Climate Change Arguing

[FireKrakouer]

Climate change is real. Australia getting all the way to zero emissions will have no impact on where the planet goes on climate change.

None of the policies want to get to zero emissions and zero emissions doesn't change the outcome. We need technological solution. Fusion power, carbon capture to bring it down again.

Everything else is feel good stuff for people who would rather think they are part of the solution when they aren't.

Fusion is the key because the growing middle class in India and China deserve to live like we do and that can power it without it costing the planet.

I get shouted down immediately when I mention nuclear, even from the "pro-science" types.

It's quite a frustrating issue. One side have their heads in the sand over the problem, the other side have their heads in the sand over the solution.

 

[Socrates2]

I get shouted down immediately when I mention nuclear, even from the "pro-science" types.

It's quite a frustrating issue. One side have their heads in the sand over the problem, the other side have their heads in the sand over the solution.

The reason being it's not economicly viable due to start up costs ,also the plants would be on the coast near holiday homes, plus the danger of a Fukishima, plus the toxic waste it produces.It's a ridiculous idea in every aspect especially considering the amount of free sun and wind in this country
.

 

[Fat Yak]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American.
https://www.conservatives.org.au/un_ipcc_scientist_blows_wh…

 

[Taylor]

Are there solar panels that will offset the CO2 of their production within their operating lifetimes yet?

We discount all the costs of a solar, wind and battery storage solution? We also discount the cost of cleanup from those once they finish their life cycle? Or the risks around rupturing lithium ion batteries?

 

[Socrates2]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American.
https://www.conservatives.org.au/un_ipcc_scientist_blows_wh…

Fake news.

 

[Socrates2]

Are there solar panels that will offset the CO2 of their production within their operating lifetimes yet?

We discount all the costs of a solar, wind and battery storage solution? We also discount the cost of cleanup from those once they finish their life cycle? Or the risks around rupturing lithium ion batteries?

Well I think your not factoring in the environmental costs as well. Renewables are clearly cheaper even without factoring environmental costs.I really don't understand why there is a group on bigfooty who go out of their way to discredit renewable energy when we know it is the only hope for the planet.
.

 

[Socrates2]

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (UN IPCC) is misleading humanity about climate change and sea levels, a leading expert on sea levels who served on the UN IPCC told The New American.
https://www.conservatives.org.au/un_ipcc_scientist_blows_wh…

You're quoting from a far right 'news source'. The New American (TNA) is a far-right print magazine published twice a month by American Opinion Publishing Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of the John Birch Society (JBS), a far-right organization.[2][3][4][5] The magazine was created in 1985 from the merger of two JBS magazines: American Opinion and The Review of the News.
No credibility. At least use legitimate news sources to back your argument or there is no point having a debate.

 

[FireKrakouer]

Are there solar panels that will offset the CO2 of their production within their operating lifetimes yet?

We discount all the costs of a solar, wind and battery storage solution? We also discount the cost of cleanup from those once they finish their life cycle? Or the risks around rupturing lithium ion batteries?

Yes. Old solar panel technology took 7 years to offset their own carbon costs. Modern panels take around 18 months, a similar time frame to that of wind mills. Humanity is not so stupid that it would pay for renewables that actually take the situation backwards.

Batteries are a different argument, with most chemistries being horrific for the environment.

 

[Socrates2]

Yes. Old solar panel technology took 7 years to offset their own carbon costs. Modern panels take around 18 months, a similar time frame to that of wind mills. Humanity is not so stupid that it would pay for renewables that actually take the situation backwards.

Batteries are a different argument, with most chemistries being horrific for the environment.

So do you prefer coal to solar in this Great Extinction Event? Are you trying to tell us that renewable energy uses a significant amount of CO2 that would make coal a cleaner alternative ?

 

[Taylor]

So do you prefer coal to solar in this Great Extinction Event? Are you trying to tell us that renewable energy uses a significant amount of CO2 that would make coal a cleaner alternative ?

It's more that in order for us to have reliable power we need to have significant battery solutions, those battery solutions currently come with a very ugly end stage - usually dumped in third world nations causing isolated very toxic pollution.

