Climate change

[think positive]

Brilliant post pies4shaw

[watt price tully]

[stui magpie]

^

Highly emotive piece there by the "climate scientist", starting off with the bleeding brain, quoting that 50% of the great barrier reef is already dead when Coral polyps have survived massive environmental change over millions of years.

Last time I snorkelled on the reef was 2017 at the Low Isles off Port Douglas. The coral there had been decimated by the cyclone that came through at low tide a couple of years before, but you could clearly see the signs of regeneration, new corals were growing. How could that be if she is right?

Keep in mind that the majority of the reefs people now snorkel and dive did not exist 10,000 years ago as sea level was 100m lower. All that area was above water level.

David posted a link in GD about how thawing permafrost could release diseases and referred to an increase of global temperature of 1.5c in the 1300's. That clearly didn't kill the reef.

That's the kind of long on emotive appeal - short on legitimate facts that I really hate because it winds people up

I have no issue with the global warming science as CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc and taking efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and increasing alternative forms of energy are no brainers, but those shrieking apocalypse and ruin in the near future need a Bex and a good lay down.

[stui magpie]

FWIW, for those shrieking about a Climate Change Emergency and wanting Australia to cut emissions immediately, I did a bit of research.

Australia contributes around 1.8% of global emissions which includes power generation, agriculture and other sources.

I repeat, 1.8%.

China is around 30%, the USA, the EU and India are all up there.

So, a little bit of reality. If Australia reduced our emissions to zero overnight it would make far call difference. Zilch, Nada, None.

Yes we need to do more about reducing them as per capita we aren't good, but it's hardly a screaming emergency or that Australia can save the Pacific nations from flooding alone. What we need her is a planned, phased approach that allows a transition from fossil fuel to non-greenhouse fuels that creates new employment as others close and doesn't bugger the economy.

[shawthing]

The debate is over except for the extent and rate. e

Ah but that's the problem. Science never ends a debate. Look at the history of science and it is always about theory and counter theory. We just have too little a grasp on reality to be able to say we understand nature. Feyerabend (a philosopher of science) said that basically our scientific models are akin to the mythologies of past ages. We muster facts to fit our pre-conceived notions. That is probably why loopy people like flat earthers or moon landing deniers still exist today. There is too much wriggle room in our modern scientific models and that's the very essence of the scientific project.

There is every chance that Tesla's field theory might eventually dethrone Einstein in the same way as Einstein dethroned Newton. Science is like that. So although climate change researchers rightly point out the problems we face, we are wise to accept what even they say with due skepticism. The moment we think science is settled we inadvertently close off real avenues of discovery (e.g. the way Tesla has been silenced by the mainstream science community).

Now I'm all for looking after the earth's ecosystem - see it as sacred if we must - but we must not bow down to the idols of "objective science" in the process. There is no such thing as consensus in a true scientific method.

[shawthing]

^ You are right Stui. The problem climate scientists face now is largely because it has been so politicised. And people all over the world are beginning to hate politics. I know I am.

Several things concern me about the latest climate science however:

1. Carbon makes up a miniscule part of the atmospheric gases and yet it is supposedly causing all the problems.

2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for productive plant growth and plants thrive in warmer climates (Biology 101).

3. If we do succeed in cooling the earth and reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but do nothing to reduce human population growth we will starve ourselves to death.

4. More people = less arable land = fewer trees = rise in competition for basic food = rise in diseases born by micro-organisms that thrive in warmer conditions (e.g. tropical diseases like Malaria are making a comeback).

Perhaps Point 4 might be Nature's way of righting the ship again. If we can't stop breeding like rabbits then some form of global plague will sadly befall us. But nobody in power seems to want to do anything about:

a. Human population growth.

b. The obsession with requiring economic growth to be continuous and unsustainable.

Ipso facto: Humanity might be stuffed.

[David]

[stui magpie]

Some valid points in there, but we can't just stop exporting coal. The places that currently buy it from us will just buy it elsewhere, net impact on the environment nil, impact on our economy large.

We need to work on a sensible transition plan for our domestic power production, potentially using Gas as a wedge and work on another transition plan away from exporting coal as demand decreases and possibly work with our current customers on alternative solutions.

My point about our current domestic emissions remains valid though

[David]

^ Yeah, but surely the point is not just to take an "everyone else is doing it so we may as well too" approach. Same with international tax avoidance. Without co-ordinated global action on this, nothing will change.

[stui magpie]

It's not an everyone else is doing it approach, everyone else are (mostly) seeking to reduce emissions.

Countries that currently rely on coal for power need to get it somewhere until they transition their power generation to cleaner options.

Coal exports is a significant part of our economy, so we keep selling for now but plan for that to reduce as clients do that transition.

You can't just turn these things off without adverse consequences so it needs planning and yes a globally coordinated approach by people who understand what they're talking about.

[Pies4shaw]

[Wokko]

^^

[Skids]

I'd tell you what's more of a 'health emergency' ..... but I'd only get carded and have my post deleted

[stui magpie]

So now the AMA are experts on Climate change.

[Skids]

So now the AMA are experts on Climate change.

Nowhere near the expert degree that Al Gore has, but yes, them and 11 year old protesters around the globe,... "The weather has changed so much in my lifetime".... blah blah blah. Last time I heard that, I fell off my dinosaur.