Jump to content
Rocket Salad

The Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

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

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

Edited by Paul Every

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
1 hour ago, IronmanFoz said:

Dr Bjorn Lomborg

Character assassination in 3, 2, 1...

  • Thanks 1

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

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

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.

  • 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 1

Share this post


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

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

Yeah I sad the same thing a page or so ago. 

As long and the banks and big multinationals continue to make huge profits, we will all be safe. 

Share this post


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

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

The point was that questions based on false binaries are often bullshit arguments 

Share this post


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

 

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.

Bye then

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

The point was that questions based on false binaries are often bullshit arguments 

Is it false

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is false is the idea that what Australia can do reasonably, or even what is being asked of us by the most extreme climate extremists, will make one iota of difference to the outcome.  Unilateral action will do almost literally nothing at massive comparative costs (due to our geography, very low population density and economic drivers) and other nations are doing very little that they wouldn't already be doing without a "climate crisis."  Do you really think the UK power supply is regularly coal free because it's greener?  Utter bullsh*t, it's for energy security since Maggie shut down the coal mines and as with almost all nations with low CO2 energy it is heavily paid for through the use of nuclear.

China is still building massive coal fired power stations (alongside other less greenhouse gas producing technologies) as well as making literally billions of tonnes of cement which is about as CO2 intensive a building product as you will find.  India lives on coal as does Indonesia.  There is half the world's population all trying to struggle their way out of poverty.

I'm a pragmatist.  Carbon dioxide might be the greatest evil the world has seen, it may not.  If we wanted to, in 10-15 years Australian power generation could be carbon free.  There is not a nation in the world that has the conditions for nuclear as good as we have.  Stable geology (for both storage and operational safety), a population based around a massive ocean offering plentiful cooling water, an abundance of space and also some of the greatest reserves of the material used in a reactor.  Anyone who suggests that climate change is man's greatest ever threat but isn't screaming for nuclear, let alone those that take it off the table completely, do not have a shred of credibility.

  • Like 3

Share this post


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

Is it false

Yes

The water in your analogy would have a positive effect i.e. quench my thirst 

Thr effect of bankrupting our economy on the climate would be negligible at best

Share this post


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

Me too.

Me three 

Labor would need to shake off their ideological coalition partners for that to happen though 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

19 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

Me three 

Labor would need to shake off their ideological coalition partners for that to happen though 

Why don't the GOVERNment, govern and do it? They have the numbers, do they have the balls? 

Share this post


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

 

Why don't the GOVERNment, govern and do it? They have the numbers, do they have the balls? 

Because these days its better to do nothing rather than do something and risk offending someone.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They don't have the numbers, only in the lower house.  And would it be responsible if Labor said that should they win an election in three years they will shut it down?  It wouldn't be in construction by then but a lot of money would have been committed.  Besides which the point is that if they were all serious about climate change there would be no need for political bravery, it would be universal policy for all parties but that won't happen when the scare campaigns would mean annihilation for the first to go.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

Why don't the GOVERNment, govern and do it? They have the numbers, do they have the balls? 

I understand that the legislation prohibiting nuclear power is due for review this year, so hopefully they will do as you suggest 

Share this post


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

Yes

The water in your analogy would have a positive effect i.e. quench my thirst 

Thr effect of bankrupting our economy on the climate would be negligible at best

That was not the question 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we talk international politics here? Given the US' close relationship to Israel and Saudi, and their respective hatred of Iran, the tightening of the oil export embargo by the US on Iran, the recent escalation of tensions in the Gulf and the increased US military presence there etc etc...

Does The Donald want to start a war in the Middle East?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2019 at 9:56 PM, 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

Sulphur dioxide is released which is a gas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/06/2019 at 10:09 PM, Ex-Hasbeen said:

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

Sulphur dioxide plus water in the atmosphere can lead to sulphuric acid (H2SO4). The roses around Sheffield in the UK (steel works plus coal fired power going back a while) were spotless due to the acid rain killing the aphids. Useless fact!

Share this post


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

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.

That needn't stop you (or Iron Jimbo) pointing out the logical slight-of-hand employed to reach a duplicitous conclusion, rather than just posting or quoting it as if it's a legitimate.

Or can you genuinely not see what's wrong with it?

The Q&A audience is stacked? They always disclose the political leanings of the audience at the beginning of the program and it's appeared broadly reflective of society whenever I have watched it.

Tickets for Q&A are open to anyone who chooses to go.

Share this post


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

The Q&A audience is stacked? They always disclose the political leanings of the audience at the beginning of the program and it's appeared broadly reflective of society whenever I have watched it.

Yeah, it's usually 33% Labor, 33% Green and 33% conservative

#abcbalance

Share this post


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

Yeah, it's usually 33% Labor, 33% Green and 33% conservative

#abcbalance

Obviously you don't usually watch it.

#ijbs

Edited by Paul Every

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What we should do is get all the people who believe in climate change to sell their houses and cash in their super and other assets and invest in this great fix.

The rest of us can sit back and see what happens.

For the record, I much rather fix the issue with plastics in the ocean......... That at least is something that is fixable.

Share this post


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

 

For the record, I much rather fix the issue with plastics in the ocean......... That at least is something that is fixable.

So would I (I work in the plastic's industry), if we could just get people to recycle, instead of throwing it in the bin or on the ground.

We can't get enough recycled PET back

But the chance of the lazy many doing the right thing is dismal!!

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...