Regulation of the disposal/recycling of spent equipment will need to be factored into the calculations.

It's very similar to nuclear power, except there is more waste with batteries. The total amount of nuclear waste for a person in the western world of power generation their whole lives is the size of a can of coke. Which is a lot, no debate on that, seven billion cans of coke is a lot.

How many times have you had to change your car battery just in it's life time? That's an extreme example.

Creating local landfill issues in third world nations or a much smaller scale concrete bunker in the outback.

 

[Socrates2]

It's more that in order for us to have reliable power we need to have significant battery solutions, those battery solutions currently come with a very ugly end stage - usually dumped in third world nations causing isolated very toxic pollution.

Regulation of the disposal/recycling of spent equipment will need to be factored into the calculations.

It's very similar to nuclear power, except there is more waste with batteries. The total amount of nuclear waste for a person in the western world of power generation their whole lives is the size of a can of coke. Which is a lot, no debate on that, seven billion cans of coke is a lot.

How many times have you had to change your car battery just in it's life time? That's an extreme example.

Creating local landfill issues in third world nations or a much smaller scale concrete bunker in the outback.

I think you're overstating the problems with end stage lithium battery pollution.It is quite minimal compared to other sources I think you would agree. There is new research into re-using expired lithium.
http://energystoragereport.info/lit...-the-dead-end-you-think/#sthash.TiEvOhqO.dpbs
The main problem I can see is that lithium is a finite resource and an alternate will have to be found.

 

[Socrates2]

Angus Taylor,the new energy minister an international disgrace.His Stalinist truth hiding is a disgracein a democratic country.That's what you voted for Liberal party supporters.
"Labor and the Greens have demanded the government immediately release national greenhouse emissions data, and have warned the new emissions reduction minister could be in contempt of parliament for missing the deadline to publish the figures.

Angus Taylor’s first act in his new role was to miss a Senate-set deadline on Friday for the publication of Australia’s emissions data for the December 2018 quarter.

The Senate passed an order last year that requires the minister to publish the quarterly greenhouse gas inventory no later than five months after the end of each quarter."

 

[Taylor]

Angus Taylor,the new energy minister an international disgrace.His Stalinist truth hiding is a disgracein a democratic country.That's what you voted for Liberal party supporters.
"Labor and the Greens have demanded the government immediately release national greenhouse emissions data, and have warned the new emissions reduction minister could be in contempt of parliament for missing the deadline to publish the figures.

Angus Taylor’s first act in his new role was to miss a Senate-set deadline on Friday for the publication of Australia’s emissions data for the December 2018 quarter.

The Senate passed an order last year that requires the minister to publish the quarterly greenhouse gas inventory no later than five months after the end of each quarter."

To me, you'd be making the case that the previous minister thought that they weren't going to have the job so arranging the work so that the next person can release the report after two weeks would be a waste of their time.

But I also have a deeper understanding of how government departments work, I've mentioned the half dozen people working for months on intra-Parliament christmas card designs before.

 

[armpit]

What??? What the hell does a hills hoist have to do with anything? If you have a moral code, you take action on climate change, if you don't have a moral code just make light of the situation and spread anti-science propaganda like you are doing.

The Hills Hoist wasn't making light of anything. It was an example of all the good things australia offers, invention and the like.

 

[armpit]

What??? What the hell does a hills hoist have to do with anything? If you have a moral code, you take action on climate change, if you don't have a moral code just make light of the situation and spread anti-science propaganda like you are doing.

Also where's the pseudo science?
When someone like you talks about " having a moral code" it makes me scoff!

 

[armpit]

The direction and purpose of my questions should be obvious. The temperature on earth is directly related to the existence and composition of the atmosphere (is this false?). Molecular nitrogen and oxygen are the main components of our atmosphere, however these are relatively invisible to infrared radiation (is this false?). Water vapour, carbon dioxide and methane are each larger, more complex gaseous compounds, more 'excitable' by infrared (this is basic molecular physics), therefore contribute more to the planet's atmosphere being optimum for life than the majority components of the atmosphere (is this false?). Water vapour and methane have shorter lifespans in the atmosphere, carbon dioxide can remain stable in it over millennia (is this false?). The geological record, going back to the Paleoproterozoic, shows earth's surface temperature depending on the composition of the atmosphere, with variations in the carbon cycle being prime determinants (is this false?).

