Discussion Random Discussion

[pebblesofsand]

Nobody here is going to Greta looking for the answers Drake, and I think you're mistaken when you suggest large segments of this forum, Australia or the world are looking to her for the answers. Greta Thunberg's activism began by the imploring her family to reduce their carbon footprint.

Greta's fame is purely derived from the fact she encapsulates an attitude that young people have globally, and she has changed the conversation about climate conversation forever. Greta has inspired millions of GenZ, iGen and Centennials to formally lend their voice to the global conversation about climate change. We all know that younger generations are measurably more concerned about the environment, in an existential way. But up until Greta there has been very limited civic engagement by these generations beyond social media fads like the #trashtag challenge.

Fair enough if you have no stomach for what she is propogating, or her tone, or that she's being 'handled' by adults around her. But your dissonance doesn't change the fact that Greta is only giving voice to a sentiment that exists globally, and she has tapped into the very real anger and frustration of young people across the world. You can shout at as many clouds as you want, but you won't be able to put that bunny back in the box. Dare I use the word 'juggernaut' in the St Kilda forum?

I also want to point out that rising sea levels are impacting island nations in the Pacific, Fiji included. Island communities are getting their feet wet because of rising sea levels. This isn't jargon or an analogy either, I mean that literally. The impact a little white 16 year old girl in Sweden has had on the climate conversation is being cheered by Pacific Islanders, because we have been trying to tell the world we feel the same way for decades now. The West, and particularly Australia's political credibility is in tatters amongst Pacific Island states due to it's inaction. In Fiji we speak of the climate as an actual threat and it's way more complex than a simplistic loss of land due to rising sea levels.

But let's be brutally honest here. Nobody here really cares about the Island States. We'll mourn them if/when they disappear. Heck, we might even help save a few of those poor souls. But it's still not affecting us, so lets not go overboard. Carry on. Business as usual. I'll be gone anyways so just don't wreck MY life.

NASA has an excellent resource for the evidence surrounding climate change. I recommend it to everybody.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

To quote NASA "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

View attachment 795441

Interesting graph - looks like the CO2 levels seemed to have fluctuated within fairly tight parameters for about 800,000 years and then the last 2 thousand years it seems to go whooska.

Most thinking people would then say - wow that looked like a system in balance so I wonder whats changed to cause it to rocket upwards all of a sudden?

Now this is where those who don't believe in anthropogenic related climate change usually run into a problem.

That is - if its not humans - what's the natural source that has altered so much so as to throw the system out of whack?

Anybody got any legit answers? (ie peer reviewed scientific analysis not web page by some random blogger being paid by the Koch brothers.)

 

[gringo2011]

Nobody here is going to Greta looking for the answers Drake, and I think you're mistaken when you suggest large segments of this forum, Australia or the world are looking to her for the answers. Greta Thunberg's activism began by her imploring her family to reduce their carbon footprint.

Greta's fame is purely derived from the fact she encapsulates an attitude that young people have globally, and she has changed the conversation about climate conversation forever. Greta has inspired millions of GenZ, iGen and Centennials to formally lend their voice to the global conversation about climate change. We all know that younger generations are measurably more concerned about the environment, in an existential way. But up until Greta there has been very limited civic engagement by these generations beyond social media fads like the #trashtag challenge.

Fair enough if you have no stomach for what she is propogating, or her tone, or that she's being 'handled' by adults around her. But your dissonance doesn't change the fact that Greta is only giving voice to a sentiment that exists globally, and she has tapped into the very real anger and frustration of young people across the world. You can shout at as many clouds as you want, but you won't be able to put that bunny back in the box. Dare I use the word 'juggernaut' in the St Kilda forum?

I also want to point out that rising sea levels are impacting island nations in the Pacific, Fiji included. Island communities are getting their feet wet because of rising sea levels. This isn't jargon or an analogy either, I mean that literally. The impact a little white 16 year old girl in Sweden has had on the climate conversation is being cheered by Pacific Islanders, because we have been trying to tell the world we feel the same way for decades now. The West, and particularly Australia's political credibility is in tatters amongst Pacific Island states due to it's inaction. In Fiji we speak of the climate as an actual threat and it's way more complex than a simplistic loss of land due to rising sea levels.

But let's be brutally honest here. Nobody here really cares about the Island States. We'll mourn them if/when they disappear. Heck, we might even help save a few of those poor souls. But it's still not affecting us, so lets not go overboard. Carry on. Business as usual. I'll be gone anyways so just don't wreck MY life.

