The climate change debate continues.

[octave]

A mythical global catastrophe is being used for political ends. If we listen we will be shelling out “ compensation” for imagined impacts.

Can you explain what the political ends are?

 

 

[Bruce]

It's a tried and true tactic to scare people with lies into supporting your cause. We see this in action all the time, with the weapons of mass destruction most clearly, and the threat of Iran having nukes the latest. The effectiveness of this crude lying is amazing, I know a German-Australian who still gets angry at the Poles for starting WW2.

 

But just because the weapons of mass destruction and the Poles provocations were obvious lies doesn't mean that all scare-mongering is based on lies. What if the scare-mongering is actually underestimating the danger?

 

This election may well be influenced by younger voters who are sufficiently worried about climate change to vote the coalition out.

 

 

[octave]

A mythical global catastrophe is being used for political ends. If we listen we will be shelling out “ compensation” for imagined impacts.

1988 Internal Shell Report "The Greenhouse Effect"

 

What political reason did Shell have to produce this document?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Have those island countries ever made any efforts to curb their populations?...

Have we?

 

A mythical global catastrophe is being used for political ends. If we listen we will be shelling out “ compensation” for imagined impacts.

The impacts are far from mythical, and yes, we will be shelling out compensation, whether we listen or not.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Island leaders saying they are affected by climate change and blaming AUSTRALIA. Asking for compensation. Even if the climate change was caused by humans, it ain’t Australians. World coal production is China 45%, USA 13%, India 8%, AUSTRALIA 6%, Indonesia 5%, rest of the world 23%.

 

If we halved our coal production tomorrow from 6% don’t you think the rest of the world would pick up that 3% in a flash? And our economy would be stuffed.

 

All on the premise of changes that are within normal climate variation.

 

 

[octave]

If we halved our coal production tomorrow from 6% don’t you think the rest of the world would pick up that 3% in a flash? And our economy would be stuffed.

Would our economy be stuffed? Annual update finds renewables are cheapest new-build power - CSIRO

 

I know you will dismiss as being part of a conspiracy.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

....If we halved our coal production tomorrow ... our economy would be stuffed...

The same was said of our car industry, PM. Most of us are better off for its demise. We are not a banana republic- our economy has recovered from the loss of many industries. I have personal experience of this; people adapt.

 

 

[facthunter]

The COST of the damage they do has NEVER been part of the equation. People are getting black lung today That's a disgrace as well as the dust factor that goes for miles and water use where it's not plentiful..The country's being stuffed I don't know about the economy when many of the companies don't pay any tax in this country or rehabilitate the place afterwards, which is the LEAST you should reasonably expect.. Nev

 

 

[octave]

Study by Exxon 1982. The idea that climate change is a hoax propogated by people who want to bring down society is just not logical.

 

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

 

 

[octave]

meanwhile in China First phase of China’s biggest flow battery put into operation by VRB Energy

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Study by Exxon 1982. The idea that climate change is a hoax propogated by people who want to bring down society is just not logical.

https://insideclimatenews.org/sites/default/files/documents/1982 Exxon Primer on CO2 Greenhouse Effect.pdf

Ignoring the April 1 date of the main report and assuming it was serious, there is no evidence of a hoax or of evil intentions. It was an early attempt at understanding the situation, without the benefit of much of the data we have today. The climate alarmists mostly have good intentions, they want to frighten the world into making changes that they think are essential. We have plenty of evidence from the email scandal and otherwise that they will bend the truth to do so. I agree with many of their aims, but see overpopulation and urban development, with deforestation, as the real issues that we must deal with. Climate is just a stalking horse.

 

 

[octave]

We have plenty of evidence from the email scandal

No, we don't. This event "climategate" was the subject of many enquiries. Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia

 

But of course, I guess you will say this is part of the conspiracy

 

I believe Shell has not denied that these papers are genuine. You suggest that those studies may be an early attempt to understand etc. OK so what do they believe today? Perhaps we could delve into what Shell thinks now.

 

From Shell's 2018 report Disclaimer - Shell Annual Report 2018 (click on the enter report button)

 

Climate change and energy transition

 

Shell has long recognised that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the use of fossil fuels are contributing to the warming of the climate system. In December 2015, 195 nations adopted the Paris Agreement. We welcomed the efforts made by governments to reach this global climate agreement, which entered into force in November 2016. We fully support the Paris Agreement’s goal to keep the rise in global average temperature this century to well below two degrees Celsius (2°C) above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase even further to 1.5°C. In pursuit of this goal, we also support the vision of a transition towards a net-zero emissions energy system. Shell agrees with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 1.5°C special report, which states that in order to limit warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the world economy would need to transform in a number of complex and connected ways. Meeting this challenge would require an even more rapid escalation in the scale and pace of change in the coming decades than was foreseen in the Paris Agreement.

