Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

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


  • Total voters
    362

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.

Log in to remove this ad.

The hottest temperature recorded during the course of the heatwave was 49.6 °C (121.3 °F) at Moomba in South Australia. Found online 24jan19 : The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia.
Angry Summer - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
 
The hottest temperature recorded during the course of the heatwave was 49.6 °C (121.3 °F) at Moomba in South Australia. Found online 24jan19 : The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia.
Angry Summer - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
I'vebeen to Moomba and that kind if temperature isn't uncommon at this time of the year. Certainly high forties
 
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.

What level of CO2/MWhr do you feel is acceptable?

What time frame do you feel is acceptable to achieving this?
 
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.

Fossil fuels need renewables to continue selling their gas.
 
When will the left accept that when the wind doesn't blow or blows too hard and the sun doesn't shine solar and wind don't work ?

We need the government to build some coal fire power stations or we will have more blackouts, higher electricity costs, business going broke or not wanting to invest in Australia and jobs will be lost.
 
The hottest temperature recorded during the course of the heatwave was 49.6 °C (121.3 °F) at Moomba in South Australia. Found online 24jan19 : The highest maximum temperature was recorded as 50.7 °C (123.3 °F) at Oodnadatta on 2 January 1960, which is the highest official temperature recorded in Australia.
Angry Summer - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angry_Summer
Yeah see these high temperatures are not new. Anomalies happen and there is nothing new under the sun. Even an ice age.

I read a book by Doris Lessing once upon a time about life during an ice age. Obviously the northern hemisphere is covered in ice and anyone who couldn't escape froze or starved to death. Those who could travelled south.

Obviously the south is overcrowded but most of these people quickly died off, because the problem is the ice locks up most of the water. So in the Southern Hemisphere there is extreme heat and lack of water.

All species are culled but finally the ice melts, the flood comes and those that want to make the journey north.

Very interesting book. All of human knowledge was lost except what could be passed on verbally. No energy source and when they found buildings full of books, the pages turned to dust when opened.

The maunder ice age could explain the hot temperatures. What I've noticed is when the polar vortex drops down over America our temperatures heat up.
 
I would say I made assertions not assumptions about the corrupting influence that the renewables sector (and the cult of global warming) has had on science. Assertions that can be backed up with evidence.

For example, Donna Laframboise's analysis of how the IPCC process works. Or Mark Steyn's book about Michael Mann's fraudulent Hockey Stick.

View attachment 602648

If you want to make assumptions about the influence the fossil fuel industry has had then go right ahead. But, logically, I would contest your argument that such assumptions lead to a conclusion that the fossil fuel industry has corrupted the science to a greater degree.
Mark Steyn ... lol
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

The author is assuming a lot. I view such tinkering as akin to the AFL playing with the rules - consequences unknown.

Better get used to it Ron.

We are engineering the planet right now.
 
It's definitely real, however the action countries want to take won't work. You cannot fix something that's incurable, but these countries think throwing money at it will make it disappear. All we can do is reduce how much we polite the environment, and over time hope that things will begin reversing
 
Is pumping thousands of tonnes of CO2 not tinkering with consequences unknown?

Yes, to an extent.

The author is assuming "business as usual" to the end of the century, whereas only China and India of significance are trending up; the rest of the world is reducing emissions. As he points out himself, current CO2 levels are low on a geological timescale.

Put it this way, a further increase of 200ppm to 600 is by far the lesser of two evils. If we have an accident and reduce it to 200 there'll be nobody left to argue about it.
 
Yes, to an extent.

The author is assuming "business as usual" to the end of the century, whereas only China and India of significance are trending up; the rest of the world is reducing emissions. As he points out himself, current CO2 levels are low on a geological timescale.

Put it this way, a further increase of 200ppm to 600 is by far the lesser of two evils. If we have an accident and reduce it to 200 there'll be nobody left to argue about it.
Why wouldn't you assume business as usual. China and India are together a third of the world's population. Africa is tipped to have 4 billion people by the end of this century, with a hell of a lot of industrialisation to do. The only way is up.
 
Why wouldn't you assume business as usual. China and India are together a third of the world's population. Africa is tipped to have 4 billion people by the end of this century, with a hell of a lot of industrialisation to do. The only way is up.

Developing Africa wouldn't be "business as usual". Pretty clear that reining in China (especially) and India will lead to a global decrease, without e.g. Germany's $64b plan to go full renewables.

eAmuXuM.jpg
 
Last edited:
Thanks to climate change nonsense we have just had a massive number of blackouts sending businesses broke and people out of jobs.
Couldn't coal save us?

You know that these blackouts were because conventional power stations (coal fired) were shut off, at the direction of the regulator, for substantively financial reasons.....

You do know this don't you?
 
Developing Africa wouldn't be "business as usual". Pretty clear that reining in China (especially) and India will lead to a global decrease, without e.g. Germany's $64b plan to go full renewables.

eAmuXuM.jpg
Developing Africa is business as usual - the trend of countries investing in technology and using fossil fuels to power those technologies at scale will continue.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top