NASA has an excellent resource for the evidence surrounding climate change. I recommend it to everybody.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

To quote NASA "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

View attachment 795441

There was an emeritus professor on RN at around 5.15 today talking about climate change. He was on topic for this thread. He painted a very bleak picture. Said it's similar in scale to the warming from an asteroid hit that killed the dinosaurs but happening in 150 not 700 years.


People don't realise how hot it is when the temperature gets up over 40. I was in Port Augusta at 47 degrees. My god it's hot. Your eyes dry out the moment you get out of the car and your breath gets taken away. Car aircon just takes the edge off the radiant heat. Nothing could possibly grow. It will make large parts of the world uninhabitable.

 

[jwikked]

That is - if its not humans - what's the natural source that has altered so much so as to throw the system out of whack?

Just to piggyback off this, but one of the biggest concerns is with the manmade co2 emissions causing this unnatural global warming to melt ice caps, it will then in turn release all the previously stored co2 causing a runaway effect that will have a massive impact on the globe.

It's not a debate, man made climate change is real. It's a fact, and anyone trying to debate it is ignoring the facts.

Let's say we do our bit to cut our emissions, we stop burning coal we move away from fossil fuels as an energy source. Even if climate change is indeed a hoax by the Chinese or the Jews or the Rich or whoever is behind it, even if its a hoax - what's wrong with having cleaner air to breath? What's wrong with taking out harmful particulates that don't need to be in the air we breath? What's wrong with moving to renewable energy that in the long run is going to be much much cheaper and is available now?

If we act quickly and climate change turns out to be a hoax, isn't the outcome a great one regardless?
If we don't act and climate change isn't a hoax, we're ****ed.

 

[StFly]

People don't realise how hot it is when the temperature gets up over 40. I was in Port Augusta at 47 degrees. My god it's hot. Your eyes dry out the moment you get out of the car and your breath gets taken away. Car aircon just takes the edge off the radiant heat. Nothing could possibly grow. It will make large parts of the world uninhabitable.

They should, remember a few years back when the train lines melted in Vic and it broached 50c in some areas?

Suffice to say, those of us without aircon were the baddest bitches to ever grace this green earth and my respite was a 2 hour movie I didn't want to see just to have 20 something degrees and to cool down a bit.

Slept with 4 fans on the floor.

 

[gringo2011]

They should, remember a few years back when the train lines melted in Vic and it broached 50c in some areas?

Suffice to say, those of us without aircon were the baddest bitches to ever grace this green earth and my respite was a 2 hour movie I didn't want to see just to have 20 something degrees and to cool down a bit.

Slept with 4 fans on the floor.

That was us, told the builder we were too environmental for aircon now feel like death during heatwaves. If it didn't make my architectural features look like someone had put a truck grill in the wall, I'd get one retrofitted.....just my bedroom, **** the kids, they need to adjust to the future.

 

[StFly]

That was us, told the builder we were too environmental for aircon now feel like death during heatwaves. If it didn't make my architectural features look like someone had put a truck grill in the wall, I'd get one retrofitted.....just my bedroom, fu** the kids, they need to adjust to the future.

Yeah it's fun times, when I build it's going to be a thing I get cause it's just not cricket, fashionable things be damned.

 

[Pakenhamsaint]

They should, remember a few years back when the train lines melted in Vic and it broached 50c in some areas?

You can blame the A/C of the time on the Comeng fleet for that. Never designed for the heat. The current A/C does stand a better chance.
The rule at the time was over 26 degrees an A/C fault was automatically upgraded a Finish Run fault. I think these days under Metro it's slightly different and the train stays in service for longer.

 

[Crusty Undies]

The silent majority won the elections in the US, UK and Aus. They are just normal people mostly that don't want too much govenment and other people in their lives telling them what to do. The sort of people that just want to get on with it, work, pay their bills, raise a family, watch some footy , etc. They usually won't kick or scream or whinge or protest in public so that's why you never hear from them very much...aka the silent majority.

Its clear as mud!

