Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Kram]

Never! Global warming is just cultural Marxism and all the kids are being brainwashed by leftists and all teachers are leftists. How do I know this? Because they're teaching science which is a Marxist and leftist ideology

What sort of engineering do you do if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Bradesmaen]

What sort of engineering do you do if you don't mind me asking?

Marxist engineering

 

[Kram]

Marxist engineering

 

[FPPF]

lol

 

[Groin guru]

lol

lol. I was just watching exactly that (timestamped):



"what message do you have?"

Greta: "ah shit...what am I doing here again? ****...um...ask someone else!"

 

[Groin guru]

Bring back Soph!

 

[Frank Bunn]

Exactly. Once we have extremely cheap renewable energy then we can grow crops in 10 story buildings using artificial light. All this agriculture land will suddenly become redundant. I expect this to happen within the next 50 years. Possibly 25. It will be like the earth has doubled or tripled in size.

Vertical farming is a long way from being shown to be viable. For example, it would currently cost $15 to grow the wheat for a loaf of bread. It seems a little odd to plough up a field of crops and install windmills or solar panels.

It's probably not something Australia would be interested in. There's so much agricultural land available with real dirt and free natural sunshine. It's possibly relevant to the big Asian cities.

 

[Seeds]

Vertical farming is a long way from being shown to be viable. For example, it would currently cost $15 to grow the wheat for a loaf of bread. It seems a little odd to plough up a field of crops and install windmills or solar panels.

It's probably not something Australia would be interested in. There's so much agricultural land available with real dirt and free natural sunshine. It's possibly relevant to the big Asian cities.

It costs too much now because of the artificial energy costs. However energy will soon become basically free at which point the whole equation changes.

 

[Craven Morehead]

It costs too much now because of the artificial energy costs. However energy will soon become basically free at which point the whole equation changes.

We don't have enough water as it is, and wheat is grown in dryland farming, (for the very, very large majority).

 

[Snake_Baker]

We don't have enough water as it is...........

This concept always interests me. Why do you believe this?

....and wheat is grown in dryland farming, (for the very, very large majority).

Broad acre farming has its shortcomings.

 

[Craven Morehead]

This concept always interests me. Why do you believe this?

We have more than enough water overall. However, we don't have the capacity to store it and divert it to where it's needed.
There seems to be no real political will to change this. Dams are bad. Pipelines too expensive.
We also need to have a long hard look at what we're currently growing.
The ongoing resistance of transitioning from cotton to hemp, (as an example), is instructive.

Broad acre farming has its shortcomings.

Indeed, but the current trend/fad towards plant based diets will only see it increased.

 

[Snake_Baker]

We have more than enough water overall. However, we don't have the capacity to store it and divert it to where it's needed.
There seems to be no real political will to change this. Dams are bad. Pipelines too expensive.
We also need to have a long hard look at what we're currently growing.
The ongoing resistance of transitioning from cotton to hemp, (as an example), is instructive.

It's reported that the earth does lose water at ~25,000 litres a day due to evaporation & upper atmospheric UV cleavage, whereby hydrogen escapes the atmosphere, but it's an incredibly minor loss in the big scheme of things.

I find all the "water waste" talk to be very bizarre.

Indeed, but the current trend/fad towards plant based diets will only see it increased.

Grains had their place when people were lacking basic nutrition, but my hunch is that their days as huge cropping numbers are limited, as much better utilisation of space and resources leads to better sources of food.

 

[Craven Morehead]

It's reported that the earth does lose water at ~25,000 litres a day due to evaporation & upper atmospheric UV cleavage, whereby hydrogen escapes the atmosphere, but it's an incredibly minor loss in the big scheme of things.

I find all the "water waste" talk to be very bizarre.



Grains had their place when people were lacking basic nutrition, but my hunch is that their days as huge cropping numbers are limited, as much better utilisation of space and resources leads to better sources of food.

Those who do complain about dam evaporation rates have no viable alternative.

It's just more meaningless drivel driven by ideology over facts.

Wheat, especially, is still a staple of Middle Eastern and Asian diets, who lack the capacity to produce their own. So, unless they have a drastic change in dietary habits we'll still have a growing market.
Canola is still in huge demand for oil.

