Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

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

And some studies say we'll be able to grow tropical crops over more of the planet, though only for a while.

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
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

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...