The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

Not all older people are conservative, Octave.  Nev

 

 Absolutely FH , there is you and I and many others. I went on one of the cliate strike marches and what struck me was the number of older Australians who took part. Although I am not one of the older people clinging to the past  I do understand the younger peoples cynicism towards us as a group.  I think history will judge our peers harshly.  I am always conscious when I post here that in the future my  descendants may when investigating family history, may read these posts if they are still around on the net. I do hope that they will see that I did care for things other than my own income and comfort.    I can't rule out that climate change will be found to be false but if I was about to fly a plane with a grandchild (of which I have none) and 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 said it was unsafe, I think I would would heed that warning.  

 

 

[Litespeed]

Not all older people are conservative, Octave.  Nev

 

And not all young are progressive.

 

Just look at the growth in young turks in the LNP and their IPA mates.

 

 

[Litespeed]

   I can't rule out that climate change will be found to be false but if I was about to fly a plane with a grandchild (of which I have none) and 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 said it was unsafe, I think I would would heed that warning.  

 

If only it was just one in ten- you are right check the aircraft. But with Global heating it is 97 of 100 say we are in big trouble and most of us can easily see, feel and smell it.

 

I have no qualms about saying it is definitely happening. I put my life on it. 

 

We are all betting our lives and those of every organism on the planet.

 

Putting our own life and only our own at risk- is a moral course. We have no right to destroy the planet for greed.

 

 

[onetrack]

I bet the Indians would like to see some of that Global Warming right about now. Delhi has just experienced its second-coldest December day, in over a century.

 

The cold is not going away for them, all the signs are for the coldest December on record this year.

 

https://www.rt.com/news/476969-india-freezing-cold-delhi/

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The 97% of scientists was a complete piece of fakery or fake news.

 

 

[spacesailor]

There is a second choice.

 

The land mass we are on has moved.

 

It,s the first time iv,e noticed the sun rising south of Sydney, (almost ).

 

It is,nt the only, time the continents have moved in history.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

The 97% of scientists was a complete piece of fakery or fake news.

 

Wether it is 97% or 87% or 67% it is hard to deny that the theory is accepted  by fhe majority of scientists. But putting that issue aside PM you posted a portion of a study a few posts back. I assume that since you posted it  you accept its findings.  I read the whole study. It suggest does unlike many other studies suggests that the further reduction of co2 will provide diminishing benefits.  Most importantly it points out that sudden changes in levells of co2 are associated with mass extinctions. 

 

It seems to me that an orderly transition away from burning things is required.  

 

 

[octave]

PM this is from the study you quoted and is reason enough to be concered about co2 is it not? 

 

Finally, I report that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 oscillated regularly during the Phanerozoic and peaks in CO2 concentration closely match the peaks of mass extinctions identified by previous investigators. This finding suggests an urgent need for research aimed at quantifying the relationship between atmospheric CO2 concentration and past mass extinctions. I conclude that that limiting anthropogenic emissions of CO2 may not be helpful in preventing harmful global warming, but may be essential to conserving biodiversity.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

That is worthy of investigation. One possibility is that CO2 levels rose as a result of volcanic action, which was associated with extinction. The massive basalt flows of the Deccan Traps are a prime example. Wikipedia gives a discussion of that. Linkage to higher CO2 levels is an association, but not causation.

 

by the way, I have walked in the Deccan Traps, very impressive.

 

 

[octave]

That is worthy of investigation. One possibility is that CO2 levels rose as a result of volcanic action, which was associated with extinction. The massive basalt flows of the Deccan Traps are a prime example. Wikipedia gives a discussion of that. Linkage to higher CO2 levels is an association, but not causation.

 

by the way, I have walked in the Deccan Traps, very impressive.

 

PM you seem to be open minded to different hypotheses and theories unless it implicates coal.   

 

I acknowledge that although sound at the moment the theory of anthropogenic could be overturned. I would say my levell of confidence is around 90%. I will happily apologize  to my grand or great grand children if I insisted that my government engineered an orderly move away from fossil fuels. I am wondering what level of confidence you hold that this theory is rubbish, is it 100%? If it is 90% and you are wrong how will you explain your stance to your grand children? If we move towards renewables and the theory is wrong the coal will still be there to be exploited by fhe generations go come.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I have never liked coal mining and look forward to the day when it ceases. I have never had anything to do with it either. But I understand the need for it at present, for developing countries and for the Australian economy. And to provide power and steel for the world. So there needs to be a compelling and attractive argument to make a change faster than is happening anyway due to technological advancements. In other words, don’t shoot yourself in the foot. Change will happen, but not at the pace demanded by the warmists and the screaming protestors.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I haven’t answered your question, sorry. After serious background reading, I believe that support for anthropogenic global warming by “ climate scientists” is between 70% and 80%. However, support by all scientists is much lower, less than 50%. That includes geologists. The so called climate scientists include a high proportion of computer programmers and modellers, for whom I have little regard.

