Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Socrates2]

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...e/news-story/194720442056b3156cc3ffc5c24d9996

ONE MORE YEAR TO SEE IF THIS NONSENSE COMES TRUE
January 22, 2019 7:58am

• Just one more year to see how right was this 2003 Pentagon report hyped so frantically by the Observer:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.​

So you think Malcom Roberts is the smart one? It's happening just look at the yearly temperature averages champ. Keep spreading your propaganda buddy.Only an ignorant fool denies climate change and I'll take the word of qualified scientists before you champ. Did you vote Scomo? Of course you did lol

 

[Socrates2]

L

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/...e/news-story/194720442056b3156cc3ffc5c24d9996

ONE MORE YEAR TO SEE IF THIS NONSENSE COMES TRUE
January 22, 2019 7:58am

• Just one more year to see how right was this 2003 Pentagon report hyped so frantically by the Observer:

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..
A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.​

Lol you're quoting the Herald Scum, it is not regarded as a proper news source.Are you saying because the Pentagon predicticted nuclear war and it's not happening, that climate change doesn't exist? I hope you burn this summer dude and stop twisting the facts.

 

[Socrates2]

They missed the bit about fire breathing dragons and the white walkers

#summeriscoming

You should know better than that power raid. Have you gone troppo or something?

 

[Power Raid]

Climate change is real and possibly the end of the world if we don't act fast and now

That's why we can wait for the leading nation for wind and solar to reduce their CO2 emmissions by circa 10%, after 45 years (2035) and $1.5 trillion dolars. We can then wait as they spend another $3.5 trillion and x amount of years to repeat this herculean 10% effort.

Meanwhile Denmark, France, most of South America, Ontario, New York, Washington, New Zealand, Tasmania and Georgia have delivered an outcome 10-15 times better than Germany in the 1980s or earlier.


Does climate change debate really matter if the solution of wind and solar doesn't work? Surely the science has been clear on the solution.......................or does science only matter when it suits?

 

[demondavey]

Well with a liberal government we won’t see a thing done on climate change now.

 

[Power Raid]

Well with a liberal government we won’t see a thing done on climate change now.

probably not a bad thing to stop and take a think about what actually works




the sad thing though about Labor not winning, is the ADF may or may not get the small modular nuclear reactors which would have resulted in legislative change which would open up a pathway that actually works.

Imagine being like France and having a reliable energy system 10-15 times better than Germany with the added benefit of being cheaper and safer than wind and solar.

 

[Royal Flush]

The thing that astounds me about the hard line climate change deniers is their ego. It must be ****ing massive. Somehow, in some bizzare mechanism, they think their singular observations of the world or that of uninformed authoritative figures outweighs years of scientific research. They know more than the majority of scientists all around the bloody world. There are papers not even about climate change that confirm climate change. For scientists in earth sciences it isn't even a debate. They're observing real world effects now. It's just ridiculous really. But you know unfortunately, that's humanity. It's ******* stupid. And this thread is a testament to it.

Nobody truly denies a move toward renewable energy is better for the environment.

Protecting our waterways and forests is equally important.

The issue for most of us is how quickly do we want to shut down our 6 coal mines .

Because we all know Australia Is about as influential to climate change as it is to the FIFA World cup. And that's overstating it.

Sent from my Pixel 3 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Milkshaker]

https://www.inquisitr.com/1234575/nasa-scientist-global-warming-is-nonsense/

NASA Scientist: Global Warming Is Nonsense

Another scientist has pushed back against the doom-and-gloom climate change predictions from the United Nations and other governmental agencies.


Dr. Leslie Woodcock, emeritus professor at the University of Manchester (UK) School of Chemical Engineering and Analytical Science, is a former NASA scientist along with other impressive accomplishments on his distinguished professional resume.

 

[Monniehawk]

Climate change is inevitable. Not global warming or cooling or any other catch phrase spouted by the masses. Just climate change. It is inevitable. Are we causing it? No. Are we contributing to it changing marginally quicker than it ultimately would have? Probably, but not significantly.
The earth has been through a number of ice ages, a number of polar shifts and it will continue to happen. The earth is just wacky. Nothing we do will make any difference to whether climate change happens. It just will.

