Climate Change Arguing

[Lebbo73]

Yeah I am, do you have a problem with that champ?

I’ll be the one sledging you all.

 

[Mitchell54]

I believe in climate change but not to the extent that some my age(18) believe. There are reasons to be concerned but i think some are are bit unrealistic in regards to the solutions to this change. Overall I'm a fan of hydro and nuclear as effective strategies to reduce Co2 in the atmosphere. obviously Australia's hydro capacity is very limited however we have land and uranium for nuclear use. Obviously there are environmental impacts of nuclear waste and we must have effective strategies in place to deal with that but basically every source of energy produces waste of some sort. We do have Solar capacity however I do know that we need much more regulation on the domestic solar industry as many solar installations are not doing what they're supposed to do in terms of energy capacity and just adding to waste. Providing an effective way to recycle the waste from solar panels once they've served their lifetime is essential. Obviously coal is going to play a significant role in Australia's future still and we need to ensure the reliability of these alternative sources of energy before we consider moving away from a base reliance on coal.

I do hate the polarization of politics and obviously there is a lot of debate on every side of the climate change issue. people need to discuss and come up with real solutions then just screaming at people to do something or slandering those who don't agree.

 

[pugsville]

This is where you start to lie. A consensus amongst government funded bureaucrats doesn’t become a scientific fact. Never has and never will.

the FACTS and Scientists just do not agree with you. Basic denial of reality. You entitled to your opinion but not your own facts. Government funded bureaucrats is just attempt to smear.

The Vast majoirty of Scientists and scientific organizations, private funded or government funded agree with the consesus,

Yeah cigarettes don;t cause cancer. It;s that level of utterly denying the facts in front of you,

crackpots an people funded by the massive fossil fuel industry account for most of the those who don't.

Scientific Consensus - NASA Science

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities

climate.nasa.gov

https://skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=5&t=822&&a=17

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

'No doubt left' about scientific consensus on global warming, say experts

Extensive historical data shows recent extreme warming is unprecedented in past 2,000 years

www.theguardian.com

Millions of times later, 97 percent climate consensus still faces denial

Just like the argument about whether the Earth is round or flat, the science of climate change is settled, with 97 percent of researchers agreeing that our climate crisis is largely manmade. So why do so many members of the American public think the expert consensus is much lower? Here's a look...

thebulletin.org

Fact Checking The Claim Of 97% Consensus On Anthropogenic Climate Change

Belief in the scientific community in human-caused climate change is clearly below 97%, a close review of the evidence shows, but the claim continues to be widely publicized and defended. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about global warming to change their views?

www.forbes.com

The science of climate change | Australian Academy of Science

Information on climate change This publication from the Australian Academy of Science aims to address confusion created by contradictory information in the public domain. It sets out to explain the current situation* in climate science, including where there is consensus in the scientific...

www.science.org.au

 

[NSWCROW]

Huge turnout across the country.


That noise you can hear is little chris kenny throwing a tanty

 

[happy_eagle]

I love the passion showed by all those in attendance today, but what happens when everyone goes home?. Is it job done because we all protested and felt good about ourselves being heard? What is the next step ?

Protests like this are exercises in self serving unless they deliver actual legislation and actual change.

 

[ablett09]

Dummy, you read to many Murdoch papers or perhaps you come from Queensland. Your 3 scientific facts are all true, but utterly and totally irrelevant to the issue, but its a nice try at deflection, with a capital D.

I'll give you 3 facts that are more relevant than yours.

1. 150 years ago the global sea level was rising at 1.5 mm per year. Now it is 3.2 mm per year. The acceleration is mostly over the last 20 years, mirroring trends in C02. That's a foot each decade and metre every 30 years assuming it doesn't speed up. They only way the sea level rises is with warming. A metre rise in sea level will be disastrous for many costal areas, and the 2-3 metres by the end of the century will inundate many more cites.

2. No studies have shown as rapid change in C02 in the Earths past, the rate of change is unprecedented and never happened before. - suggests it's us humans doing it.

3. There is very, very strong correlation between C02 rise, air temperature and sea levels. Also many laboratory and space experiments suggest CO2 is the major, but not only cause. It's CO2! (mostly)

Note- 97% of climate scientists did say that anthropomorphic global warming was the most likely cause for our current state. It's a good study and a fair representation of reality. Stop casting doubts about it when there are none, my guess is you haven't read it. Do you remember the denier' response? A right wing institute gathered thousands of 'scientists' who signed a petition to say that climate change was not due to human activity. Only one or two were climate scientists, most of the rest were geologists (and families), doctors and dentists (and their families, too), some had no scientific back ground at all and many were stone cold dead. Classic disinformation.

There are lots of things you can see around you show evidence of it. Firstly the thermometer, most of the hottest on record have been in the last 10. The graph of surface temperatures continues to rise. When I grew up in the 1960's there were a couple of dozen frosts a year, now I get about 1 every 3 or 4 years. Bushfires seem to be more prevalent and occurring in places that they never used to. All over the world, patterns of plant growth and animal behaviour is changing to accommodate our warming world eg Irukanji have been drifting further south down the east coast and the stinger season up north starts earlier and ends later. Shark swimming patterns have changed, plants that used to manage in Melbourne no longer do, wine growers are buying land in cooler Tasmania etc.

Will give a more detailed response later when i am on a PC but I suggests you research Judith curry a climate scientist report on sea levels. She makes the point that there is no evidence for man made climate change influencing sea levels. Sea levels have been higher than they currently are.

Do a Google search judith curry sea levels.

 

[Lebbo73]

Huge turnout across the country.


That noise you can hear is little chris kenny throwing a tanty

0.8% of the Oz population. At least 10 times this figure in Qld alone told the 0.8% to get ****ed with your bs at the last federal election.

