Climate Change Arguing

[Ghost Patrol]

But if they represent the other side of the coin, they're perfectly fine right?

Please don’t talk about coins until you start making sense.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

View attachment 1874047
Now the crackpots say breathing could be a problem? I'm guessing Guitars are next? People will believe anything!

Sorry Jack. These are our "World's Leading Scientist's" Crackpots.

 

[JackFlash]

Facebook Boomer Memes should stay on facebook, please don’t import them here.

Actually i got it from a friend who shared it from his Hawkwind site. I knew it would strike a nerve.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Please don’t talk about coins until you start making sense.

Coming from you is a bit rich!

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Actually i got it from a friend who shared it from his Hawkwind site. I knew it would strike a nerve.

You are obsessed with a teenage girl.

I’m embarrassed for you and your friend.

 

[JackFlash]

I’m embarrassed for you.

I am far from embarrassed over this, i'm more embarrassed about the absurdity of human behaviour than anything else. I'll go back to my 50th anniversary 10 disc Space Ritual box set now, i hope i get through it before we all fry next Tuesday!

 

[Gough]

Actually i got it from a friend who shared it from his Hawkwind site. I knew it would strike a nerve.

Somehow David Attenborough evades your scorn, he's not saying anything substantially different to what Thunberg is saying and I'd have thought the crowd that enjoys mocking school girls would love to sink the boot into a pensioner as well.

 

[Cap]

Again, nothing I have said is wrong and it isn't schooling you.

I'm accept your decision to not believe experts in their field.

I'm just always hopeful that people like you come around and its not at the last minute when you are impacted.

 

[Del203211]

Somehow David Attenborough evades your scorn, he's not saying anything substantially different to what Thunberg is saying and I'd have thought the crowd that enjoys mocking school girls would love to sink the boot into a pensioner as well.

One knows what he’s talking about, should be listened to and wants drastic action within the next decade.

The other is an unqualified alarmist who protests (and disrupts communities) for instant change now, without any thought of initial consequences.

 

[schneebly111]

FNQ flood exceeds last record by more than 40%

Cairns cut off with 'worst flood on record' as mayors call for help from Australian Defence Force

Heavy rain is battering Queensland's far north, causing heavy flooding in low-lying areas as rivers burst their banks in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Jasper.

amp.abc.net.au

 

[Cap]

One knows what he’s talking about, should be listened to and wants drastic action within the next decade.

The other is an unqualified alarmist who protests (and disrupts communities) for instant change now, without any thought of initial consequences.

What are the initial consequences you are worried about

You do know that within the next decade means now? Here's the quote, from 2021

2021, Sir David gave his most detailed and explicit warnings to date in Climate Change – The Facts. “If we have not taken dramatic action within the next decade,” he said, “we could face irreversible damage to the natural world and the collapse of our societies.

It means now.

David Attenborough to Greta Thunberg: “I’m Very Grateful to You. We All Are”

The climate activists met for the first time during a Skype call—and the admiration was mutual.

www.vanityfair.com

David seems to be very supportive of her to, so perhaps you need to reconsider your position since you agree he knows what he is talking about and isn't angered by the fact she is a young lady.

 

[Del203211]

What are the initial consequences you are worried about

You do know that within the next decade means now? Here's the quote, from 2021



It means now.

David Attenborough to Greta Thunberg: “I’m Very Grateful to You. We All Are”

The climate activists met for the first time during a Skype call—and the admiration was mutual.

www.vanityfair.com

David seems to be very supportive of her to, so perhaps you need to reconsider your position since you agree he knows what he is talking about and isn't angered by the fact she is a young lady.

Yeah it is now. And the last I checked, just about every country is doing something about it. Some slower than others.

The UK are already facing an energy crisis/with potential future blackouts and they still have protestors wanting more fossil fuel and gas cut. What do they think is going to happen if we go at their speed?

I’m most definitely not against climate change, but it seems as if people like Greta just want things done and cut off right now, without any thought of the initial consequences on people and businesses. It’s not as simple as they make out.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

People more worried about a teenage girl, than they are about billionaire mining magnates and the environmental destruction they cause.

Conservatives are very weird.

 

[Cap]

Yeah it is now. And the last I checked, just about every country is doing something about it. Some slower than others.

So what's your problem then, you agree with Greta,

The UK are already facing an energy crisis/with potential future blackouts and they still have protestors wanting more fossil fuel and gas cut. What do they think is going to happen if we go at their speed?

