The climate change debate continues.

[spacesailor]

FINE

 

Lets have another Genocide & cull this population down to a reasonable level.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

FINE Lets have another Genocide & cull this population down to a reasonable level.

 

spacesailor

Sorry Spacey, genocides have had little impact on global population.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

We DO know how hot it was! Geologists are the ONLY people who are qualified to talk about past climate. (sorry for shouting).

 

 

[facthunter]

Don't agree with your logic there re the geologist. What we are looking at here is what has happened at a historically rapid rate for these things over about 200 years and all the indications are that it will keep happening even faster. Geologists can be philosophical about rocks etc over millions of years. Homo Sapiens has only been around for 300,000 years. No time at all in the real sense. We DO have the capacity to stuff things. There are many ways where we have done that and very few we have done right for the planet which is amazingly suited to us. as it was... Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

Good point.

 

Those geological climate extremes we hear quoted (It's been much worse before... CO2 was much higher... temps were higher/lower...) all happened when there were no homo sapiens on the planet, trying to carry out large scale farming to feed the masses.

 

And the rate of change is now geologically very fast. Secondary effects will be difficult to predict because there will probably be multiple secondary cycles (ocean currents, ice melts, rainfalls, peat methane releases, etc) each responding at their own rate, and maybe interacting with each other at the same time as our new overall climate conditions do not have a long term stable base line.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Guys,

 

We can debate as much as you want but at the end that is just a masturbate, and only makes us feel good.

 

It helps nothing.

 

We have a existential problem and it must be dealt with. Not just for our kids but for us living today. The effects are real and been felt today, they will only increase. We are the frog, put us in a saucespan and by the time it starts to boil it is too late, we thought it was just a warming bath.

 

There is no possible metric where doing something to help can be the wrong thing. Even if we don't believe, the world's economic masters do, so the only profitable way forward is to change. If we are wrong we will get a nicer environment, cheaper decentralized power, and more jobs that don't really on over industrialized power hungry products.

 

We win anyway.

 

To do nothing- will at best lead to a economic deadend. At worst...........life as we know becomes very difficult.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

We don’t have an existential problem. All of the parameters causing alarm are within the normal range of variation. By all means make changes if they are good for the environment, but don’t make us freeze and starve in the dark. That is my precautionary principle.

 

 

[Litespeed]

No one is asking you to freeze, stay in the dark or starve.

 

The metric of change is Not in the normal range nor within normal time scales.

 

 

[octave]

By all means make changes if they are good for the environment, but don’t make us freeze and starve in the dark.

I don't believe people would accept this anyway. I once heard a quote that was "environmental concerns are a mile wide but on a millimetre thick" I love my modern life and I do want it to continue and that is why I want the problem to be tackled early rather than waiting until the problem is crucial. I do not believe there are many people who want to deindustrialize society however I suspect that frustration at a perceived lack of action causes polarization and on ambit claims.

 

I am able to accommodate in my mind the possibility that further evidence will disprove the theory and imagine the consequences. The fossil fuel era could never continue forever. If we push the development of alternate technology at a vigorous but sensible pace we could end up with a better world climate change or not.

 

My problem with the opposite scenario is that if we believe that the evidence is not yet strong enough we do need to decide what evidence is strong enough and at what point we begin to look for alternatives. If the theory turns out to be true surely you would agree that starting the fix late would be much more difficult and would require more drastic action than an early response.

 

If in 10 years the evidence shows something different we can start fazing out wind farms and solar farms and other renewables and start replacing them with coal plants, the coal will still be there.

 

Taking vigorous but sensible action now gives us the maximum range of choices in the future.

 

I don't actually see governments taking anything more than mild action anyway. I think business is more likely to come up with solutions. Fusion research continues with some breakthroughs recently (but still some time away) There is an arms race in battery research as well as other mass energy storage systems. Yes, many (or even most) of these will fail, this is the nature of progress.

 

Humans with all their faults do have the capacity to achieve difficult things if the will is there. When Kennedy made his famous "by the end of the decade ....moon speech) NASA was apparently unaware of this pledge and apparently were sceptical about whether that could be achieved. Wright brothers to Armstrong 66 years.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Isn't it time our species progressed beyond burning stuff?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Or progressed beyond planning our future only within an election cycle?

 

Shortsighted planning leaves us with constant inadequate infrastructure (including health care and education)

 

 

[facthunter]

Or a few years of pruning and high output without maintenance, training or research by a CEO whose remuneration depends on a short term profit only.? Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

On the 24 hour evolutionary clock human beings have been around since 1 second to midnight & we have managed to almost completely stuff things up in that time. If things finally go pear shaped and we become extinct I reckon it will only take another second or less for the planet to recover without us.

 

It is also interesting to note that when the bulletin of Atomic Scientists started the doomsday clock in 1947 it was all about nuclear annihilation and the clock was at 7 minutes to midnight. It got down to 2 minutes at various times like the Cuban missile crisis & up to 17 minutes in 1991 after the collapse of the Soviet Union & end of the cold war. Now it is back to 2 minutes to midnight but the threat is now equally climate change with emerging technologies and global risk (hacking and political change, rise of the right and errosion of democracy).

