The climate change debate continues.

[Old Koreelah]

...I know from history that science can be corrupted by politics and dogma ...

 

... Is it caused by human activity along the coast or is it a natural cycle? We don't know, but the alarmists are quick to use it as evidence.

 

PM is right to make these points; we need skeptics as much as we need honest researchers, because even scientists have been guilty of following the pack.

 

Also, we cannot blame every variation in our coastlines or weather on climate change.

 

But.

 

Can we really afford to argue the point for another decade? Australia is already miles behind because of our government's paralysis over energy policy.

 

We have all seen the devastation our species has caused to this planet and the damage is accelerating. Anyone who thinks we can go on as we have been, and who doubts our capacity to bugger up the place is seriously in denial.

 

It's time to cast out the lobbyists and give our salaried scientists the respect they deserve.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I am all for change in what we do. I agree that overpopulation and corrupt behaviour are ruining the planet but if climate change is a stalking horse then we will be doing the wrong things. A change in the energy mix will not save the rhinos.

 

At present in Australia we measure success in growth, in GDP, incomes etc, that is not sustainable.

 

 

[nomadpete]

I get your point, Peter. However that's no reason to stop our move toward more sustainable use of our resources!

 

For instance moving away from burning or exporting so much coal right now would have a short term inpact on our economy. But all that coal would still be available for later use, and the longer it stays in the ground, the greater its value! We are going hell for leather to get it out as fast as possible by allowing foreign investors to mine it, and not getting anywhere as much return as we would if we mined it ourselves slowly over a longer period. It still wouldn't save any rhino's but it would be better for our economy in the long term, and slow down the pollution of our world. But our leaders don't plan for our future, beyond their election cycle.

 

 

[nomadpete]

In short, I have no doubt in my mind that rapid climate change is real, it is accelerated by human activity, and we can influence the trend.

 

However, I believe it has become a scape goat that conveniently diverts the attention of the public away from the much bigger risk to humanity.

 

That is

 

#1.  OVERPOPULATION

 

Closely followed by all the multiple types of pollution caused by greed - maximising profits ahead of business integrity.

 

Unfortunately overpopulation is a really hard thing for individuals to accept responsibility for. And is political suicide for politicians to voice an opinion on. Every Mammal on the planet assumes itself to have an inalienable right to breed. Ultimately that will be the downfall of humanity.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If anyone is interested in my views on innovation in our mining industry then they can be found here:

 

https://www.ausimmbulletin.com/feature/current-challenges-and-opportunities-for-the-minerals-industry/

 

This was written around a specific topic so it doesn't address macro issues like population growth.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Thank you for the link. Interesting reading.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I get your point, Peter. However that's no reason to stop our move toward more sustainable use of our resources!

 

For instance moving away from burning or exporting so much coal right now would have a short term inpact on our economy. But all that coal would still be available for later use, and the longer it stays in the ground, the greater its value! We are going hell for leather to get it out as fast as possible by allowing foreign investors to mine it, and not getting anywhere as much return as we would if we mined it ourselves slowly over a longer period. It still wouldn't save any rhino's but it would be better for our economy in the long term, and slow down the pollution of our world. But our leaders don't plan for our future, beyond their election cycle.

 

Talking of using coal for something better than burning, there was a scientist on R N the other day who works in Newcastle.

 

He's turning black coal into carbon fibres far cheaper than the traditional way, which could lead to the automotive industry using it for body panels.

 

Adds a whole lot of value to the product and doesn't release the carbon, plus cars built of it would be at least 30% lighter so produce less emissions themselves.

 

That is the kind of thinking we need.

 

 

[octave]

A conservative solution to climate change.

 

 

 

 

[robinsm]

everyone seems to be down on coal fired power stations.   Do you not realise that there is technology available that stops CO2 and smoke from burning coal actually entering the atmosphere.    The smoke etc is processed and steam is the only product released.   The other by products are commercially absorbed in liquids and commercailly used.   Very eco friendly.   No water and drowned forests, no chine syndrome and no ugly wind turbines.   

 

I realise thisa argument is not accepted by the tree huggers but it is real and achievable.   

 

 

[octave]

everyone seems to be down on coal fired power stations.   Do you not realise that there is technology available that stops CO2 and smoke from burning coal actually entering the atmosphere.    The smoke etc is processed and steam is the only product released.   The other by products are commercially absorbed in liquids and commercailly used.   Very eco friendly.   No water and drowned forests, no chine syndrome and no ugly wind turbines.   

 

I realise thisa argument is not accepted by the tree huggers but it is real and achievable.   

 

It should be easy for you to post a link to information on this technology. Where is it being used?  Where can I read the details of this process. I must admitt it does sound fancifull to me.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

It should be easy for you to post a link to information on this technology. Where is it being used?  Where can I read the details of this process. I must admitt it does sound fancifull to me.