If they don't want to much government then why did they vote in the party that has passed enough legislation to downgrade Australia from an open to restriced democracy? Don't give us that shit. People voted in the liberals because that's what their parents did and their parents before them. Anyone who does the slightest bit of research would see how detrimental they are to our society. Taxes increase under the liberals despite their claims to the contrary, quality of life decreases, quality of education decreases, quality of our healthcare system decreases, human rights are infringed upon or abolished, publicly owned services are sold off or neglected, koalas go functionally extinct, emergency services receive huge budget cuts leading to an inability to fight bushfires, workers rights are quashed, billionaires get richer while the rest of us get poorer, our economy stagnates, our co2 emissions increase, wages stagnate while the cost of living increases, we give out 10 billion dollar donations to multi-billion dollar international corporations like adani to start a coal mine that benefits no one but the people receiving donations from adani and so on and so on and so on.

Just give it a rest with your silent majority shit, if you want to vote for them that's your prerogative, but don't you dare try to claim that people vote for them for any reason other than tradition or a complete disregard for facts.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Interesting reads about the political systems and outcomes at the moment.

It goes to the heart of my concern of where the world is heading and what that will mean for the "silent majority". It only further enhances my belief that the most important thing we can teach is the power of critical thinking.

Given the capacity of govts and media organisations to manipulate the "news", the lack of responsibility for publishing the truth as shown by organisations like Facebook then my mantra of questioning the source becomes even more important.

“The first line of defense is the kindergarten teacher.”

There is an antidote to demagoguery – it’s called political rewilding | George Monbiot

This form of radical trust devolves power away from top-down government, says Guardian columnist George Monbiot

www.theguardian.com

Finland is winning the war on fake news. Other nations want the blueprint

Russia's neighbor has developed a plan for countering misinformation. Can it be exported to the rest of the world?

edition.cnn.com

 

[bergholt]

The IPCC uses only papers that involve human effects on the climate. It doesn't even look at non man made causes of climate change.

I’m not sure it matters whether it’s anthropogenic or not. If the climate is changing and it’s going to **** up our established systems then we need to do something about it regardless.

 

[Stewart66]

Nobody here is going to Greta looking for the answers Drake, and I think you're mistaken when you suggest large segments of this forum, Australia or the world are looking to her for the answers. Greta Thunberg's activism began by her imploring her family to reduce their carbon footprint.

Greta's fame is purely derived from the fact she encapsulates an attitude that young people have globally, and she has changed the conversation about climate conversation forever. Greta has inspired millions of GenZ, iGen and Centennials to formally lend their voice to the global conversation about climate change. We all know that younger generations are measurably more concerned about the environment, in an existential way. But up until Greta there has been very limited civic engagement by these generations beyond social media fads like the #trashtag challenge.

Fair enough if you have no stomach for what she is propogating, or her tone, or that she's being 'handled' by adults around her. But your dissonance doesn't change the fact that Greta is only giving voice to a sentiment that exists globally, and she has tapped into the very real anger and frustration of young people across the world. You can shout at as many clouds as you want, but you won't be able to put that bunny back in the box. Dare I use the word 'juggernaut' in the St Kilda forum?

I also want to point out that rising sea levels are impacting island nations in the Pacific, Fiji included. Island communities are getting their feet wet because of rising sea levels. This isn't jargon or an analogy either, I mean that literally. The impact a little white 16 year old girl in Sweden has had on the climate conversation is being cheered by Pacific Islanders, because we have been trying to tell the world we feel the same way for decades now. The West, and particularly Australia's political credibility is in tatters amongst Pacific Island states due to it's inaction. In Fiji we speak of the climate as an actual threat and it's way more complex than a simplistic loss of land due to rising sea levels.

But let's be brutally honest here. Nobody here really cares about the Island States. We'll mourn them if/when they disappear. Heck, we might even help save a few of those poor souls. But it's still not affecting us, so lets not go overboard. Carry on. Business as usual. I'll be gone anyways so just don't wreck MY life.

NASA has an excellent resource for the evidence surrounding climate change. I recommend it to everybody.

Climate Change - NASA Science

NASA is a global leader in studying Earth’s changing climate.

climate.nasa.gov

To quote NASA "The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is extremely likely (greater than 95 percent probability) to be the result of human activity since the mid-20th century and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented over decades to millennia."

View attachment 795441

Yeah mate have a lot of Fijian friends in Tourism industry who would happily punch someone in the nose about it.
Also Swedish , Norwegian, Dutch and Swiss as well.
Will I change it no chance ....laugh loudly though when people say the silent majority are changing things.
Steve Bannon , Roger Stone , Rupert Murdoch & simblings , are laughing too.
Pretty sad state hence why I don’t travel overseas anymore why bother South America stuffed , Africa completely
stuffed by the Limey’s & French old empires left the ground but replaced by corruption financed by them and
arent people in the “ City of London “ corporation ....names like Rothschilds happy .

