Climate change

[stui magpie]

Cheers Wokko, I don't expect much and I know I won't change any minds. You don't influence people with logic, it takes emotion and all the emotion is with the climate change evangelists.

[pietillidie]

Ignoring the hysteria is commendable, but it's also basic to any serious analysis. Once you've taken the hysteria out of the problem, the next thing you have to do is account for the limits of your own subjectivity, including your capabilities, knowledge, responsibilities and incentive structure.

Scientists, actuaries and leaders don't have the luxury of waving away gradation as you've done. They have to cost it and be accountable for the variation within their control, directly and even indirectly, to the best of their knowledge and capabilities. Tweak the numbers either way and cost the outcomes, from real estate and agriculture to healthcare and disease, and you'll see why others with different responsibilities are under far greater pressure than yourself to act with professional diligence.

If you were accountable for your depiction of the problem, I dare say you would be far more mindful of the impact of even slight numerical changes and have a much greater sense of urgency.

[stui magpie]

OK, I'm not clear what you mean. Are you talking financial cost ? Can you explain please?

[Woods]

Dilbert explains: https://dilbert.com/strip/2017-05-14

[stui magpie]

^

Can always rely on Dilbert.

[Skids]

Let's look at some facts in response to the puppets hysterical claims....

https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=you ... U70facZc6A

[Woods]

^Game, set, and match.

Greta out of the Climate Change Open is straight sets.

Solid stuff, Skids. Thanks for posting.

[Woods]

when dealing with averages and trends, they can change and go up and down. Unless the trend is consistent over a long period, don't assume it will necessarily continue. see long term trend

Bump - because its damn good data.

[Jezza]

Climate Change - the place rational discussion goes to die.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, since you clearly either don't read or understand any of the stuff I've put up, but here goes.

Firstly, non of the global weather is unprecedented if you open your frame of reference beyond the past 150 years. Then you can start to see that the climate has never been stable, it changes.

Nothing in recent Australian weather is unprecedented even in the past 50 years.

What does science know? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing the amount in the atmosphere will have the consequence of warming the planet slightly. They also know that CO2 is far from the only variable to impact our climate, but this fact gets conveniently ignored .

What will the impact of warming, whatever the cause, have on the climate? They don't know. There's various models and ways of modelling that provide varying answers. There's some broad consensus but they can't be sure, meanwhile the evangelists of this new religion leap on the most dire theories, the worst case scenarios, and spout them as fact shrieking emergency, apocalypse, global extinction events and millions dying.

Now here's why I'm not joining in with the herd of lemmings running toward the cliffs.

1. If the world stopped producing CO2 now, it would take 50 years to reduce to pre industrial levels so if we already have CO2 induced climate change, buckle in Princess, we're in for a bumpy ride.

2. If Australia ceased burning and selling fossil fuels tomorrow, the only impact would be to our economy, it would make zero impact to global emissions.

3. China is planning on building more coal fired energy plants as they progress their overhaul of their economy. They'll get the coal from somewhere, and in another 10 years will be single handedly producing enough CO2 to counter even the best efforts of the rest of the globe.

So what do we do?

We tune out the white noise and shrieking and start planning how to reduce our economic and energy reliance on fossil fuels and invest more in renewables. Solar in itself is not a reliable producer of baseload power and the grid is not suited to it, so we need to invest in infrastructure while continuing to use Coal for our baseload but also while reducing our reliance on it.

We start planning on how to better manage forests and agriculture if the temperatures are going to increase. That includes far better water management.

We engage in rational discussion and planning, we stop people from scaring children, we accept that change will take time and prepare to manage the consequences.

Far better plan in my opinion than hyperventilating, hurling insults, shrieking, panicking and protesting.

Fantastic post, Stui

Really enjoyed reading that. I've liked your contributions when it comes to this topic.