 

 

 

Even easier for you to simply Google it.

 

For which in just mere seconds you will eventually be rewarded with "HELE power stations".

 

 

[octave]

 

Even easier for you to simply Google it.

 

For which in just mere seconds you will eventually be rewarded with "HELE power stations".

 

Bex I am aware of work being done but this is not what robinsm said,he said this

 

 Do you not realise that there is technology available that stops CO2 and smoke from burning coal actually entering the atmosphere. 

 

This is what HELE could do  

 

HELE technologies are commercially available now and, if deployed, can reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the entire power sector by around 20%.

 

The smoke etc is processed and steam is the only product released

 

HELE does not claim to release only steam.

 

I am all for technological advances and perhaps one day what robinsm suggests may be possible.  

 

I think i am correction saying that the technology burn coal on not release any CO2 SO2 or NOx does not at the moment exist and is not being used, that was what was being suggested.

 

This is what to proponents of HELE claim it can do.

 

https://www.worldcoal.org/reducing-co2-emissions/high-efficiency-low-emission-coal

 

 

[facthunter]

The CLEAN Coal thing has been around for a long time and a lot of money has been poured into it. IF it was a real goer it would be being adopted far and wide as quickly as could be done.The COSTS of sequestering a gas like CO2 from  power stations is prohibitive even IF the gases could be reasonably certain to stay  where they have been put without doing any harm.. I would welcome the success of something like this as would most concerned people.

 

 Critical Coal power stations are expensive and not flexible. The costs for these projects are "out there. It's not all top secret and comparisons can be made. Energy storage and flexibility is the most important issue. and connectivity (the GRID) if one is going to persist with a concept of CONNECTING large areas of a Vast and often sparsely settled Continent. Well currently we exclude Western Australia. so what does that mean?   Nev

 

Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Big blank page Nev. What happened?

 

That new technology, which I have not bothered to look at would be similar to the nuclear technology I expect.

 

We have been told for years that they can handle the waste product safely, but it has not been done. That to me says they cannot handle it.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Big blank page Nev. What happened?

 

 

 

Completely standard foundation of the general argument for Climate Change Hysterics.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Big blank page Nev. What happened?

 

It's a complete list of all current functioning clean coal power plants.

 

 

[Bruce]

I wish there was a way that climate-change skeptics could put their money where their mouths were.

 

This was my proposal : For every day where the temperature was UNDER the long-term average, I pay out $100. For every day OVER the long term average, the skeptic pays me $95. We have to agree on the location and the data collection of course.

 

This was very generous of me. I would lose for sure if there were no global warming.

 

Well, NOBODY has accepted this bet. They squirm out with mealy-mouthed excuses about how  "the temperature goes up and down naturally " .

 

 

[Yenn]

I had a look at some of the info about HELE power stations and note that there is at least one ordinary power station with lower emissions than some HELE. That does not surprise me, but what does surprise me is that people can espouse a lowering of so little in emissions as being so good. We could achieve the same lowering of emissions by just not using so much electricity.

 

There has been a subdivision near where I live and now the night sky is lit up and there are street lights on in daylight also. I very much doubt that anyone living there needs or even wants the amount of light. Along our highways we have lights installed at intersections, way away from any habitation, but just to possibly mark an intersection.

 

Go into any town and you will see lighting that is not needed and at times it is dangerous. Even in our homes there is a waste of electricity with lights left on, but not needed.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have been reading up on the Great Barrier Reef. A scientist named Peter Ridd recently won a court case and got a big payout from James Cook uni after being sacked for contradicting the party line on the state of the reef. The award is about the sacking, and does not prove that he was right. An “ expert panel” of alarmists has released statements against Ridd's views. Part of the statement reads:

 

The panel’s letter says the scientific evidence that underpins understanding of the condition of the reef is clear: the northern two-thirds were severely bleached in 2016 and 2017; there had been signs of recovery in some areas but the recruitment of coral spawn into bleached areas had fallen by up to 89%; that coral had a better chance of survival in cleaner water; that global heating was the greatest risk to the reef; that poor water quality due to nutrients, sediments and pesticides was also a major threat.

 

you can't disagree with most of this BUT alarm bells must ring about “up to 89%”. So we can measure spawn within 1%? This is complete BS and the sort of nonsense scientists throw in to make us think it is science. And what does the “up to” mean? And what is global heating?

 

 

I have watched interviews and read what Ridd wrote, and what his opponents said. And there is plenty of background information about the natural cycle of coral bleaching. All I am saying here is that we need to be very wary of what a “ consensus of scientists” says when their funding might be at risk.