Like us, they have power issues due to incompetent politicians, not renewables

I’m most definitely not against climate change, but it seems as if people like Greta just want things done and cut off right now, without any thought of the initial consequences on people and businesses. It’s not as simple as they make out.

What are these consequences? We are already suffering high power prices due to old fossil fuel power generators and incompetent politicians, how would it be worse with a faster take up of renewables?

Greta is just another person saying what climate experts and David Attenbough have been saying for a while. I don't really get the hate or attention

 

[Del203211]

So what's your problem then, you agree with Greta,

Like us, they have power issues due to incompetent politicians, not renewables

What are these consequences? We are already suffering high power prices due to old fossil fuel power generators and incompetent politicians, how would it be worse with a faster take up of renewables?

Greta is just another person saying what climate experts and David Attenbough have been saying for a while. I don't really get the hate or attention

They’ve requested action. And countries are doing so. Maybe time for them to shut up, go home and let us hit the targets that we’re going after.

 

[Cap]

They’ve requested action. And countries are doing so. Maybe time for them to shut up, go home and let us hit the targets that we’re going after.

I personally think we need to be pressuring our politicians to do more.

But that's just me

 

[Donakebab]

Actually i got it from a friend who shared it from his Hawkwind site. I knew it would strike a nerve.

The irony given Hawkwind are big ol' lefties.

 

[QuietB]

Yeah it is now. And the last I checked, just about every country is doing something about it. Some slower than others.

The UK are already facing an energy crisis/with potential future blackouts and they still have protestors wanting more fossil fuel and gas cut. What do they think is going to happen if we go at their speed?

I’m most definitely not against climate change, but it seems as if people like Greta just want things done and cut off right now, without any thought of the initial consequences on people and businesses. It’s not as simple as they make out.

Maybe people like Greta want their leaders to talk about a “renewable future” instead of a “gas led recovery”?

Maybe people like Greta want their politicians to concentrate on finding the answer to the energy future rather than promoting gas projects they hold shares in?

Maybe people like Greta want elites and the media all around the world to accept the science and help instead of promoting misinformation and disinformation simply to enrich themselves?

We are moving but it is at a snails pace.

Maybe people are sick to death of that. And also sick to death of people deciding “I’ll risk it” because it rained last week.

Has a climate change denier ever stopped to consider what if they are wrong?

Cause I don’t see a lot of negatives with cleaner air, cleaner water and cleaner land if climate change is proved wrong.

 

[Del203211]

We are moving but it is at a snails pace.

.

What would you do differently to speed up the transition whilst ensuring we are looking after the short term needs / keeping current electricity running?

 

[QuietB]

What would you do differently to speed up the transition whilst ensuring we are looking after the short term needs / keeping current electricity running?

Accelerate investment in renewables and the grid need to run it. It is the cheapest form of energy supply and there is nowhere on earth more suited than Australia.

Australia invented PV,s, should be world leaders in all forms of renewables including storage. But we get nothing out of PV’s and are world leaders at mediocrity and not much else.

We have seen opposition leaders and prime ministers knifed over energy policy, a prime minister voted out over a “carbon tax” lie, and conservatives in Australia do every single thing they possibly can to stifle any progress - the latest thought bubble (delaying tactic) being nuclear.

“The Lucky Country” has never been so apt. - “Australia is a lucky country, led by second rate men who share its luck”.

 

[Cap]

Accelerate investment in renewables and the grid need to run it. It is the cheapest form of energy supply and there is nowhere on earth more suited than Australia.

Australia invented PV,s, should be world leaders in all forms of renewables including storage. But we get nothing out of PV’s and are world leaders at mediocrity and not much else.

We have seen opposition leaders and prime ministers knifed over energy policy, a prime minister voted out over a “carbon tax” lie, and conservatives in Australia do every single thing they possibly can to stifle any progress - the latest thought bubble (delaying tactic) being nuclear.

“The Lucky Country” has never been so apt. - “Australia is a lucky country, led by second rate men who share its luck”.

My favourite part is ignoring all the reports telling them that Nuclear isn't viable.

Don't get my wrong, it's true to form for a group of people who have spent the last 20 years telling us they know better than experts in the field.

 

[barreness]

What would you do differently to speed up the transition whilst ensuring we are looking after the short term needs / keeping current electricity running?