Anyone who put their faith in politicians and I mean all of them are going to get bitterly disappointed, dealt
with them for over 30 years professionally lowest of the lowest.
Don’t read any Australian papers these days , or watch commercial TV other than sport saves the aggravation.

As I said earlier will little old me change things ...no chance .

 

[Joffaboy]

Some many old white bloke triggered by a little girl.

Some on here are in line with these gutless bully boys

 

[Kildonan]

Depends on whose research you choose to believe, jwikked. Thousands of credible scientists have published peer reviewed findings that throw great doubt on alarmist Climate Warming figures.

The IPCC uses only papers that involve human effects on the climate. It doesn't even look at non man made causes of climate change.

That means we get a very biased and narrow view in what is causing environmental changes. In fact, that spproach is downright reckless, unscientific and disingenuous.

Balance, please. All the facts please and stop trying to shout and shut down those who question the so called conventional wisdom. The question is far from settled.

I dispute this. The science is not contested by credible scientists.

Even your categorising the scientific consensus as "alarmist" is telling.

Calling for balance is also another tactic that tries to equate the scientific consensus position with the very much outlier position and that a one to one ratio of representatives as being a good way to produce a balanced debate.

I am a scientist - I don't want to stand before you as an authority figure because that is not how science works. What I can say is that the way you have represented "The facts" is wholly propaganda driven - not science driven. There are whole web sites that provide a very sciency looking display of carefully tailored facts that use statistical tricks and downright lies to present the data in such a way as to allow the reader to think that they are getting the "real" truth. Sometimes the authors even believe what they are saying but mostly it is disinformation by people with a vested interest in the status quo. In keeping the political will favouring the polluters.

I know I won't convince you, Drake. My aim is to remind people who are more scientific than you that the science is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change scenario than it is of the pseudoscience climate burp you seem to think is happening.

The climate has already changed. The world is warmer. We will experience some normal or even cooler weather in the future but the trend is that we will continue to experience warmer weather on average until the CO2 levels are reduced to pre 1950 levels. (Not going to happen this century or next).

 

[pebblesofsand]

Depends on whose research you choose to believe, jwikked. Thousands of credible scientists have published peer reviewed findings that throw great doubt on alarmist Climate Warming figures.

The IPCC uses only papers that involve human effects on the climate. It doesn't even look at non man made causes of climate change.

That means we get a very biased and narrow view in what is causing environmental changes. In fact, that spproach is downright reckless, unscientific and disingenuous.

Balance, please. All the facts please and stop trying to shout and shut down those who question the so called conventional wisdom. The question is far from settled.

"The IPCC uses only papers that involve human effects on the climate. It doesn't even look at non man made causes of climate change."

Yeah nah - simply not true and I can't believe people actually believe that might be the case.

Heavy going but its all set out in this report.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/05/ar4_wg1_full_report-1.pdf

"It is very likely that the current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (379 ppm) and CH4 (1,774 ppb) exceed by far the natural range of the last 650,000 yr."

"It is very likely that the global warming of 4°C to 7°C since the Last Glacial Maximum occurred at an average rate about 10 times slower than the warming of the 20th century."

Next furphy please.

Once again I'll ask the question - where is all this extra CO2 coming from? Its either has to be from the oceans or an inbalance in land/vegetation CO2 transfer.

Perhaps you post some peer reviewed research which indicates that the ocean is releasing more CO2 than ever before - may be hard since they are actually acidifying due to increasing CO2 UPTAKE.

Perhaps its because there's more CO2 being released through loss of vegetation and fires than is being taken up in new trees - whoops - only problem is that actually points the finger at human activity.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Yes, my side good, your side bad. Me caveman.

 

[jwikked]

Yes, my side good, your side bad. Me caveman.

Yeah, devolving to retorts like this just shows how little you know about the facts of climate change.

 

[gringo2011]

I dispute this. The science is not contested by credible scientists.

Even your categorising the scientific consensus as "alarmist" is telling.

Calling for balance is also another tactic that tries to equate the scientific consensus position with the very much outlier position and that a one to one ratio of representatives as being a good way to produce a balanced debate.