The old chestnut!
Of course we have had periods of climate change. The sun's phases, earth axis fluctuations, volcanic activity, etc. All have been documented and assessed by science. None of those natural situations are under human control. There is no evidence to suggest that those influences are over-riding the human input. So, human intervention is recognised as the contribution of our current climate change. The use of past events (that have been explained) to denounce current scientific evidence just lacks rigour and common sense. It subscribes to a sense of inevitability that is unreasonable for the foreseeable future.
Human intervention of human-induced climate change is necessary to halt the current situation.

 

[Power Raid]

The old chestnut!
Of course we have had periods of climate change. The sun's phases, earth axis fluctuations, volcanic activity, etc. All have been documented and assessed by science. None of those natural situations are under human control. There is no evidence to suggest that those influences are over-riding the human input. So, human intervention is recognised as the contribution of our current climate change. The use of past events (that have been explained) to denounce current scientific evidence just lacks rigour and common sense. It subscribes to a sense of inevitability that is unreasonable for the foreseeable future.
Human intervention of human-induced climate change is necessary to halt the current situation.

so why do some who take this position, call for solutions that they know don't work and can not point to a single jurisdiction on earth that it has worked?

one of these isn't like the others

View attachment 683183View attachment 683184View attachment 683185View attachment 683186View attachment 683187View attachment 683189



View attachment 683191

when will we start holding governments to account with whacky political stunts that waste money, hurt economies and put life on earth at risk.

surely it is time to act. Delivering CO2 solutions 10-15 times worse than needed is a disgrace to those governments and the people that support those governments.

surely it's time to take action?

 

[Dan]

All the lights and power points in my place are turned on.

 

[Mningasimisonda]

Interesting how many votes there are for "climate change is a scam". You can even educate yourself straight off the government website.

https://www.environment.gov.au/clim.../climate-science/understanding-climate-change

They also educate on what peer review is and why sources of information are rigorously checked and reliable.

https://www.environment.gov.au/clim...g-climate-change/finding-reliable-information

 

[Mningasimisonda]

As a brief summary for the layman:

1. It has been known for a long time that having increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect and traps more heat.

2. Carbon gasses enter and leave the atmosphere as part of a natural cycle (one main cycle is extraction of carbon by plants that then returns to the atmosphere when plants rot, animals digest, animals die, etc).

3. Fossil fuels are not part of this cycle because the carbon was trapped millions of years ago. Therefore, burning fossil fuels like coil, oil, gas, etc. adds new excess carbon gasses to the atmosphere. Deforestation also increases carbons gasses in the atmosphere because less is taken out by trees.

4. The result of having this increase in carbon gases is global warming which is caused by the greenhouse effect. This is a small increase in average air and ocean temperatures, and is unlikely to be noticed in daily life.

5. The increase in average air and ocean temperatures changes and shifts wind patterns and ocean currents. These changes are further exacerbated by other factors like melting of polar ice.

6. The result of these changes is changing and shifting of climates, i.e. climate change. Climates also become less stable, as they have settled into steady patterns over thousands of years and now those patterns have been altered.

7. Most plants and animals on Earth are evolved to exist in the specific climates they inhabit. Therefore, shifting and changing of climates can lead to the dying of forests and animal extinctions. Similar effects can occur in the ocean as previously cold water areas become warmer or vice versa, or areas with specific properties change and shift. Put simply changing of habitats can make them no longer suitable for the things that inhabit them and those things die. This reduces resources that we rely on to live and also adds even more carbon gasses to the atmosphere that wouldn't have been there in the normal cycle. So the problem worsens and more extreme effects occur.

The eventual result can be extreme weather events and limited remaining resources making the planet far less inhabitable than it is now.

 

[Bigjobss]

All the lights and power points in my place are turned on.

I'm burning old growth Huon pine and live penguins in my open fire place to keep warm.