I mean this is really the nub of the issues. Short term needs must be curtailed, personal sacrifice ya know

The future of power has to be low consumption and somewhat intermittent, the future of tech has to be low and limited, the future of the economy/gdp has to be degrowth(a somewhat Orwellian term), the future of meat has to be special occasions, the future population has to be far smaller than current etc etc

Now convince people to vote for that in an democracy and you see a good explanation for the politics over last 50 years.
Humans like all other biological beings will 'choose' to consume and grow until until they are limited by their environment.

We are really just proving we're not as smart as we've boasted and as a bonus answering the fermi paradox

 

[Cap]

I mean this is really the nub of the issues. Short term needs must be curtailed, personal sacrifice ya know

The future of power has to be low consumption and somewhat intermittent, the future of tech has to be low and limited, the future of the economy/gdp has to be degrowth(a somewhat Orwellian term), the future of meat has to be special occasions, the future population has to be far smaller than current etc etc

Now convince people to vote for that in an democracy and you see a good explanation for the politics over last 50 years.
Humans like all other biological beings will 'choose' to consume and grow until until they are limited by their environment.

We are really just proving we're not as smart as we've boasted and as a bonus answering the fermi paradox

What?

 

[Seeds]

I mean this is really the nub of the issues. Short term needs must be curtailed, personal sacrifice ya know

The future of power has to be low consumption and somewhat intermittent, the future of tech has to be low and limited, the future of the economy/gdp has to be degrowth(a somewhat Orwellian term), the future of meat has to be special occasions, the future population has to be far smaller than current etc etc

Now convince people to vote for that in an democracy and you see a good explanation for the politics over last 50 years.
Humans like all other biological beings will 'choose' to consume and grow until until they are limited by their environment.

We are really just proving we're not as smart as we've boasted and as a bonus answering the fermi paradox

your approach would lead to temperatures forever rising. Just at a slower pace then they have been.

the world needs more power not less. Power is only 25 percent of final energy demand. It needs to rise to 70 percent plus and replace petrol, coal and gas to help the world get to zero emissions. Reducing power investment dooms the world. Even if the world population halved, power demand would still need to rise significantly in order for us to achieve zero emissions. Not to mention that more energy services (not less) is required for adaptation purposes (providing air conditioning to help the poor and elderly in developing economies in hot climates combat rising temperatures). Albeit this additional energy service should be provided by clean energy to not be counter-productive.

smaller population alone doesnt get you anywhere near net zero unless that smaller population is 0 people. even if the world enforced a 1 child policy today then it would only halve the worlds population by 2080. and emissions needs to go to zero and before 2060. Not half by 2080.

now getting rid of livestock is going to be critical to achieving net zero emissions as there are no technological options available here to get rid of all emissions. But that doesnt mean we need to stop eating meat. Cell based meat is coming and its emission free. Although admittedly switching away from eating cow and lamb would provide some relief until the cell based meat technology was broadly available at affordable prices which is still some time away yet.

Overall though, the irony of your dramatic civilisation changing policies to combat climate change is they dont even work. it wont stop temperatures rising. And you dont need dramatic civilisation changing policies to stop temperature rises. You just need to adopt clean technology and build the clean technology infrastructure at rapid rates.

why dont you get this? or is climate outcomes not really your main agenda. Is your main agenda really deconsumerism and you are using climate policy as a means to another end? I apologize if this is not the case. The only reason I ask is that Ive met many other people whose main goal was deconsumerism and they were using looming climate disasters as a means to advocate for their own agenda without really caring about what is the best and easiest way to stop and adapt to climate disasters.

 

[CD Xbow]

Our Gina has been weighing in on renewables of late, claiming in the AFR that one-third of Australia’s “prime agricultural land” could be “taken over” by renewable energy projects, especially solar. She based this claim on what she describes as a 'meticulous' report from the Institute of Public Affairs, (stop laughing). This is clearly nonsense. This article looks at her claims.

Gina Rinehart says renewable energy could use one-third of Australia’s prime agricultural land. Is she right?

The figure is based on an Institute of Public Affairs report, but its extrapolations have been described as ‘ridiculous’

www.theguardian.com

.... replacing all Australia’s coal-fired power stations with solar farms would take less than 0.016% of the country’s land area, equivalent to 0.027% of agricultural land....

There are a few take homes from this. Firstly the AFR is no longer the publication it was. The second is how willing rich folks are willing to lie and deceive to keep and grow their wealth, in her case it's an obscene amount. The third thing Gina shows us is you don't have to be smart to be rich, just have a very, very rich daddy.