 

The signs are there and have been for all of that time but we still seem to have a head in the sand approach.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Or a few years of pruning and high output without maintenance, training or research by a CEO whose remuneration depends on a short term profit only.? Nev

Musicians, actors, writers, etc. receive royalties for years, based on people enjoying their creative efforts, so why can't we come up with a formula which rewards government and business leaders according to their long-term effectiveness?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

On the 24 hour evolutionary clock human beings have been around since 1 second to midnight & we have managed to almost completely stuff things up in that time. If things finally go pear shaped and we become extinct I reckon it will only take another second or less for the planet to recover without us...

There is some evidence that advanced civilisations have arisen in the past and collapsed, perhaps more than once. The more we are dependent on high tech. and complex trade systems, the more vulnerable we are.

 

When the next big collapse happens -pandemic, climate change, economic depression, nuclear conflict...

 

- the people most likely to survive will be those living closest to the land, in Africa, New Guinea...

 

 

[nomadpete]

I'm pretty sure there are long term incentives in place for ex politicians.

 

For instance I seem to recall that a long time ago, an ex US president getting paid a couple of million US dollars for presenting a motivational talk in Japan. Pretty sure the same sort of thing still happens. Blatent gross bribery (incentivisation before the event) can sometimes cause difficulties whilst they are still in power, but there is no law against acts of 'generosity' by 'old mates' after they are retired (or sacked).

 

Actors and musos get Royalties as monetary rewards that reflect a benefit received by a consumer.

 

All our politicians seem to be financially quite comfortable, so I can assume that somebody, somewhere is feeling indebted to them. Even if they happen to be ex fish and chip pollies.

 

 

[Yenn]

I note that today the minister in the Scott Morrison government, who gave the OK for Adani mine to go ahead, said she would be held accountable for her decision. If it goes ahead and the water table is stuffed up as could happen, will she recompense all the primary producers who are disadvantaged?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I'm pretty sure there are long term incentives in place for ex politicians.For instance I seem to recall that a long time ago, an ex US president getting paid a couple of million US dollars for presenting a motivational talk in Japan...

All true, Pete, but under my proposal, retirement benefits would be based on how well they had done their job.

 

I note that today the minister in the Scott Morrison government, who gave the OK for Adani mine to go ahead, said she would be held accountable for her decision. If it goes ahead and the water table is stuffed up as could happen, will she recompense all the primary producers who are disadvantaged?

I totally agree with your logic, Yenn, but even if found responsible for a stuff-up, the decision-maker isn't personally penalised- the taxpayer is.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Lets have another Genocide & cull this population.

 

Like China Bring in a two child policy, with all subsequent children (both sexes) TO BE NEUTERED. NO if or maybe.

 

That Will bring the population down, with the cut in breeding stock.

 

"and would require more drastic action than an early response" like the UK government saying all car's will be EV by 2030.!

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I reckon sea level rise would do it. The people in the hills would have dugouts and AK47s to deal with the refugees.

 

 

[spacesailor]

NO

 

The worst bunch are in Canberra, too high to help us poor sods.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[nomadpete]

Attention!

 

The Climate Change argument is simply a deliberate diversion to draw the public attention away from the REAL problem.

 

The real problem is anthropogenic environmental destruction.

 

The so called debate about CO2 has effectively stopped us from applying political pressure to stop the continued pollution of our biosphere. How long is it since you heard media exposure of any kind of pollution except CO2?

 

For instance, what about sulphur dioxide? It has been reduced somewhat over the last couple of decades, but it continues without comment.

 

We still have regulators who have set pollution 'limits' that fit in with the big polluter's needs, rather than WHO standards.

 

What about other greenhouse gasses that might be controlled? No mention!

 

Our media has dropped all comments about anything other than CO2.

 

This conspiracy needs to be exposed!

 

PS

 

I'm not denying that climate change is a problem.

 

I'm not denying CO2 is a problem.

 

I am saying that promoting a perceived debate about one pollutant has allowed all the others to slip from our collective awareness and concern.

 

 

[spacesailor]

And take the banning of Australian products, Fire extinguishers Still available over-seas. Red Lead paint, Nasty Anti-fouling, All can be bought once out of Australia.

 

AND

 

I'M right.

 

NASA confirms my theory

 

A great big rock could solve our warm Earth problem.

 

And they (NASA ) wont say a word till it's over.

 

Take a look at the last few Biggies that Just missed, & they reported them late.

 

check out: NEO Earth Close Approaches :

 

and Wiki "

 

List of asteroid close approaches to Earth in 2019 - Wikipedia :

 

spacesailor

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Yes we are stuffing up the world.

 

No it isn’t global warming.

 

Yes something will get us sooner or later, an asteroid is as good a guess as any.

 

 

[spacesailor]

BUT

 

Can Australia's meager population make any impression, if the Third world countries Are allowed to use what we are banned from using, (because of polluting the atmosphere).

 

How many coal fired power stations Are in Australia compered to "Africa, India, and China,?

 

Even Europe out number's us on the polluting score.

 

Head of population per sq Mile or KLMR. makes our pollution much less visible to us.

 

A ton of CO2 in this big area can't be as thick as in a dense area,?.

 

spacesailor