 

[NSWCROW]

0.8% of the Oz population. At least 10 times this figure in Qld alone told the 0.8% to get f’ed with your bs at the last federal election.

 

[Maggie5]

0.8% of the Oz population. At least 10 times this figure in Qld alone told the 0.8% to get f’ed with your bs at the last federal election.

I thought you were leaving BF. Isn't that what you posted in the Test Cricket thread?

 

[Power Raid]

Dunno what your point is, sounds like you are desperate to do some point scoring onna serious issue. Scientific consensus is what you should go on, not some random outlier who is on the take. Like I say the world has accepted the consensus science, accept for Trump voters Malcom Roberts, Pauline Hanson, Andrew Bolt, Neil Mitchell, Peter Dutton and other assorted Aholes.Are you telling me the world is wrong and Pauline Hsnson is right? You need to get with the program and get behind renewables- if you care anything about your children or nephews and neices. Have a look at the CSIRO graphs for me can you?

Perhaps those supporting power generation sources that fail to reduce pollution are not only on the wrong side of history but don’t care for their children, nieces and nephews.

Can you identify an area renewables have worked without relying on hydro or nuclear?

 

[Father Jack]

Will give a more detailed response later when i am on a PC but I suggests you research Judith curry a climate scientist report on sea levels. She makes the point that there is no evidence for man made climate change influencing sea levels. Sea levels have been higher than they currently are.

Do a Google search judith curry sea levels.

Is she the one that doesn't bother with peer review because it's too hard?

 

[ablett09]

No, she dosent bother with exaggerated predictions based on a range of highly improbable assumptions.

 

[Lebbo73]

View attachment 749446

Albert Einstein was considered mad as well. I’m glad he didn’t listen to the mob.

 

[JackOutback]

Albert Einstein was considered mad as well. I’m glad he didn’t listen to the mob.

Invoking one of the worlds most famous scientists to justify ignoring science is gold medal worthy mental gymnastics.

 

[medusala]

the FACTS and Scientists just do not agree with you. Basic denial of reality.

Which facts are those? If Australia reduces its carbon emissions to zero what impact would that have on global temperatures?

What does the SCIENCE say about that?

Invoking one of the worlds most famous scientists to justify ignoring science is gold medal worthy mental gymnastics.

What science is being ignored? The computer projections are simply models. Is it entirely rational to argue that global warming is real but there is no need to take drastic action.

 

[Kram]

I thought you were leaving BF. Isn't that what you posted in the Test Cricket thread?

 

[sdfc]

Which facts are those? If Australia reduces its carbon emissions to zero what impact would that have on global temperatures?

What does the SCIENCE say about that?




What science is being ignored? The computer projections are simply models. Is it entirely rational to argue that global warming is real but there is no need to take drastic action.

Why in your opinion is there no need to take drastic action?

 

[medusala]

Why in your opinion is there no need to take drastic action?

See the arguments of people like Richard Tol re cost of action vs cost of limited action.

This applies even more so for Australia given we account for circa 2% of global emissions. Thus cost of doing nothing for Australia is very small given anything we do is basically irrelevant. Ie if Australia cut carbon emissions to zero it would have virtually no effect on global temperatures.

So for Australia to unilaterally take action when the USA, China etc arent makes no sense.

 

[sdfc]

See the arguments of people like Richard Tol re cost of action vs cost of limited action.

This applies even more so for Australia given we account for circa 2% of global emissions. Thus cost of doing nothing for Australia is very small given anything we do is basically irrelevant. Ie if Australia cut carbon emissions to zero it would have virtually no effect on global temperatures.

So for Australia to unilaterally take action when the USA, China etc arent makes no sense.

I agree about Australia but that wasn't my question.

 

[medusala]

I agree about Australia but that wasn't my question.

Google stuff by Richard Tol on the economics of climate change if you are interested.

 

[JackOutback]

See the arguments of people like Richard Tol re cost of action vs cost of limited action.

This applies even more so for Australia given we account for circa 2% of global emissions. Thus cost of doing nothing for Australia is very small given anything we do is basically irrelevant. Ie if Australia cut carbon emissions to zero it would have virtually no effect on global temperatures.

So for Australia to unilaterally take action when the USA, China etc arent makes no sense.

The coward’s approach; if everyone else is looting, may as well help yourself to a free TV.

 

[sdfc]

Google stuff by Richard Tol on the economics of climate change if you are interested.

Just saying Richard Tol isn't an answer. Has Tol overturned the science of how the planet heats?

 

[DIG]

We should, of all countries be replacing/supplementing coal with nuclear power but it has such a ****ing stigma that it’s politically impossible.

I grew up in the 80s and Chernobyl scared the shit out of everyone, it was a game changer. But there’s currently 450 nuclear plants around the world, surely we can back ourselves that we won’t **** it up.

We’re happy enough to rely on pumping radiation through our bodies to treat cancer but mention a nuclear reactor and everyone still poos their pants.

 

[happy_eagle]

We should, of all countries be replacing/supplementing coal with nuclear power but it has such a ******* stigma that it’s politically impossible.

I grew up in the 80s and Chernobyl scared the s**t out of everyone, it was a game changer. But there’s currently 450 nuclear plants around the world, surely we can back ourselves that we won’t fu** it up.

We’re happy enough to rely on pumping radiation through our bodies to treat cancer but mention a nuclear reactor and everyone still poos their pants.

I worry more about the types of people we let work in nuclear power plants

 

[medusala]

Just saying Richard Tol isn't an answer. Has Tol overturned the science of how the planet heats?

He isnt arguing re science. He is talking about economics. He is hardly a climate change "denier".