Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Lethality]

With the costs of energy sky rocketing in Australia and having a devastating influence on many peoples lives more people are starting to have a closer look at climate change rather than just listening claims made by those who do believe in climate change.

I get the feeling that more and more people are constantly forming the belief that climate change and that is man made global warming is just not a reality.

Take a look at this survey in 2015 were 54% of respondents do not believe in man made climate change.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/11/54...80-dont-donate-to-environment-or-vote-for-it/

As for the idea that all scientists/experts believe in man made global warming that is just not true, just got to this Wikipedia page to see a list of experts who are climate change sceptics. I can also guarantee that many more experts will be sceptical but are too frightened to say anything publicly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...th_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming

The fact is we had an Ice age thousands of years ago, we also had a mini ice age during the 14th century so we know that the world goes through climate cycles. The truth is too that the warmer the weather the more food that can be produced. Good things happen when the earth warms up .

It doesn't matter, cleaner energy will benefit us locally, without relying on any foreign countries to also carry their weight, to the extent that it is totally worth behaving as though man-made climate change exists.

It's obscene that we have coal power plants which for years have caused heart, respiratory, cancer, low birth weights, and also impacted on local wildlife health, and its been allowed to continue, particularly or exclusively in poorer regions of the country where it wouldn't be tolerated in more affluent areas.

Clean energy is the future, even Trump with all his political interfering is failing to hold back the tide.

 

[Bradesmaen]

Climate change is more like a religion than a science.

If you're an idiot who doesn't understand science because they never went to school, sure.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

If you're an idiot who doesn't understand science because they never went to school, sure.

Tell me sir how did we come out of an ice age without some global warming not caused by humans ?

 

[Long Live HFC]

christ you're a simpleton.

 

[The Passenger]

I'm assuming that's the ice age we believe took 6000 years to increase global temperatures by 2.5 degrees. Another 1000 years to increase by 1.5 degrees. The same 1.5 degrees it's taken the last 80 years to increase? Roughly the same 80 years we've seen a huge increase in human activity.

The earths climate is always changing. Correct. Probably the first thing they teach in Climate Science.

Anyway, conservatives always bang on about business and the need to keep the $ churning over. Fossil fuels are a bygone era. They'll be like the horse and cart by the end of this century. There's an absolute fortune to be made in renewable energy. Who wouldn't want to get involved in that.

And even if we are wrong about global warming, the planet and people will be better off with renewable energy. There are many cities worldwide were pollution is notable and does curtail the experience e.g. Central London, Zagreb, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpar. Central European cities have managed it better e.g Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels. Australian cities have the advantage of space.

 

[owen87]

I'm assuming that's the ice age we believe took 6000 years to increase global temperatures by 2.5 degrees. Another 1000 years to increase by 1.5 degrees. The same 1.5 degrees it's taken the last 80 years to increase? Roughly the same 80 years we've seen a huge increase in human activity.

The earths climate is always changing. Correct. Probably the first thing they teach in Climate Science.

Anyway, conservatives always bang on about business and the need to keep the $ churning over. Fossil fuels are a bygone era. They'll be like the horse and cart by the end of this century. There's an absolute fortune to be made in renewable energy. Who wouldn't want to get involved in that.

And even if we are wrong about global warming, the planet and people will be better off with renewable energy. There are many cities worldwide were pollution is notable and does curtail the experience e.g. Central London, Zagreb, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpar. Central European cities have managed it better e.g Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels. Australian cities have the advantage of space.

Personally I’d like to have seen Australia push to be a leader in development and production of renewables; most of our manufacturing has gone so we need to be looking to the future for where we want jobs to come from.

We have some of the best conditions on earth for renewable energy generation after all, as it becomes more advanced it becomes cheaper, which benefits us as individuals.

Imagine if we had more efficient solar panels on the roof of every house in this country, along with suitable compact and effective storage solutions for any excess we convert during the day....

 

[geelong_crazy26]

I'm assuming that's the ice age we believe took 6000 years to increase global temperatures by 2.5 degrees. Another 1000 years to increase by 1.5 degrees. The same 1.5 degrees it's taken the last 80 years to increase? Roughly the same 80 years we've seen a huge increase in human activity.

The earths climate is always changing. Correct. Probably the first thing they teach in Climate Science.

Anyway, conservatives always bang on about business and the need to keep the $ churning over. Fossil fuels are a bygone era. They'll be like the horse and cart by the end of this century. There's an absolute fortune to be made in renewable energy. Who wouldn't want to get involved in that.