However, yes I do agree to an extent. Science has changed agricultural production incredibly over the past 50 years and that change will be ongoing.
It is an interesting and exciting time to be a farmer.
Now, if it would only rain!

 

[Kram]

Those who do complain about dam evaporation rates have no viable alternative.

It's just more meaningless drivel driven by ideology over facts.

Wheat, especially, is still a staple of Middle Eastern and Asian diets, who lack the capacity to produce their own. So, unless they have a drastic change in dietary habits we'll still have a growing market.
Canola is still in huge demand for oil.

However, yes I do agree to an extent. Science has changed agricultural production incredibly over the past 50 years and that change will be ongoing.
It is an interesting and exciting time to be a farmer.
Now, if it would only rain!

OT a bit but do farmers make any money off wool these days? I've always thought it's a shame that it isn't used more in clothing.

 

[Craven Morehead]

OT a bit but do farmers make any money off wool these days? I've always thought it's a shame that it isn't used more in clothing.

Those who had to go through the horrendous cost of cluster fencing, to protect their flock against the incredible amount of wild dogs, (not dingo's per se), are now going very, very well as the market is incredibly strong.

However, a lot of those profits are being ploughed back into debt reduction.

The finer wool producers in 'non-dog' regions like Tasmania and parts of Vic and NSW are killing it at present. However they also went through very tough times when the wool price collapsed.

 

[CD Xbow]

See

Go dress your male children in dresses you cream pie lefty. You femo men need to start paying attention to science rather then emotion.

Seeds, that's the pot calling the kettle black. You clearly need to call this



I have heard it helped both Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devive, so it may be of help to you.

Now the science bit. There is no doubt the earth is warming and the sea level rising faster than 150 years ago - 1.5mm per year then, 3.2 mm per year now. Good solid data, so an undisputable fact that even the most simple can understand.

The question then becomes what is it due to? The Greenhouse gas effect has been known for centuries, and in the 1970's many scientists (including Exxons!) started to worry the rise in CO2 that was happening then could lead to global warming. The rising CO2 correlates well with rising temperatures and particularly the rate in rise, which is unprecedented in the paleoclimatology of our planet.

So we have a good correlation between CO2, which from experiment we know is a powerful greenhouse gas, but could it be something else? Water vapour is a powerful green house gas but it essentially stable and kept that way over time because of the water cycle. So it's not that. Could it be Methane? Probably a yes to some degree but thought less so in magnitude. Is it the sun? No, because the suns been quiet of late.

So after thousands of studies there is no other major culprit except CO2.

What does predictive computer modelling show us? Mainstream models actually have modelled events close to what has happed, despite the deniers saying they have been wrong.

So, Seeds, you ask us to believe the science. The science says the recent global warming is caused by human activity, mostly related to the release of green house gases and the largest contributor is CO2.

That's all poor old Greta is asking you to do, believe the scientists over the Murdoch press and other shills.

Do not say 'the climate has always changed' because that is a truism that in this context is irrelevant. The climate has never heated up as fast.

Do not say 'CO2 is plant food', again a truism, a deflection and disinformation. it's a poison to animals, it's our waste. Go stick your head in an atmosphere infused with a piddly little 2% C02 and see how long you live.

Do not pretend ther is any real scientific opposition to the concept of AGW. Those brave 500 souls who recently sent there deniers document to the UN are not climate scientists or scientists at all. They are Hugh Morgan, Senator Moron Roberts, countless geologists, PR and business people employed mostly by the fossil fuel industry or with links with it. Good old Guus who started it is a petrochemical engineer for Shell.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

This is what happens when adults exploit children like Greta to push their agendas. Making kids feel like they have no future will lead to things like this happening. Disgusting.

View attachment 754613

These alarmists now have blood on their hands. Hope they are proud of themselves because there will be no doubt more to come...

 

[Snake_Baker]

What does predictive computer modelling show us?

A: Fluctuations based upon the data you punch in to them.

You're a bit free & easy with the science there, but there's no reason to doubt that the effect exists.

The extent of it is still up for grabs.