 

 

[octave]

I haven’t answered your question, sorry. After serious background reading, I believe that support for anthropogenic global warming by “ climate scientists” is between 70% and 80%. However, support by all scientists is much lower, less than 50%. That includes geologists. The so called climate scientists include a high proportion of computer programmers and modellers, for whom I have little regard.

 

PM the problem is that if your side is wrong and we simply go on as we are the implications coul  be dire. If we begin an agressive change to significantly reducing co2 and it turns out to be not required, this is a position we can backtrack on. Aggresivly but sensibly transitioning is the way that gives us the maximun number of options. To hold your view I would need to be 100% certain.

 

 

[Yenn]

The reason so many climate scientists believe global warming is a fact, is that they are “climate scientists “

 

If they don’t promote climate change, they will be out of work.

 

 

[onetrack]

Yes, once you have initiated the formation of a huge UN bureaucracy, as in the IPCC, you have to keep generating things for it to do.

 

Meetings must be held, reports produced - and nowhere must it be mentioned, that the reason/s for the panels existence, have now been attended to and fixed.

 

I'll wager if the climate cooled dramatically for the next 20 years, the IPCC would still exist, and be larger than what it is now, and continue to warn us of the likelihood of the near-term death of Planet Earth.

 

 

[octave]

The reason so many climate scientists believe global warming is a fact, is that they are “climate scientists “

 

If they don’t promote climate change, they will be out of work.

 

 

 

So I guess what you are saying is that money is a motivator for scientists to commit fraud.   I wonder if that same assertion could be leveled at other members of society perhaps those who receive financial gain from maintaining the status quo.

 

I am also wondering why one of these "disreputable" scientists doesn't approach a fossil fuel company or perhaps a conservative government and offer to produce the right kind of research, this would seem logical if they were so easily bought.  

 

 

[octave]

Yes, once you have initiated the formation of a huge UN bureaucracy, as in the IPCC, you have to keep generating things for it to do.

 

Meetings must be held, reports produced - and nowhere must it be mentioned, that the reason/s for the panels existence, have now been attended to and fixed.

 

I'll wager if the climate cooled dramatically for the next 20 years, the IPCC would still exist, and be larger than what it is now, and continue to warn us of the likelihood of the near-term death of Planet Earth.

 

You do know the Shell and Exxon were involved in early studies regarding climate change?

 

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/4411090-Document3.html

 

 

I wonder what was the motivation of the early scientist who studied this phenomena long before the IPCC, Fourier,Tyndall Arhenius etc back in the 1800s.   

 

Most fossil fuel companies now publicly admit the problem and to be fair most are trying to mitigate the problem.

 

https://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/bhp-boss-warns-of-climate-change-risks-and-mass-extinctions/news-story/1fa4b68c5161e0a03265e4ab95056f13

 

onetrack  Shell, Exxon and BHP  now acknowledge the problem. I am wondering what gives you so much confidence that it is all a lie created in the early 1800s and propagated through to the present. 

 

 

[robinsm]

 

So I guess what you are saying is that money is a motivator for scientists to commit fraud.   I wonder if that same assertion could be leveled at other members of society perhaps those who receive financial gain from maintaining the status quo.

 

I am also wondering why one of these "disreputable" scientists doesn't approach a fossil fuel company or perhaps a conservative government and offer to produce the right kind of research, this would seem logical if they were so easily bought.  

 

 

 

 

 

[willedoo]

Yes, once you have initiated the formation of a huge UN bureaucracy, as in the IPCC, you have to keep generating things for it to do.

 

Meetings must be held, reports produced - and nowhere must it be mentioned, that the reason/s for the panels existence, have now been attended to and fixed.

 

I'll wager if the climate cooled dramatically for the next 20 years, the IPCC would still exist, and be larger than what it is now, and continue to warn us of the likelihood of the near-term death of Planet Earth.

 

Sounds very much like a description of NATO (apologies for thread drift).

 

 

[spacesailor]

The lie is that MAN made this planet hotter than when it was a "SNOWBALL " planet. 

 

Before the big thaw, MAN walked in the footsteps of the wooly mammoth, snow every were. 