 

Society faces a dual challenge: how to transition to a low-carbon energy future to manage the risks of climate change, while also extending the economic and social benefits of energy to everyone on the planet. This is an ambition that requires changes in the way energy is produced, used and made accessible to more people while drastically cutting emissions.

 

We believe that the need to reduce GHG emissions, which are largely caused by burning fossil fuels, will transform the energy system in this century. This transformation will generate both challenges and opportunities for our existing and future portfolio.

 

We welcome and support efforts, such as those led by the Task Force on Climate-related Financial Disclosures (TCFD), to increase transparency and to promote investors’ understanding of companies’ strategies to respond to the risks and opportunities presented by climate change. We believe that companies should be clear about how they plan to be resilient in the energy transition. In 2017, we joined the Oil and Gas Preparer Forum, initiated by the TCFD and convened by the World Business Council for Sustainable Development. The forum´s objectives are to review the current state of climate-related financial disclosures, to identify examples of effective disclosure practices and make proposals on how disclosures may evolve over time. The Shell Energy Transition Report published in April 2018 (2018 SET report) described the energy transition and considered Shell’s resilience against future scenarios. The 2018 SET report followed our discussions with the TCFD about increasing transparency to help investors understand climate-related risks and opportunities. Our approach to the energy transition as described in the 2018 SET report, in combination with the Shell Sustainability Report (April 2019) aims to complement this Report in responding to TCFD recommendations, including discussing the energy transition and Shell´s portfolio resilience.

 

OK what about Exxon ExxonMobil’s four decades of climate science research | ExxonMobil

 

I could go on

 

You say that NASA is lying to generate more funding, even though it seems pretty obvious that more funds could be gained by supporting Trump's beliefs on the matter. I do note however that you do not seem to apply the same scepticism to those few geologists who disagree with the evidence but also seem to have worked or still work for the fossil fuel industry.

 

If as you say NASA is not reliable as well as ESA JAXA indeed these organisations Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia the is too long to detail however I can list the non-commital organisations, American Association of Petroleum Geologists and the American Institute of Professional Geologists Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia

 

And Opposing - Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[24] no national or international scientific body rejects the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[23][25]

 

If all of the bodies mentioned are involved in a conspiracy and therefore cannot be trusted I would be interested to see your list of trusted sources?

 

In the end, I can't convince you of anything you don't want to accept and I have no wish to. I believe passionately in the scientific method and the power of peer review to work towards the truth. I have little time for anti-vaxxers and evolutionists and flat earthers. What these people all have in common is that they dismiss data collected and analysed by many scientists throughout the world and then peer reviewed in favour of individuals who claim that the data is faked. They search hard for any fragment of data that they feel may cast doubt.

 

By the way, do you know who Hill & Knowlton Inc. Inc. are? They are a public relations company that has been engaged by the Tabacco industry and surprise surprise also the oil industry as well as the asbestos industry and other dubious causes

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill+Knowlton_Strategies#Controversies

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I agree 100% that science must prevail. That is why I look beyond the “ consensus” reports at the underlying evidence.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

There is certainly a component of human induced climate change. It just isn’t a threatening change within the overall changes that are always taking place ad always have taken place. There is no immediate threat. The statistics do not support a threat. The alarmist arguments are based on complex computer modelling and I reject that work. I have used computer models in the past in my work and know that the complex ones are good for convincing people who don’t understand their limitations, but are misleading to those using them for prediction.

 

 

[octave]

There is certainly a component of human induced climate change. It just isn’t a threatening change within the overall changes that are always taking place ad always have taken place. There is no immediate threat. The statistics do not support a threat. The alarmist arguments are based on complex computer modelling and I reject that work. I have used computer models in the past in my work and know that the complex ones are good for convincing people who don’t understand their limitations, but are misleading to those using them for prediction.

I have put this point before but I will give it one more go.

 

Unless you are 100% right you must concede that there is a chance that you are wrong and must, therefore, consider the consequences of doing nothing. Your position (if it were widely held) would mean that we wait until it is a problem so large it cannot be denied. Only then do you start to tackle it but of course if some of the worst predictions occur it will be too late.

 

My position is this: my level of certainty is high but not 100% I, therefore, have to consider the small chance that the whole thing is a hoax. I ask myself what are the negative consequences of taking measured but urgent action now. If it is a hoax then history will look back at the time when we paid 7% more for our electricity (according to the ACCC) when we could have just kept burning coal (although CO2 is not the only bad thing about burning coal). The coal will still be in the fossil fuel bank, perhaps as a gift to our grandchildren to use as they see fit.

 

You may be very sure about your position but you surely have to admit that the consequences of doing nothing for a real problem are more problematic than the consequences of doing something for an imagined problem.

