Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    59

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
35,697
Likes
62,298
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
Technology being our only saviour is something I've said before. Along with many others.
The point was that amphibious species dying off (which they are) is a reliable indicator that something is going wrong. I didn't say anything beyond that.

What the **** does a human "extinction event" have to do with anything?
My take on your earlier comment:

Just have to keep an eye on the frogs, really.
Amphibians are one of the first indicators that something is badly wrong -
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Ron The Bear

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Jul 4, 2006
Posts
27,529
Likes
24,458
Location
Melbourne
AFL Club
Richmond
Is there a denier that isn't a caricature of conservative politics?

Ron's in here waffling on all the time, and he is the reincarnation of Robert Menzies.
When I was a boy it was too dangerous to walk to the milk bar. The commo's would get you before noon and the sun would get you after, that's how hot it used to get.



Mmmm, summer. Mmmm, toasty.
 

Claude Balls

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Posts
5,179
Likes
3,269
AFL Club
Geelong
We should absolutely be working on a solution to the issue. That solution is fusion power.

All the other things we do in the meantime to take a few steps backwards on the train heading forwards are mostly only valuable in that they give people a sense of contribution.

But the reality is we are so insignificant that even the entire nation as one is insignificant.

But if we can develop stable fusion power we can save the planet, actually even that won't do it alone - it will just stop it getting worse.

The true issue has always been that we have the money to make better choices, to not deforest that continent, to buy solar panels etc but those nations contributing the most don't have that choice.

So we need to put our money into fusion research and do our part there.
As far as I understand it, large scale fusion reactors are a long way off, and even when they do become viable they’ll have extraordinary lead times until they are producing net energy (construction time plus embodied energy).

If this is true, by the time they’re supplying the majority of our energy demands we’ll have locked in much more than a 2 degree temperature rise.

I’m not categorically against them - they may well play a part - but it makes no sense to put all our eggs in the one (fusion) basket.
 
Last edited:

Claude Balls

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Jan 30, 2007
Posts
5,179
Likes
3,269
AFL Club
Geelong
Is there a denier that isn't a caricature of conservative politics?

Ron's in here waffling on all the time, and he is the reincarnation of Robert Menzies.
As far as I can see, deniers generally fall into two categories:

1. Religious conservatives who think the earth and its creatures is a god-given bounty for mankind to do with as it pleases.

2. Free market fundamentalists who regard government intervention in the market as the greatest evil - the first step on the slippery slope to full blown Stalinism. These are the people who systematically denied the causes of acid rain, ozone depletion and lung cancer. In many cases they know the science is clear, but they are puppets to their economic beliefs.
 

its free real estate

Premiership Player
Joined
Jul 30, 2018
Posts
4,115
Likes
4,944
AFL Club
Fremantle
The dissapearance of frogs would have little affect on us, and the bee thing wouldn't be a human extinction event either.
The bee thing would **** things up considerably.

I don’t know if anyone else has noticed this, but once upon a time you couldn’t drive on the highway in summer without getting a windscreen full of bugs. These days, nearly nothing.

A few months back I went driving in back country around the Blue Mountaisn and got smashed with bugs and thought to myself that this hasn’t happened for at least a decade.
 

Snake_Baker

Hall of Famer
Joined
Apr 24, 2013
Posts
35,697
Likes
62,298
Location
Destination Club
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Pfffft, as if!
As far as I can see, deniers generally fall into two categories:

1. Religious conservatives who think the earth and its creatures is a god-given bounty for mankind to do with as it pleases.

2. Free market fundamentalists who regard government intervention in the market as the greatest evil - the first step on the slippery slope to full blown Stalinism. These are the people who systematically denied the causes of acid rain, ozone depletion and lung cancer. In many cases they know the science is clear, but they are puppets to their economic beliefs.
The trick is not to engage them on political or political conspiracy grounds.

The moment you get sucked in to this vacuum, actual scientific discussion becomes neutralised.
 

sorted

Premiership Player
Joined
Aug 21, 2016
Posts
4,571
Likes
5,892
AFL Club
Geelong
As far as I can see, deniers generally fall into two categories:

1. Religious conservatives who think the earth and its creatures is a god-given bounty for mankind to do with as it pleases.