[David]

[Wokko]

Totally not at all biased climate doom website: "You had some evidence we didn't like, so we went and found some we did"

[stui magpie]

[David]

Totally not at all biased climate doom website: "You had some evidence we didn't like, so we went and found some we did"

You talk about "bias" (re: a well-sourced and detailed blog post) while we have people here uncritically referring to a single mislabelled and misleading graph as if it’s some kind of QED. Feels like climate scepticism in a nutshell.

[David]

So all of this is a storm in a teacup and climate scientists have NFI what they’re talking about?

Climate Change - the place rational discussion goes to die.

I'm not sure why I'm bothering, since you clearly either don't read or understand any of the stuff I've put up, but here goes.

Firstly, non of the global weather is unprecedented if you open your frame of reference beyond the past 150 years. Then you can start to see that the climate has never been stable, it changes.

Nothing in recent Australian weather is unprecedented even in the past 50 years.

What does science know? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and increasing the amount in the atmosphere will have the consequence of warming the planet slightly. They also know that CO2 is far from the only variable to impact our climate, but this fact gets conveniently ignored .

What will the impact of warming, whatever the cause, have on the climate? They don't know. There's various models and ways of modelling that provide varying answers. There's some broad consensus but they can't be sure, meanwhile the evangelists of this new religion leap on the most dire theories, the worst case scenarios, and spout them as fact shrieking emergency, apocalypse, global extinction events and millions dying.

Now here's why I'm not joining in with the herd of lemmings running toward the cliffs.

1. If the world stopped producing CO2 now, it would take 50 years to reduce to pre industrial levels so if we already have CO2 induced climate change, buckle in Princess, we're in for a bumpy ride.

2. If Australia ceased burning and selling fossil fuels tomorrow, the only impact would be to our economy, it would make zero impact to global emissions.

3. China is planning on building more coal fired energy plants as they progress their overhaul of their economy. They'll get the coal from somewhere, and in another 10 years will be single handedly producing enough CO2 to counter even the best efforts of the rest of the globe.

So what do we do?

We tune out the white noise and shrieking and start planning how to reduce our economic and energy reliance on fossil fuels and invest more in renewables. Solar in itself is not a reliable producer of baseload power and the grid is not suited to it, so we need to invest in infrastructure while continuing to use Coal for our baseload but also while reducing our reliance on it.

We start planning on how to better manage forests and agriculture if the temperatures are going to increase. That includes far better water management.

We engage in rational discussion and planning, we stop people from scaring children, we accept that change will take time and prepare to manage the consequences.

Far better plan in my opinion than hyperventilating, hurling insults, shrieking, panicking and protesting.

1. This is a straw man. Nobody is aiming to return the world’s climate to pre-industrial revolution levels or even thinks it’s particularly feasible. The goal is to keep the increase to 1.5° and below 2° at worst. Whether that’s actually achievable is subject to debate but it will require quick and systematic change (that’s Thunberg’s whole thing) and it’s generally understood that shit gets bad if we hit over 2°.

2 & 3. Domestic output plus export = 5% of global emissions. That doesn’t exactly mean we single-handedly hold the world’s future in our grasp, but it’s not negligible either. And the notion that China and India will simply find another buyer is economically naive; businesses make decisions based on cost, and currently Australia’s offering a good price. Take us out of the equations and a greater dependence on renewables may be more cost-effective. So beyond the obvious point that this is a global problem and all countries need to be doing their bit (as opposed to crossing their arms and waiting for someone else to make the first move), we are contributing meaningfully to the problem and could be doing better.

The "rational discussion" you suggest has been happening for a long time and it hasn’t been effective. We’re on track for a too little, too late, approach to the problem. I’m not saying we need to get hysterical or throw bricks through windows, but greater urgency is a non-negotiable at this point.

[stui magpie]

^

I'm not going to bother arguing the bits you got wrong or misunderstood, just tell me what this urgency would look like? What action are you proposing should be happening urgently?