 

i said in an earlier post that I would try to stick to facts. The statement about 89% was made, that is a fact. I bet the real measurement was a statistical result, perhaps a mean of 49% with a range of plus or minus 30%, that would be consistent with the statement and the level of accuracy possible. It is pure politics but this political BS can impact all of NQ society if it is unchallenged.

 

 

[Marty_d]

I have been reading up on the Great Barrier Reef. A scientist named Peter Ridd recently won a court case and got a big payout from James Cook uni after being sacked for contradicting the party line on the state of the reef. The award is about the sacking, and does not prove that he was right. An “ expert panel” of alarmists has released statements against Ridd's views. Part of the statement reads:

 

The panel’s letter says the scientific evidence that underpins understanding of the condition of the reef is clear: the northern two-thirds were severely bleached in 2016 and 2017; there had been signs of recovery in some areas but the recruitment of coral spawn into bleached areas had fallen by up to 89%; that coral had a better chance of survival in cleaner water; that global heating was the greatest risk to the reef; that poor water quality due to nutrients, sediments and pesticides was also a major threat.

 

you can't disagree with most of this BUT alarm bells must ring about “up to 89%”. So we can measure spawn within 1%? This is complete BS and the sort of nonsense scientists throw in to make us think it is science. And what does the “up to” mean? And what is global heating?

 

 

I have watched interviews and read what Ridd wrote, and what his opponents said. And there is plenty of background information about the natural cycle of coral bleaching. All I am saying here is that we need to be very wary of what a “ consensus of scientists” says when their funding might be at risk.

 

i said in an earlier post that I would try to stick to facts. The statement about 89% was made, that is a fact. I bet the real measurement was a statistical result, perhaps a mean of 49% with a range of plus or minus 30%, that would be consistent with the statement and the level of accuracy possible. It is pure politics but this political BS can impact all of NQ society if it is unchallenged.

 

 

 

They've obviously recorded coral spawn rates, probably over a number of test areas.  There's no reason to think that if they've got the precise dimensions of the test area and they can measure the area of new growth, that the results will be so vague that there's a +/- 30% range.

 

There's a number of ways to present statistical data.  Yes, they could take an average of the decrease in coral spawn rates over every test area and give a "average of 73% decrease" (I'm just plucking that number out of the air before you get excited), or "from 52% to 89%",  or "median of 68-72% with outliers ranging from 52 to 89%", etc.  Or, they can present it as as "up to 89%" because they know that time and time again climate change has proven worse than their models, so the likelihood sadly is that the higher range will prove to be closer to reality overall.

 

I don't see this as a cause for suspicion, if you can access the raw data and show that the conclusion is wrong then you'd have reason to be concerned.

 

 

[octave]

These kind studies are more than just headline figures. the methodology is usually clear and the raw data is available.  

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-03175-2 

 

 

[Yenn]

According to the Australian newspaper the reef is in good shape. That comes from some expert, who says all the doom and gloom about the reef is on the assumption that nothing will be done to change climate trends. It is probably being said to try to boost numbers going to see the reef. 

 

 

[octave]

you can't disagree with most of this BUT alarm bells must ring about “up to 89%”. So we can measure spawn within 1%? This is complete BS and the sort of nonsense scientists throw in to make us think it is science. And what does the “up to” mean? And what is global heating?

 

 

 

How was the spawn rate measured?  Note I don't usually ask a question that I don't know the answer to already or as in this case have researched.   Surely to rationally dismiss the 89% figure you would need a good idea of how it is arrived at.   

 

 

[willedoo]

According to the Australian newspaper the reef is in good shape. That comes from some expert, who says all the doom and gloom about the reef is on the assumption that nothing will be done to change climate trends. It is probably being said to try to boost numbers going to see the reef. 

 

It's a fairly safe bet that if the Australian says that, the opposite is most likely more accurate. I've read that paper most of my life and it's gradually deteriorated to the point where it doesn't have a lot of credibility any more. It cherry picks news that suits it's right wing conservative bent. It does the same with letters to the editor. They publish about 90+% that fit their narrative and throw in a couple of opposing view letters to pretend they have some sort of fairness. The only saving grace is that it occasionally has balanced articles from guest contributors.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

 

How was the spawn rate measured?  Note I don't usually ask a question that I don't know the answer to already or as in this case have researched.   Surely to rationally dismiss the 89% figure you would need a good idea of how it is arrived at.   

 

I am sure the 89% was the upper range of some measurement. My objection is that it gives a false impression of accuracy, that the measurement was within 1%. 

 

 

It is illegal, for example, to report that 1000 assays in a gold mine gave a grade of 3.147 grams per tonne. The correct statement is 3.1 grams per tonne.

 

similarly here, 90% would be a statistically reasonable statement while 89% gives false confidence in the data.