To refute any of this, you have to refute first principles, and a series of observations from multiple disciplines. The founding basis of all science is first principles, observation and parsimony. Not peer review, not how many papers you publish, not models. Axioms, epistemology and rationalism. Climate deniers require the axioms and observations to be false, and obscurantism. Essentially an entire edifice of science, not 'climate science', but observations from physics, chemistry and geology that often go back 150 years must be wrong.

Does the ozone layer matter? Does the Van Allen belt matter? If for instance human activity was interfering with the earth's dynamo, would you be a gamma ray annihilation denier? Why do you think this planet is at all habitable? Magic?

Yeah ok.

Heck. We've had ourselves some ice ages too.

Don't forget one of the tools of science is observation. I reckon there isn't a human being alive that hasn't first hand observed a decrease in other species in there eco system. I reckon they've likely seen an increase in human species and more man made shit around them. There is no one else to blame.

 

[armpit]

I conclude from this our problem is over population. Don't you? or would you rather engage in clever conversations about, solving the whole problem is by buying carbon credits, where does the money go? in an attempt to reduce the dangerous gases, and yet keep increasing the need for everything that produces them.

I just don't get it.

 

[armpit]

I expect that the population will level out as quality of life increases.

Yes well that is the way of chaotic maths, when the numbers become unsustainable you need the chaotic event to regain the balance.
Humans need to keep their numbers in balance with their environment. Very few other species allow their populations to grow beyond a number that is unsustainable, hey. Rats is one I can think of.

 

[armpit]

Do the maths. If every couple consciously agreed to 2 give or take children, because they understood the need to, as a conscious being i.e.. then think by how many, the human population has culled itself and reduced the need of yet more resources, without starvation, war and various other ways of killing one another, abortion, disease of the worst kind and so on. So on until the next generation until sustainable populations are made good. It is a known. We have 2 kids, give or take for the future of humanity. The blessings are.

 

[Taylor]

There is a statistical trend that as women are more educated they have less children.

Life gets expensive in developed nations so they can't afford more children.

 

[armpit]

There is a statistical trend that as women are more educated they have less children.

Life gets expensive in developed nations so they can't afford more children.

Maybe it's purely economical. Sweet irony that those whose who can most afford have few and those that least afford it don't.

I reckon most woman would gladly accept help in being able to control how many children they have. There are women having children in pitiful conditions. A proper man would agree to it as well. For the sake of their future.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

There is a statistical trend that as women are more educated they have less children.

Life gets expensive in developed nations so they can't afford more children.

Do you have evidence for the second half of that? I can think of many other reasons that make more sense. More education means career, ergo, less time for kids. Education correlates with reduced infant mortality so that leads to a lower birth rate etc

 

[AM]

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

"cLImatE CHaNGe Is uN FaKe nEws".

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

 

[Power Raid]

"cLImatE CHaNGe Is uN FaKe nEws".

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

Scientists shocked by Arctic permafrost thawing 70 years sooner than predicted

Weakened permafrost in Canadian Arctic a further sign that global climate crisis accelerating faster than scientists had feared

www.theguardian.com

Germany will have spent $1.5 trillion and 45 years waiting for renewables to work........only to reduce CO2 by 10% post closing their reactors. Then by introducing the EV, due to the failure of renewables, they will increase CO2 double CO2 emissions from vehicles.

With events like this, do we continue down this failed path or simply follow New Zealand, Ontario, France, Norway, Sweden, Tasmania etc and roll out hydro and nuclear? Most of these jurisdictions delivered a solution that worked prior to the 80s.....or do we wait 100 years for effective action, waste trillions and put our future generations, polar bears and baby seals at risk?

It's time to act!