 

[CM86]

We don't have enough water as it is, and wheat is grown in dryland farming, (for the very, very large majority).

We have more than enough water overall. However, we don't have the capacity to store it and divert it to where it's needed.
There seems to be no real political will to change this. Dams are bad. Pipelines too expensive.
We also need to have a long hard look at what we're currently growing.
The ongoing resistance of transitioning from cotton to hemp, (as an example), is instructive.


Indeed, but the current trend/fad towards plant based diets will only see it increased.

I enjoyed your brief and respectful exchange. Thank you.

 

[Frank Bunn]

It costs too much now because of the artificial energy costs. However energy will soon become basically free at which point the whole equation changes.

Free energy is a myth. Masses of windmills and solar panels are not cheap to build. Then after a few years they need to be dismantled and replaced. Due to their unreliable nature they need backup from a reliable source such as coal, gas or nuclear. Then whatever the cost of producing the electricity the network costs will be substantial, possibly two thirds of the current retail price.

 

[FPPF]

 

[Seeds]

We don't have enough water as it is, and wheat is grown in dryland farming, (for the very, very large majority).

We dont have enough drinking water with current infrastructure. Its the infrastructure thats the constraint with drinking water. The planet is full of water.

 

[Seeds]

What was the reason for choosing the 15 countries?

 

[Seeds]

See

Seeds, that's the pot calling the kettle black. You clearly need to call this



I have heard it helped both Andrew Bolt and Miranda Devive, so it may be of help to you.

Now the science bit. There is no doubt the earth is warming and the sea level rising faster than 150 years ago - 1.5mm per year then, 3.2 mm per year now. Good solid data, so an undisputable fact that even the most simple can understand.

The question then becomes what is it due to? The Greenhouse gas effect has been known for centuries, and in the 1970's many scientists (including Exxons!) started to worry the rise in CO2 that was happening then could lead to global warming. The rising CO2 correlates well with rising temperatures and particularly the rate in rise, which is unprecedented in the paleoclimatology of our planet.

So we have a good correlation between CO2, which from experiment we know is a powerful greenhouse gas, but could it be something else? Water vapour is a powerful green house gas but it essentially stable and kept that way over time because of the water cycle. So it's not that. Could it be Methane? Probably a yes to some degree but thought less so in magnitude. Is it the sun? No, because the suns been quiet of late.

So after thousands of studies there is no other major culprit except CO2.

What does predictive computer modelling show us? Mainstream models actually have modelled events close to what has happed, despite the deniers saying they have been wrong.

So, Seeds, you ask us to believe the science. The science says the recent global warming is caused by human activity, mostly related to the release of green house gases and the largest contributor is CO2.

That's all poor old Greta is asking you to do, believe the scientists over the Murdoch press and other shills.

Do not say 'the climate has always changed' because that is a truism that in this context is irrelevant. The climate has never heated up as fast.

Do not say 'CO2 is plant food', again a truism, a deflection and disinformation. it's a poison to animals, it's our waste. Go stick your head in an atmosphere infused with a piddly little 2% C02 and see how long you live.

Do not pretend ther is any real scientific opposition to the concept of AGW. Those brave 500 souls who recently sent there deniers document to the UN are not climate scientists or scientists at all. They are Hugh Morgan, Senator Moron Roberts, countless geologists, PR and business people employed mostly by the fossil fuel industry or with links with it. Good old Guus who started it is a petrochemical engineer for Shell.

That post is not about climate change. Its about the planet running out of food and resources to sustain rising populations.

 

[FPPF]

What was the reason for choosing the 15 countries?

I'm not sure it's 15 countries that she has sued, from what I can find is she and 15 other teenagers have sued or trying to sue five countries.
Argentina, Brazil, France, Germany, and Turkey.
Don't know what the criteria for selecting those countries was.
They say they are suing them because they have violated their rights as children by not taking sufficient steps against climate change.
Bat shit insanity if you ask me. Why not include China or India or Indonesia or Bangladesh? China is the worlds biggest polluter.
What about the corporations? why not sue them too?

i bet they all have a nice new smart phone and tablet though...those eco warriors that they are