that an awful of the urban population in the UK don't have a driveway, so no charging point.  Tide is turning though, many many companies are installing charging points that are free for employees at company car parks. (my company has 10).

On the non vehicle front, that's a tougher nut to crack, mainly due to the way that the P/Kw is charged and the taxed amount. (approx 57% of all energy bills in the UK are tax).  Distributed Energy is becoming a big thing but storage is the issue.

CHP. (Combined Heat and Power) will be next shift in the way large corporates reduce their energy foot print. Ironically, that involves big Rolls Royce engines from Germany that produce huge amounts of power.   Folks always think about offices using a lot of power. (they don't).  By far, things like MTX and Data Ctrs are absolute power monsters.

There are probably more barriers in the UK to go green than Australia, especially running EVs in winter.  yet somehow, we seem to be able to adopt the willingness to give it a go.

I'm involved in a lot of this in my corporate life.  There are no simplistic answers but burying your head in the sand and shouting 'but we're different' sure as shit ain't one of them.

So my take on this is..... diesel is better for the environment that petrol which is cleaner.....

And if 57% of your energy bills is tax then yes....... the govt is clearly pissing your money up a wall.

Share this post


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

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.

I see what you sneakily did there Xcom!........... 

You took my “Besides , both sides of the fence show proof it either does exist or doesn’t exist.”........ and made it about “scientists” to suit you agenda. I never said anything about scientists. I was referring to the debate on climate change itself. 

But whilst we are on the subject of scientists, let’s go back many years and it was the scientists that busted Al Gores “inconvenient truth”. And just because someone is a scientist doesn’t mean they know what they are talking about....it depends who is paying them.

Remember all thos scientist who work for sugar and soft drink and tobacco companies who say there products aren’t addictive and aren’t harmful........ how could they be wrong.......... welll we know they are wrong!!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

Share this post


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

Both statements above are ridiculous! And not true!

But given you are so convinced.......... what you should do is sell your house and take a gamble. Invest all your proceeds into a company that’s going to solve the worlds climate change issues. Are you going to make that bet........ well are you punk!

I am guessing not!

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.

Edited by XCOM.!
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

So my take on this is..... diesel is better for the environment that petrol which is cleaner.....

And if 57% of your energy bills is tax then yes....... the govt is clearly pissing your money up a wall.

If that's what you took from that,,I'm out. :lol:

Share this post


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

As a tax-payer, I would prefer to see public funds be invested in development of solutions to the problem

So would I.  Windmills and solar panels are not solutions however

BTW, a more honest reference to your '98% of scientists' claim would acknowledge the very broad question that was actually asked of them, and that within that 98% there is quite a lot of conjecture about the extent of our contribution and whether we can or should do anything about it

Share this post


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

So would I.  Windmills and solar panels are not solutions however

BTW, a more honest reference to your '98% of scientists' claim would acknowledge the very broad question that was actually asked of them, and that within that 98% there is quite a lot of conjecture about the extent of our contribution and whether we can or should do anything about it

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.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So would I.  Windmills and solar panels are not solutions however

Ah that to obvious a wind up 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

98% of publishing climate scientists.  What would your chances be of getting published as a climate scientist if you disagree with the reason that all of your fellow climate scientists (who peer review your stuff) get paid?

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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

98% of publishing climate scientists.  What would your chances be of getting published as a climate scientist if you disagree with the reason that all of your fellow climate scientists (who peer review your stuff) get paid?

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of highly paid climate scientists. Lucky us for the plucky band of billionnaires and oil barrons who courageously fought their lies on our behalf.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Ah yes, the global conspiracy of highly paid climate scientists. Lucky us for the plucky band of billionnaires and oil barrons who courageously fought their lies on our behalf.

I wonder which scientists have a greater chance of getting a research grant... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


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

I wonder which scientists have a greater chance of getting a research grant... 

I'm certainly not disputing that there may be a bias in research funding from some (perhaps many) sources. But both sides of this argument have money. Climate scientists can get money from organisations who have a vested interest in disproving climate change. 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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, asmithaxe said:

I'm certainly not disputing that there may be a bias in research funding from some (perhaps many) sources. But both sides of this argument have money. Climate scientists can get money from organisations who have a vested interest in disproving climate change. 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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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
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

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...