Climate change

[watt price tully]

:...Speaking in London, the BHP chief executive, Andrew Mackenzie, said global heating was “indisputable” and called for drastic action, including but not limited to carbon pricing..."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dge-action

Goodness me. Another furphy? Just a few idiots remaining who still deny. The debate was all over a long time ago (except for a few right-wing nutters).

[stui magpie]

1. Quoting The Guardian as a source instantly undermines credibility of the post.

2.Global heating (or warming as it's usually known) should not be in dispute as the science is solid on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Climate Change is not the same thing, and climate change as a result of global warming is up for dispute as many of the theoretical projections are unproven.

[Pies4shaw]

:...Speaking in London, the BHP chief executive, Andrew Mackenzie, said global heating was “indisputable” and called for drastic action, including but not limited to carbon pricing..."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dge-action

Goodness me. Another furphy? Just a few idiots remaining who still deny. The debate was all over a long time ago (except for a few right-wing nutters).

Yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ate-crisis

Oh and for Stui, in case he'd like to watch the webcast and check whether Andrew MacKenzie said the words the Guardian reported him as having said, in the precise order they are listed in the BHP published version of his presentation: https://www.bhp.com/media-and-insights/ ... ate-change

[pietillidie]

Global heating (or warming as it's usually known) should not be in dispute as the science is solid on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Climate Change is not the same thing, and climate change as a result of global warming is up for dispute as many of the theoretical projections are unproven.

No future projection can be 'proven' today; that's the very definition of risk and the basis of insurance and markets, no less.

[watt price tully]

Global heating (or warming as it's usually known) should not be in dispute as the science is solid on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Climate Change is not the same thing, and climate change as a result of global warming is up for dispute as many of the theoretical projections are unproven.

No future projection can be 'proven' today; that's the very definition of risk and the basis of insurance and markets, no less.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1FIpqVhdMU

[stui magpie]

Global heating (or warming as it's usually known) should not be in dispute as the science is solid on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Climate Change is not the same thing, and climate change as a result of global warming is up for dispute as many of the theoretical projections are unproven.

No future projection can be 'proven' today; that's the very definition of risk and the basis of insurance and markets, no less.

yet so many people take these projections as fact.

[pietillidie]

Global heating (or warming as it's usually known) should not be in dispute as the science is solid on CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Climate Change is not the same thing, and climate change as a result of global warming is up for dispute as many of the theoretical projections are unproven.

No future projection can be 'proven' today; that's the very definition of risk and the basis of insurance and markets, no less.

yet so many people take these projections as fact.

People talking about risk in absolute terms is hardly new (see the title of this thread). The adult decision is still there to be made, though.

[stui magpie]

There's people talking about risk management and then there's people who believe with the fevor of a new religious convert

[Skids]

[quote="watt price tully"]:...Speaking in London, the BHP chief executive, Andrew Mackenzie, said global heating was “indisputable” and called for drastic action, including but not limited to carbon pricing..."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... dge-action

Goodness me. Another furphy? Just a few idiots remaining who still deny. The debate was all over a long time ago (except for a few right-wing nutters).[/quote]

That's the typical leftist response to everything. I'm right, you're wrong, end of story.

Well, the debate wasn't over long ago, and I doubt it will be for a while yet.
As all the dooms day predictions continually fail to come to fruition, I am bewildered at the arrogance of the scaremongers.

Australian school children should hear from both climate change scientists and climate change sceptics, a new Coalition MP believes.

Terry Young won the Brisbane-based seat of Longman from Labor at the recent election.

The small business owner says the greatest gift of being human is free choice, arguing "indoctrination of any type robs our children of this gift".

"We want our children and grandchildren to hear the theories of evolution and creation, different religions, climate change advocates and climate change sceptics," he told parliament in his first speech.

"What we don't want for our kids is to be brain-washed with extreme left or right ideologies.

"When I hear a school principal stand up at school in assembly and say: 'If this government doesn't do anything about climate change the world will end in 2030', I get angry."

Mr Young says children should not be indoctrinated by "fear-mongering" over the climate.

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/new-liberal ... at-schools

[stui magpie]

"When I hear a school principal stand up at school in assembly and say: 'If this government doesn't do anything about climate change the world will end in 2030', I get angry."

Any school principal or teacher who said that should be sacked. Their role is to educate, not indoctrinate.

By the way, can anyone explain how that concept of emissions trading works?

My rudimentary understanding is that I burn all the carbon I want but pay someone to plant trees or something that supposedly offsets the carbon I've added to the atmosphere and so everything is beautiful.

If that's the case, it's bullshit of the highest order

[roar]

"We want our children and grandchildren to hear the theories of creation"

Really?

I suppose it's ok if taught in religion classes but I think he meant to be taught alongside evolution, in science classes, which is ridiculous.