2. Free market fundamentalists who regard government intervention in the market as the greatest evil - the first step on the slippery slope to full blown Stalinism. These are the people who systematically denied the causes of acid rain, ozone depletion and lung cancer. In many cases they know the science is clear, but they are puppets to their economic beliefs.
On the other hand, the alarmists fall into these categories

1. scientists whose funding depends on the global warming consensus
2. school children and students whose teachers have brainwashed them to the global warming consensus
3. doctor's wives and other wealthy inner city greens who don't believe in the science of vaccinations
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
On the other hand, the alarmists fall into these categories

1. scientists whose funding depends on the global warming consensus
2. school children and students whose teachers have brainwashed them to the global warming consensus
3. doctor's wives and other wealthy inner city greens who don't believe in the science of vaccinations

On the other hand:

1. Fossil fuel companies pay lobbyists to peddle misinformation, lies and cherry picking of facts. Now who is it that benefits from a status quo on climate change action? Fossil fuel companies and the longevity of their profits.

2. Teachers rely on peer reviewed scientific evidence.

3. What are you talking about.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
The role of human activity


In its Fifth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 95 percent probability that human activities over the past 50 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 400 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 95 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

The panel's full Summary for Policymakers report is online at http://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
34,339
Likes
34,104
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Moderator #365
No, they don't. They rely on peer reviewed scientific evidence.
They really don't. The primary school teachers I know don't know anything about anthropogenic climate change other than that it's real and you'd be an idiot to argue against it. It's in the same basket as everything else considered a common fact, people don't know why, they just know it is.

They aren't basing anything off any evidence, that's looked for afterwards to validate their point when challenged, they are secured in their ideology.

It's why hypothetical media articles talking about a study that said (the worst case scenario) the world will raise five degrees and everyone will die is irresponsible. Those who are living in the ideology against human produced climate change see these "predictions" constantly fail to come about, when what they really are is 98% of the study being ignored to write a scary article for clicks.

My own position is that the path we are on is set, we've put ourselves there and we need to develop technologies to get us out of trouble - but changes before that actual solution are crippling ourselves with no actual gain other than feeling like we are contributing.
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
They really don't. The primary school teachers I know don't know anything about anthropogenic climate change other than that it's real and you'd be an idiot to argue against it. It's in the same basket as everything else considered a common fact, people don't know why, they just know it is.

They aren't basing anything off any evidence, that's looked for afterwards to validate their point when challenged, they are secured in their ideology.

It's why hypothetical media articles talking about a study that said (the worst case scenario) the world will raise five degrees and everyone will die is irresponsible. Those who are living in the ideology against human produced climate change see these "predictions" constantly fail to come about, when what they really are is 98% of the study being ignored to write a scary article for clicks.

My own position is that the path we are on is set, we've put ourselves there and we need to develop technologies to get us out of trouble - but changes before that actual solution are crippling ourselves with no actual gain other than feeling like we are contributing.
This sounds like dissembling and cherry picking.
 
Joined
Dec 19, 2018
Posts
123
Likes
107
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
On the other hand:

1. Fossil fuel companies pay lobbyists to peddle misinformation, lies and cherry picking of facts. Now who is it that benefits from a status quo on climate change action? Fossil fuel companies and the longevity of their profits.

2. Teachers rely on peer reviewed scientific evidence.

3. What are you talking about.
The royalties from those fossil fuels and taxes payed from the business and employees pays for those teachers, infrastructure, medical etc that we see today
 

Tayl0r

Moderator
Joined
Jul 16, 2009
Posts
34,339
Likes
34,104
Location
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Moderator #368
This sounds like dissembling and cherry picking.
It's the reality of a world where most people can't tell you why we have tides.
It's how you can tell when an issue is more political than scientific, when people are welcomed into the fold without an understanding of why.

That's not a slight on the science or people behind the data and research, it's more a side effect of needing to spread the word to have an impact in a world built to keep the status quo.
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
The royalties from those fossil fuels and taxes payed from the business and employees pays for those teachers, infrastructure, medical etc that we see today
Doesn't change the fact that for decades fossil fuel companies have paid lobbyists to spread lies about climate change.