 

Nowadays we in Sydney can grow bananas & I have a gorgeous yellow pineapple in my garden .

 

spacesailor

 

 

[willedoo]

The lie is that MAN made this planet hotter than when it was a "SNOWBALL " planet. 

 

Before the big thaw, MAN walked in the footsteps of the wooly mammoth, snow every were. 

 

Nowadays we in Sydney can grow bananas & I have a gorgeous yellow pineapple in my garden .

 

spacesailor

 

Spacey, the only problem is that if it gets much hotter, you'll have a dirty big crocodile in your backyard eating all your pineapples.

 

 

[spacesailor]

By No problems there !

 

I went north to Cains, & ate a crock burger. So when they get here, just like feral pigs cats roos & cattle ALL GOOD TUCKER. LoL

 

spacesailor

 

 

[onetrack]

I just wonder how quickly the IPCC and the climate-change true believers expect it will take for planet Earth to cool to their required level of average temperature, if they get their way, and all fossil-fuel use is rapidly abandoned.

 

Have any of the CC scientists worked out this calculation?

 

I don't recall seeing it anywhere, and I would expect this would have to form a big part of their calculations, seeing as they have done vast amounts of calculations, on how much the temperature is rising, in relation to fossil-fuel use.

 

I'm just a little concerned that a vast amount of the information produced by the IPCC is predictions, based on calculations, that are fuzzy in many areas, and carried out on baselines that are over a very short period of time in relation to climate history - and which keep shifting, as the scientists find new factors affecting the climate, and adjust measurements accordingly.

 

One of the things that concerns me is the accuracy of modern instrumentation as compared to instrumentation of the past. Even in the last 20 years, big strides have been made in perfecting instrument accuracy.

 

We read of the need for a Stevenson screen to ensure temperature measuring accuracy - but how accurate were the "official" temperature measuring instruments of say, even 30 years ago?

 

And how many of those instruments were regularly checked for accuracy? Trade equipment is regularly checked for calibration - were the weather-measuring instruments checked for calibration at any time in the past, or even now?

 

I'm concerned that many of the IPCC's offering are simply extrapolated predictions, decades into the future - without being able to take into account many unexpected changes that can affect the end result.

 

As we all know, predictions are a pretty dicey field - I have a book (The American Almanac) full of predictions from 1975, it gives me a good chuckle every time I read through those predictions again - of which, about 0.01% have come true.

 

It reminds me of the prediction of around 1900, that by 1950, the world would be 4 feet deep in horse manure, and the air would be becoming unbreathable due to the level of coal-smoke pollution.

 

That bloke was probably the first of the predictive environmentalists - but as we can see, his predictions were only modestly correct in the area of air pollution, and 100% wrong on the horse manure problem.

 

 

[octave]

We have the choice of controlled but aggressive  technological innovation or as some want to do we could just run the experiment an accept what the world that we get for our grandchildren.  It is interesting to ponder that in the future our descendants when studying family history will no doubt search the net for our postings in the way that we search for letters written by past family members. I hope my descendants will see that I read the science and took the descion to make modest changes to my life and pressed my politicians and busines leaders to move towards the technology that is coming sooner or later. Governments championed the car and built highways because they knew that using horses was a big problem.

 

Onetrack for me to believe nothing needed to be done I would need be 100% sure. If even 1 aircraft mechanic out of 10 expressed doubt about the airworthyness of an aircraft I certainly would not be flyng my family in it.

 

You talk about th IPCC as if it is the sole body that accepts climate change but it is not.

 

Nobody is seriously talking about closing every coal fired power station or mine but rather as these power stations become old and financially unsustainable replacing them with newer cleaner technology. Most people in the developed world do seem to want change but almost none of us wants to live without modern conveniences. The "renewables alarmist" seem to think that decarbonisation means destroying our modern way of life.   At the moment I am visting my son in NZ, the electricity here is generated 86% by renewables hydro,wind solar. As I look out the window I see his Tesla which is also charged by these renewables at a cost of, depending on the time of day 90 cents per 100km.  I dont see our decarbonised future as being dismal. Regsrdless of what the deniers think these changes are going ahead.  The debate is pretty much over even amongst compannies that deal in fossil fuels as well as companies such as BHP. The Saudi's are building yhe worlds biggest solar PV annd solar thermal  plant not because they are idiots or tree huggers.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Mad thatcher DID close every mine & teaching college.(mining ) No more miners in England now.

 

Any mining now has to have foreign workers brought in.

 

spacesailor