I am a scientist - I don't want to stand before you as an authority figure because that is not how science works. What I can say is that the way you have represented "The facts" is wholly propaganda driven - not science driven. There are whole web sites that provide a very sciency looking display of carefully tailored facts that use statistical tricks and downright lies to present the data in such a way as to allow the reader to think that they are getting the "real" truth. Sometimes the authors even believe what they are saying but mostly it is disinformation by people with a vested interest in the status quo. In keeping the political will favouring the polluters.

I know I won't convince you, Drake. My aim is to remind people who are more scientific than you that the science is overwhelmingly supportive of the climate change scenario than it is of the pseudoscience climate burp you seem to think is happening.

The climate has already changed. The world is warmer. We will experience some normal or even cooler weather in the future but the trend is that we will continue to experience warmer weather on average until the CO2 levels are reduced to pre 1950 levels. (Not going to happen this century or next).

Yep, interestingly the scientist we know who works for the bureau or meteorology and was out here funded by a EU joint project until applying for permanent residency, would never say he was certain on climate science even when we wanted him to give an opinion. He's a world authority in his specific area. He'd just say that with out serious review in a specific area no matter how close to what you do, you can't be properly informed. It's a very scientific answer but he's since done enough reviewing since to make a call and he's says that it's looks definitively man made due to the small time frame running along side industrialisation. He's no green warrior or alarmist, I'd trust him over any journalist or mouthpiece presenter.

 

[Yawkey way]

Interesting graph - looks like the CO2 levels seemed to have fluctuated within fairly tight parameters for about 800,000 years and then the last 2 thousand years it seems to go whooska.

Most thinking people would then say - wow that looked like a system in balance so I wonder whats changed to cause it to rocket upwards all of a sudden?

Now this is where those who don't believe in anthropogenic related climate change usually run into a problem.

That is - if its not humans - what's the natural source that has altered so much so as to throw the system out of whack?

Anybody got any legit answers? (ie peer reviewed scientific analysis not web page by some random blogger being paid by the Koch brothers.)

Just a wild guess but maybe rampant population growth has something to do with the problem.

 

[bergholt]

View attachment 795816

Just a wild guess but maybe rampant population growth has something to do with the problem.

Definitely, but that's not going to change so it means we have to concentrate on decreasing the impact per person.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Yeah, devolving to retorts like this just shows how little you know about the facts of climate change.

And how many people fully understand global warming theories and computer simulations (or is it climate change which is a natural process that has existed for 4 billion years and continues) that always comment on it that have 100% belief in it?

Or do we just ask Greta or Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio these days?

 

[jwikked]

And how many people fully understand global warming theories and computer simulations (or is it climate change which is a natural process that has existed for 4 billion years and continues) that always comment on it that have 100% belief in it?

Or do we just ask Greta or Al Gore or Leonardo Dicaprio these days?

The reason why nobody will take you seriously is because instead of an actual debate, you focus your attacks on irrelevant people and make wacky statements. If your first instinct is to start flinging shit, perhaps your argument is totally flawed.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Ho

The reason why nobody will take you seriously is because instead of an actual debate, you focus your attacks on irrelevant people and make wacky statements. If your first instinct is to start flinging shit, perhaps your argument is totally flawed.

How many people fully understand the theories and simulations?

 

[gringo2011]

View attachment 795816

Just a wild guess but maybe rampant population growth has something to do with the problem.

Hard sell to demand people stop breeding or get sterilised though. I remember there was a documentary on green house gases in the 90s on TV. It said that if one in 10 people in a rapidly industrialising China took up cars that it would be really catastrophic for the environment. Now countries with mass populations like India and Indonesia are also rapidly coming into wealth and are starting to mass consume like the west does, we are starting to head into train with no brakes territory. I really can't see the developing economies finally coming out of poverty and wanting to step back. It means we are kind of ****ed.

 

[jwikked]

Ho


How many people fully understand the theories and simulations?

Climate scientists do. If you don’t understand it, does it make it untrue?

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Climate scientists do. If you don’t understand it, does it make it untrue?

I don't pretend to fully understand like a lot of the global warming cultists do. Nor will I take a celebrities word for it like Leo Dicaprio (a bloke that has burnt more carbon than of all us combined BTW).

BTW, there are plenty of climate scientists that disagree with the theories and simulations. Its a shame they get sidelined.