In a positive development, some CEO's of Australian mining companies have backed up climate change science and called for a carbon tax.
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
It's the reality of a world where most people can't tell you why we have tides.
It's how you can tell when an issue is more political than scientific, when people are welcomed into the fold without an understanding of why.

That's not a slight on the science or people behind the data and research, it's more a side effect of needing to spread the word to have an impact in a world built to keep the status quo.
More dissembling. It IS scientific, not political, that is the point. It's not Liberal v Labor, Republican v Democrat, right v left, or conservative v progressive, it's science. It's like arguing with the ocean.
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Joined
Jan 16, 2013
Posts
1,038
Likes
1,198
AFL Club
West Coast
They really don't. The primary school teachers I know don't know anything about anthropogenic climate change other than that it's real and you'd be an idiot to argue against it. It's in the same basket as everything else considered a common fact, people don't know why, they just know it is.

They aren't basing anything off any evidence, that's looked for afterwards to validate their point when challenged, they are secured in their ideology.

It's why hypothetical media articles talking about a study that said (the worst case scenario) the world will raise five degrees and everyone will die is irresponsible. Those who are living in the ideology against human produced climate change see these "predictions" constantly fail to come about, when what they really are is 98% of the study being ignored to write a scary article for clicks.

My own position is that the path we are on is set, we've put ourselves there and we need to develop technologies to get us out of trouble - but changes before that actual solution are crippling ourselves with no actual gain other than feeling like we are contributing.
Interesting alleged anecdotal evidence there.

You know what is irresponsible? Climate change denial.
 

RobbieK

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 20, 2009
Posts
1,789
Likes
2,400
Location
Berlin
AFL Club
Sydney
On the other hand, the alarmists fall into these categories

1. scientists whose funding depends on the global warming consensus
2. school children and students whose teachers have brainwashed them to the global warming consensus
3. doctor's wives and other wealthy inner city greens who don't believe in the science of vaccinations
I didn't realise that 6 out of 10 Australians fell in to those three categories: https://theconversation.com/lowy-in...action-at-its-highest-level-in-a-decade-98625
 

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Posts
5,434
Likes
4,084
AFL Club
Hawthorn
As explained in the presentation I linked to there was a discrepancy between Mann's temperature reconstructions and Briffa's. Both had temperature reconstructions published in 1998. Both drew on very large tree ring networks, but their later 20th century results were diametrically opposite. Mann’s went sharply up, while Briffa’s went down. Disguising this inconsistency rather than explaining it led to the controversy.

To 'hide the decline' Mann deleted the data after 1960. This is really shit science work. He's making the data fit the hypothesis. I don't think this is accidental. He has an agenda.
mann et al used proxies other than tree rings btw and your assertion that they "deleted data" is not accurate. the graph clearly captures and identifies blue data til what, 1975?



If, as you say, the tree rings stopped being accurate temperature proxy records in recent decades how does one know that the tree rings provide a good proxy record in response to warming in medieval times?
i would have thought that would be obvious- replication of results and comparison to other proxy records. as i've already pointed out to you the results have been supported several times (below). further, the divergence of tree ring samples from temperature records is a well-established fact and discussed/researched in the literature, so mann et all weren't "hiding" anything and anyone can go and find that info for themselves.



as already noted- no impropriety was found in more than 7 investigations into "climategate".
 
Last edited:

Long Live HFC

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Oct 30, 2010
Posts
5,434
Likes
4,084
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I still don't understand why people are fighting such a dishonest fight against experts who spend their days working in this field. I mean, you understand why fossil fuel companies may do it. You understand why rightwing mouthpieces who are funded by fossil fuel companies through "think tanks" and foundations do it. Why do ordinary people who have nothing to gain? It just baffles me.

Has there been a "sceptics" argument that has stood the test of time?
it's just an extension of what you note- partisanship. greenies were probably the first to accept AGW wholesale as a thing so naturally those that traditionally oppose environmentalists are still holding out. hippies still oppose GMOs despite the research and evidence and i see AGW as the same deal for many on the Right.

there are also the (kinda) non-aligned contrarians who either oppose big business and are more likely to accept AGW, or contrarians who oppose big government and are more likely to deny it. in a world of vaccines causing autism, hoax moon landings, 911 inside jobs, flat earths and chemtrails, nothing is surprising.
 
Top Bottom