And even if we are wrong about global warming, the planet and people will be better off with renewable energy. There are many cities worldwide were pollution is notable and does curtail the experience e.g. Central London, Zagreb, Bangalore, Kuala Lumpar. Central European cities have managed it better e.g Berlin, Amsterdam, Brussels. Australian cities have the advantage of space.

Personally I’d like to have seen Australia push to be a leader in development and production of renewables; most of our manufacturing has gone so we need to be looking to the future for where we want jobs to come from.

We have some of the best conditions on earth for renewable energy generation after all, as it becomes more advanced it becomes cheaper, which benefits us as individuals.

Imagine if we had more efficient solar panels on the roof of every house in this country, along with suitable compact and effective storage solutions for any excess we convert during the day....

Nothing is wrong with renewables but the reality is that they are currently not as cheap and reliable as other forms of energy.We need the cheapest for energy possible in this country .

Andrew Bolt just made the point if your an investor why would you bother investing money in Australia when taxes are high, wages are high and energy costs are now high ? We are fast becoming a country people don't want to invest in which will mean we turn into a second rate nation.

 

[owen87]

Nothing is wrong with renewables but the reality is that they are currently not as cheap and reliable as other forms of energy.We need the cheapest for energy possible in this country .

Andrew Bolt just made the point if your an investor why would you bother investing money in Australia when taxes are high, wages are high and energy costs are now high ? We are fast becoming a country people don't want to invest in which will mean we turn into a second rate nation.

I agree with Bolt there; why would someone invest in Australia at the moment?

I think as a country we need to be looking to the future and investing in skills and industry that will create employment and investment for the next generation (and the current generation of young people).

Fossil fuels are - currently - the cheapest and most effective way to deliver sustainable electricity to the population.


I’d like to see the day when we no longer have to rely on it, but a drastic shift that causes instability and insecurity for business and investment is not a good solution.

 

[Lethality]

Nothing is wrong with renewables but the reality is that they are currently not as cheap and reliable as other forms of energy.We need the cheapest for energy possible in this country .

Andrew Bolt just made the point if your an investor why would you bother investing money in Australia when taxes are high, wages are high and energy costs are now high ? We are fast becoming a country people don't want to invest in which will mean we turn into a second rate nation.

Renewable energy is much cheaper, that's why so many businesses are using solar now.

 

[JoondalupJ]

You don't believe in science, so why should I bother when you will ignore it anyway.

Its not about science , its about theorising , and different opinions, and about sacking scientists from certain universities when they find differently , but nothing is properly checked? That's the worry about proof of right or wrong.

 

[Frank Bunn]

Renewable energy is much cheaper, that's why so many businesses are using solar now.

It's not cheaper when you factor in tax-payer funded subsidies.

And people who have solar tend to use more grid supplied electricity because their feed in tariffs reduce their bills.

Solar-powered homes in south-east Queensland, which boasts the world’s highest concentration of rooftop panels, have begun consuming on average more electricity from the grid than those without solar, the network operator has found.

Solar-powered households which in previous years had cut their grid consumption “don’t worry so much about their bill now [and] are actually using more electricity off the network on average than people who haven’t got solar [who] are still worried about their electricity”.​

https://www.theguardian.com/environ...-electricity-than-non-solar-says-energex-boss

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm assuming that's the ice age we believe took 6000 years to increase global temperatures by 2.5 degrees. Another 1000 years to increase by 1.5 degrees. The same 1.5 degrees it's taken the last 80 years to increase? Roughly the same 80 years we've seen a huge increase in human activity.

The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion. There is no evidence that increased CO2 caused the warming between 1975-1998. It is similar in length and rate of increase to other warming periods that the IPCC does not attribute to rising CO2.

Anyway, conservatives always bang on about business and the need to keep the $ churning over. Fossil fuels are a bygone era. They'll be like the horse and cart by the end of this century.

The US EIA Annual Energy Outlook 2018 estimates that by 2050 the main energy source for the US will be natural gas and fossil fuels. Renewables grow to 14%, but coal, nuclear and hydro stay about the same. The world’s largest economy will still be nearly 80% fossil fuelled in 2050.

https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/

 

[Lethality]

It's not cheaper when you factor in tax-payer funded subsidies.

And people who have solar tend to use more grid supplied electricity because their feed in tariffs reduce their bills.

It still makes it cheaper for them, whether its by feed in tariffs or reduced bills.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It still makes it cheaper for them, whether its by feed in tariffs or reduced bills.

But not cheaper overall.