 

[Craven Morehead]

In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming

A series of just-released NASA studies prove that geological, and not atmospheric, forces are responsible for melting of Earth's polar ice caps.

climatechangedispatch.com

 

[Chief]

In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming

A series of just-released NASA studies prove that geological, and not atmospheric, forces are responsible for melting of Earth's polar ice caps.

climatechangedispatch.com

“The conclusions of this NASA study were immediately challenged by numerous climate activist groups and biased media outlets”

Soon as I read a line like this I switch off.

 

[Craven Morehead]

“The conclusions of this NASA study were immediately challenged by numerous climate activist groups and biased media outlets”

Soon as I read a line like this I switch off.

However, if you read a bit further it states that these challenges were proven incorrect. Whether these were debunked by peer reviewed research is another matter which I'm not qualified to comment on.
What I'm not sold on is the whole "the science is settled on climate change" rhetoric, when science in of itself is never settled as this article points out.

 

[Wind Guard]

Any action Australia might take unilaterally is politically, diplomatically, scientifically, environmentally and economically insignificant WRT to the global problem.

The only argument for Australia acting rather than waiting and working towards global consensus is a moral one based on our status as high per capita emitters - which frankly is not a very good argument at all.

Australia has the highest Carbon emissions footprint on a per capita basis. It is also ranked in the top 15 countries on a Net basis. Australia is also a carbon exporter - mainly through its coal exports as well as gas and oil.

It is not just a moral matter for Australia - a country that is blessed with renewable energy resources such as Solar, Wind, geothermal and wave etc.

Australia's mining and energy sectors are 86% foreign owned with US corporations controlling about 60%. Sectors that barely pay any tax and receive about 12 billion dollars each year in tax payer funded subsidies and grants. The mining sector in Australia employs about 3% of the total Australian workforce, which is less than the total number of workers in the Queensland tourism industry. Australia has a huge responsibility and is a big part of the AGW and climate change problem.

 

[M Malice]

In what amounts to dissension from National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) climate change policy, a series of just-released studies by working-level scientists prove that geological and not atmospheric forces are responsible for melting of Earth’s polar ice sheets.

Multiple NASA Studies Confirm Bedrock Heat Flow Behind Melting Polar Ice, Not Global Warming

A series of just-released NASA studies prove that geological, and not atmospheric, forces are responsible for melting of Earth's polar ice caps.

climatechangedispatch.com

Oh well, Adani rules.

 

[Chief]

However, if you read a bit further it states that these challenges were proven incorrect.

Were they? What I'll do is continue to believe the existing consensus until something better comes along. This "something better" does not include random internet blogs.

 

[Chief]

Waterboy Angus now claiming Victoria doesn't need emissions targets because they are too small to make a difference.

Vic’s ‘crazy’ emissions targets are ‘off the reservation’

Angus Taylor is cautioning states from coming up with their own energy policy out of fear it will create investment uncertainty, undermine electricity reliability and push up power prices. The Energy Minister has told Sky News that Victoria’s talk of a 60 per cent emission reduction target...

www.skynews.com.au

You know that China doesn't need to switch off any individual coal fired power plants because what difference would one power plant make?

 

[Craven Morehead]

Were they? What I'll do is continue to believe the existing consensus until something better comes along. This "something better" does not include random internet blogs.

Which, of course, is your right.
What I'll do is follow with interest further research and developments as they occur and question if they are logical and proven.
btw, that random internet blog was quoting NASA research. Hardly a disreputable source.
Unless you are a flat-earther or a moon landing denier.

 

[mouncey2franklin]

1. It has been known for a long time that having increased carbon gasses in the atmosphere causes a greenhouse effect and traps more heat.

I thought this was a theory, i.e. the 'greenhouse theory'.

Are you claiming that it has been proven?

 

[mouncey2franklin]

I don't know why so many people dispute the claims of NASA.

Why would we not have faith in a multi-billion dollar military organisation of the United States?

If we can't trust the US military then who exactly can we trust?

 

[Craven Morehead]

I don't know why so many people dispute the claims of NASA.

Why would we not have faith in a multi-billion dollar military organisation of the United States?

If we can't trust the US military then who exactly can we trust?

I doubt that the research I quoted has any nefarious, military intent.