[Pies4shaw]

^ You do have to wonder why people with even basic reasoning capacity could still struggle with the concept that there is almost certainly (we must say "almost certainly" when 99% of the scientists who do work in the relevant field have the same view) a potentially (not "certainly", "possibly" is enough) catastrophic climate change issue. But, of course, when you realise that it tends to be part of a constellation of stupid beliefs that typically includes the ridiculous notion that the world was created by a magic fairy, the explanation becomes obvious. Disordered thought processes can lead to untenable beliefs.

A very special kind of hubris is required for people who don't practice in the field to look at the overwhelming body of scientific knowledge and say "No, I'll take the conspiracy theory, thanks".

You see this in all walks of life - there are always some people who think they have some "special" knowledge or insight that puts them ahead of the rest of the pack, despite their lack of training in or knowledge of the particular endeavour about which they think they have their "special" knowledge.

In some fields, it doesn't matter much. I could give you a few rather stark examples of people who think they have a legal issue, won't accept the advice of 99% of the legal profession and go with the lawyer with the outlier view, because it would be convenient if the outlier view were correct. Such people tend to end up bankrupt and ruined. Of course, every so often the "outlier" view turns out to be correct so the person who wouldn't accept good advice has a "win". The psychological effect is a bit like gambling - you take a big risk on a game of chance against the odds, your numbers come up and you think "See, I am better than others at this". Then, armed with the knowledge that you "know" more than your lawyer, you take the risk again next time and the time after until, finally, you find out that you went against the weight of informed, intelligent opinion once too often and - hey ho - you're bankrupt and ruined.

I say that "doesn't matter much" because the consequences of being so catastrophically wrong in that context don't affect many people too severely.

When the overwhelming scientific consensus is that we must take drastic action, now (well, really, 20 years ago) to avert an impending climate change catastrophe, the gambler against the overwhelming odds that goes with the minority (it's actually loony "fringe" on the stats - but let's use a more neutral term for argument's sake) puts everyone else at risk.

My view about this is a straight-forward one. There may be an impeding climate catastrophe, all other things remaining unchanged, or there might not be. I don't work in the field and I don't pretend to know. However, accepting that there are a whole lot of people working in the field, almost all of whom reach the same conclusion, I take the view that we should probably have a bit of a crack collectively at fixing the problem. If it turns out there was no problem, then it's a bit like Y2K - it turned out there was no issue but at least people worked on it. No harm done. On the other hand, if it turns out there is an issue (and, again, one can't help observing that the overwhelming majority of people who work in the field think there is), something should be done, now (no, actually 20 years ago).

Of course, I accept that there are always some people who have their snouts in the trough and make their living propounding particular views. I accept that there will be a few charlatans who like the attention and mess with their test results to get a more exciting take on things. I do not, however, accept that every scientist who thinks there is an impending man-made climate change catastrophe is saying so just because there is something in it for them but that the three or four people who disagree are altruistic and none of them benefits from taking the opposite view (even when we know that some of them, at least, are certainly funded by denialist interests).

It's a bit like plumbing really. If I have water coming out into the shower recess through the bathroom tiles rather than out of the shower head, I call a plumber. If the plumber tells me there is a problem, I am likely to accept that plumber's advice and have the work (s)he suggests done to rectify the problem. Most people would, I think, accept that I was a completely crazy person if I asked 99 other plumbers, went with the view of the delusional one who said there wasn't a problem and that, in the natural order of things, water will sometimes come out through your tiles - and decided that I preferred that view and nothing needed to be done.

One doesn't have to take ideas on with religious fervour. One merely has to accept that, on balance, the scientific consensus seems to be that if we do not do something, we may (not "will", "may" is enough) well actually render the planet uninhabitable. If almost all the scientists turn out to be wrong and there wasn't a problem, we can all laugh, slap each other on the backs and say "Hey, remember when scientists thought ...." If, on the other (overwhelmingly more likely) hand, they are right, there's little reason to think there'll be anyone laughing about us doing nothing.

It's a "no-brainer".

Of course, the genuinely scary thing about what passes for "debate" about climate change is that the reason the expression "It's a no-brainer" has a use in common parlance is only because the world is more populated than is helpful with people who want to take the "other" view (whatever it is, on whatever issue), even when the decision is a "no-brainer".

[Wokko]

If the risk is so huge and we must immediately lower C02 then the only option is to go nuclear and yet the mere mention of that sends the Green Religious types into apoplexy. You can't both scaremonger a problem then reject the only solution.

[Pies4shaw]

I'm happy to debate the solution with people who don't want to pretend there isn't a problem.

Perhaps somewhere between the extremes of that particular false dichotomy (all taking to wearing tin-foil hats, on the one hand, and all going back to living in caves, on the other), there's room for intelligent conversation. I wait with eager anticipation.

[stui magpie]

OK, do you genuinely believe that unchecked CO2 emissions will lead to catastrophic consequences in the near future?

If so, please define what you consider "catastrophic" as I'm not aware of any responsible scientists saying that