 

[HairyO]

Renewable energy is much cheaper, that's why so many businesses are using solar now.

That is just rubbish.

Massive subsidies get paid by people you know. They arent just printing the money One Nation style.

 

[Lethality]

But not cheaper overall.

It would be cheaper for the businesses involved, even if assuming that they are electing to use more power with a solar system, and that the uptick by solar users isn't just a trend towards heavier users adopting solar.

That is just rubbish.

Massive subsidies get paid by people you know. They arent just printing the money One Nation style.

Solar subsidies are at about 1.5 billion a year, which sounds about right to encourage investment in solar and other renewables, creating jobs, taking peak demand off grid electricity, and so on.

 

[Long Live HFC]

The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion.

actually this is what they stated:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

i don't think an additional 12 years is particularly meaningful by itself of course, unless you're saying there's been no warming since 1998. that would tell us a great deal.

 

[Frank Bunn]

actually this is what they stated:

It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together.

Huh? Are you making quotes up?

 

[Long Live HFC]

Huh? Are you making quotes up?

no, i pasted it directly from the IPCC report. but, i am just as happy to accept your version which is apparently 3 years newer. so i'll re-state my post if i may.

i don't think an additional 15 years is particularly meaningful by itself of course, unless you're saying there's been no warming since 1998. that would tell us a great deal.

 

[Lebbo73]

no, i pasted it directly from the IPCC report. but, i am just as happy to accept your version which is apparently 3 years newer. so i'll re-state my post if i may.

i don't think an additional 15 years is particularly meaningful by itself of course, unless you're saying there's been no warming since 1998. that would tell us a great deal.

I see you enjoy copping a belting around these parts.
Temps have risen 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. This is well within the norms of the last 5000 years. Not to mention that weather observatory stations are now positioned in urban areas that are known to be hotter thanks to all the cement and bitumen that surrounds it.
Don’t come back until you have real proof that AGW is real. Not government sponsored propaganda so that they can screw us even more out of $$.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I see you enjoy copping a belting around these parts.

lebbo! long time! you don't normally have the courage to post on these topics anymore. how's things? bad news about birchall

Temps have risen 0.8 degrees Celsius since 1880. This is well within the norms of the last 5000 years. Not to mention that weather observatory stations are now positioned in urban areas that are known to be hotter thanks to all the cement and bitumen that surrounds it. Don’t come back until you have real proof that AGW is real. Not government sponsored propaganda so that they can screw us even more out of $$.

lol. you know it's been proven that greenhouse gases absorb/reflect solar radiation right? and you know that if you increase the energy absorption of a given system, then a likely outcome is that it warms up yeah? which one of these two facts do you struggle with so badly?

 

[Lebbo73]

lebbo! long time! you don't normally have the courage to post on these topics anymore. how's things? bad news about birchall



lol. you know it's been proven that greenhouse gases absorb/reflect solar radiation right? and you know that if you increase the energy absorption of a given system, then a likely outcome is that it warms up yeah? which one of these two facts do you struggle with so badly?

It might be a few years before we’re pressing again for a flag.
In regards to the topic at hand, there’s no point being an active poster when it everyone is just going around in circles. I like the fact that as the years pass by, AGW is becoming harder to prove!

 

[Long Live HFC]

It might be a few years before we’re pressing again for a flag.

yeah definitely, but i'd still like our best on the park while we're getting smashed lol

In regards to the topic at hand, there’s no point being an active poster when it everyone is just going around in circles. I like the fact that as the years pass by, AGW is becoming harder to prove!

it has already been "proven". anyone that matters (who isn't a conservative yank) has moved onto its implications- how much, how long, how to mitigate, how much it'll cost etc.

 

[Frank Bunn]

i don't think an additional 12 years is particularly meaningful by itself of course, unless you're saying there's been no warming since 1998. that would tell us a great deal.

There has been some warming since 1998 but much less than the models based on anthropogenic warming indicated. It's plausible that the small rise in temperature was due to natural variability and there has been an overestimation in the models of sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations.

 

[HairyO]

There has been some warming since 1998 but much less than the models based on anthropogenic warming indicated. It's plausible that the small rise in temperature was due to natural variability and there has been an overestimation in the models of sensitivity to elevated greenhouse gas concentrations.

Im sure the models are right, despite the fact that warming has been at the lower end while CO2 increase has been off the chart.

Love the talk of science here. Its strange how science matters here but not for GM foods, coal seam gas or even how many genders there are.

Didnt realise cherry picking the bits you like counted as science.