 

It really does not matter what you or I believe, we are changing the way we power our society just as we have at various times in the past and will again in the future. I am not even sure if governments will lead the way, so much progress is being made by private enterprise for example

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hDvKJIm2WU8:421

 

 

[pmccarthy]

It all depends what the doing something is. I am satisfied that the world is doing enough and Australia is doing enough to address climate. I think we will end up in the right place. It all results from the varying views and debate that continues including in this forum. The alarmists put up their extreme demands, the skeptics put up their more conservative views, and we end up with a sensible outcome if both sides are heard. The trouble is with stifling debate through ridicule and witch hunts.

 

The world has big problems due to overpopulation. If we address them, I think the rest will follow.

 

 

[Yenn]

Overpopulation is the biggest issue. We are getting to a serious position and mother nature will find a solution. I remember way back when I lived on a farm and we had a couple of cats to control the mice and rats. Those two cats became six or eight, then thirty or forty then plague proportions. Suddenly, cat flu and we were back to two cats. It could happen to us.

 

Someone mentioned rehabilitation of mines, you can't say nothing is being done. on a recent trip to NSW I noticed that the mines look so much better, now that they are building big earth berms and planting trees so that we can no longer see the mine site. Macarthur mine near Singleton is a fine example.

 

 

[Marty_d]

The alarmists put up their extreme demands, the skeptics put up their more conservative views, and we end up with a sensible outcome if both sides are heard.

That's the big problem. It's not an area where one view is equal to another and should be weighed equally.

 

On the side that says climate change is an extremely urgent problem ("alarmists"), you've got the weight of scientific research and analysis from the most trusted scientific organisations on Earth - NASA, CSIRO etc.

 

On the other side are various individuals (who can usually be found to have conflicts of interest).

 

It's like saying "Well, there's a view that the Earth could be spherical... but on the other hand, these folks over here think it's flat.... I think we should give them equal time to reach a sensible compromise."

 

Science has said that we're headed for over 1.5 degrees unless we drastically cut emissions now. Unfortunately there's a lack of political will, particularly on the side that Australia just voted in, to take that action.

 

 

[octave]

The arguments used by those who doubt the evidence are very similar to the arguments presented by the anti-evolution crowd i.e. the mainstream scientists have it wrong and are involved in a conspiracy and only a few individuals can see the real truth. I can give the denial case no more respect than I give the anti-evolution folks. Even though the oil companies are dragging their feet (although I sense this is changing) they do not deny the role of burning fossil fuels in climate change.

 

At the very least the doubters must admit that their view is an extreme minority. I have already asked this many times but if we can't trust the mainstream science organisations where do we go for reliable information Breitbart? Fox news? Andrew Bolt?

 

Another question is, how does this conspiracy work? Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report. Does NASA tell ESA or JAXA how to interpret their satellite data? I do have as a casual acquaintance (a client) who is a Professor of atmospheric physics, is he part of the conspiracy? From whom does he receive his instructions?

 

 

[spacesailor]

"I would be interested to see your list of trusted sources? " HE's in the English prison !.

 

"Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report." it's a government department, so the government tells them, & if they Don't do what their told, they are Unemployed !.

 

I am beginning to Believe ! 27 c tomorrow, It's is winter, I think ?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Who tells our BoM what temperatures to report." it's a government department, so the government tells them, & if they Don't do what their told, they are Unemployed

By government, you mean this government that actually doesn't accept the science? I dont see the logic in that. Does the equivalent of the BoM in the US take instruction from Trump, sorry but illogical!

 

 

[spacesailor]

Were does our BOM, get their money from.?.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[octave]

Were does our BOM, get their money from.?.spacesailor

The BoM gets its money mainly from the government but also through selling its services. It is also routinely audited and found to be professional.

 

What you are suggesting is that the BoM is telling the government what they want to hear but why would a government who downplays climate change order the BoM to inflate temperatures. Wouldn't it be more logical for BoM say to the government "give us more money and we will make the data agree with your policies"

 

You actually believe that when Tony Abbott was the leader he was saying to BoM I know I said climate change is crap but can you please adjust the temperatures up to me look foolish?

 

By the way, you know you can download raw data from BoM for your area perhaps you could do some investigation. Buy a high-quality thermometer and double check their readings Also you can get live data collected from automatic weather stations. It surely would be easy to your nearest station and double check? I can see the current temperature at my local station (Geelong Racecourse) is 15,2C When I was in The RAAF I used to see the RAAF officer checking the weather instruments (before automation) I guess he must have been in on the scam>

 

 

[Bruce]

If it is true that the BOM figures are changed to suit the government in power, then global warming would go completely unreported. I don't think there is a government in the world that encourages it. In Australia and the USA, our governments are in denial. Only in some low islands are they complaining about being inundated, but they are not very important countries.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

BOM have nothing to do with climate, they deal with weather. They do a wonderful job because their computer models can be calibrated. They make predictions a week or so in advance, wait to see what happened, then tweak their input parameters. It is great science. But the climate models produced by so called climate scientists have all failed catastrophically to predict climate over ten or twenty years or so, which is as long as they have been running, there is no way they can calibrate them over a thousand years or so which is essential to get any confidence at all into their predictions.