The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

[silentbutdeadly]

I have done a lot of research into climate change & am shit-scared about what this world will be like in 50 years.

I too have done plenty of research into CC and translated some of that into policy directives for the Great Unwashed...IMO there's not much to be shit scared about (caveat: I'll be dead within the 50 year time frame). Sure it'll be a bit frantic from time to time if you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. But frankly there's quite a number of people on this planet that are already in that position right now...

People are much scarier than the climate will ever be...

 

[silentbutdeadly]

The differences to AGW are astoundingly large, in that we don't have econmcally viable solutions, nor even actions that we know would work, nor whether it needs to, costs would be in the order of hundreds to thousand s of times more expensive and more difficult.

Before you go off on a high horse, I am quite sure that humans are causing climate change and that it needs to be fixed...

Truth of the matter is that it can't "be fixed". The climate is not broken. It works just fine. Problem is that humans have upset the balance through their emissions. And we can't get that balance back (only time can do that and we don't have slo-mo)...but we can still try and make the landing.

Trick is to not further upset the system by continuing the current emission 'pathway'. We do have technological and sociological solutions for that...there's plenty we can do. However, they require the sort of economic and political re-engineering that is potentially upsetting to the average risk averse and narrow focused human.

But I'll reiterate...we can not fix climate change. As with 29ers, that particular genie is well out of the bottle. All we can do now is prepare to adapt...

 

[hifiandmtb]

Sure it'll be a bit frantic from time to time if you find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time. People are much scarier than the climate will ever be...

So says an Australian.

We are one of the lucky countries. Climate migration will radically change the world, at least we've got ocean borders.

 

[stirk]

These MARS turbines look interesting.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/mars-turbine.htm

 

[Ivan]

So I just read a quote from Senator Lazarus saying that he only met with Abbot once, and found it difficult to get a meeting with Abbot.

WTF? Here is the government whining about not getting legislation passed due to a "feral senate", when they aren't even doing the basics in consultation or selling of policy.

 

[pharmaboy]

Truth of the matter is that it can't "be fixed". The climate is not broken. It works just fine. Problem is that humans have upset the balance through their emissions. And we can't get that balance back (only time can do that and we don't have slo-mo)...but we can still try and make the landing.

Trick is to not further upset the system by continuing the current emission 'pathway'. We do have technological and sociological solutions for that...there's plenty we can do. However, they require the sort of economic and political re-engineering that is potentially upsetting to the average risk averse and narrow focused human.

But I'll reiterate...we can not fix climate change. As with 29ers, that particular genie is well out of the bottle. All we can do now is prepare to adapt...

Agree with everything there.

Unlike hifi, there is nothing that convinces me that human induced climate change has to be catastrophic . There is definately a risk that it will be, but a previously far warmer world also seemed to be greener with greater precipitation . If course, there will be places much drier and also places much wetter, which will be a shit if you happen to be in a place that goes from moderate to dry.

The reason I have that view is that 15 years I read extensively on this subject as a skeptic and also an amateur statistician. Around 2000, there were plenty of people like hifi predicting the end of the world, in fact markedly higher sea levels and storms were predicted for the near future (now past). None of it came to pass. The only thing that does come to pass, is that pessimists with no understanding of statistics or observation bias, have repeatedly sighted events which to them seem extraordinary but to history and stats to be completely normal, and tagged them with climate change ( unfortunately I'd put our local palaeontologist scare mongerin this group).

The outcome of that bleating, is that the doubters can still point to all the idiotic predictions by doomsayers, and say - "see, it didn't happen, you must be wrong".

If you want proof, talk to insurance actuaries in competitive markets - these people have a really good handle on whether weather events are changing substantially.

 

[pharmaboy]

Just who is it that prefers to ignore the facts because they're concerned they conflict with their corporate libertarian ideology? Are we supposed to indulge you like little children? If you believe your ideology can deal with AGW prove it - but your leaders prefer to deny instead - it seems they don't believe. Perhaps Turnbull will have the courage to try but he'll have the rest of his party dragging him down

Right now?

The classic, is the GOP for ignoring facts. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with some imagined corporate libertarian ideology. The markets will operate just as well with a price on carbon as in any other environment.

The socialist ideology? What can be done,; we should all just stop burning coal? And do you give a shit about the worlds poor, the malnourished, those without their espresso shops and merino t shirts ?

The greens with their hard left ideology (across the globe), hang on to climate change like it's their problem, they provide their solutions which are based not at all on science but on socialist ideology (it's the rich people's fault and they must pay).

That is easily the worst way of trying to influence things, and hence they have failed completely - study European politics of the 1980s , and more specifically UK left wing politics of the 1980s because that is when the socialists morphed across into green parties and pushed the environmentallists out - green peace is a good place to start.

It's obvious that the issue needs to be taken away from a left versus right, but the left truly believe it's theirs, that the only solution is to curb consumption and more importantly to curb economic growth - that requirement will never win out unless water is lapping at washingtons threshold

Edit - classic example of greens doing the wrong thing through ideology. Anti any logging in native forest. Ok, I'm building a house, it is a high quality build with >100 year building life expectancy - intention is for all screw fittings (enables recycling) and use of Australian class 1 timbers. This will lock up a substantial amount of carbon for a long period, yet the greens would have me build out of fast growing pine, or probably mud bricks........

So in this example, the correct policy for maximising carbon lock up would involve high durability reforestation after logging, perhaps forcing higher quality construction, and recyclable construction techniques. Their anti stance, means that most hardwood for construction in Australia is sourced from SE Asia

 

[paulb]

Right now?

The classic, is the GOP for ignoring facts. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with some imagined corporate libertarian ideology. The markets will operate just as well with a price on carbon as in any other environment.

Agreed but while markets will adjust some of the existing heavyweights will have to adjust or lose out.

The socialist ideology? What can be done,; we should all just stop burning coal?

This is actually starting to happen. In spite of our attempts to keep subsidising its use

And do you give a shit about the worlds poor, the malnourished, those without their espresso shops and merino t shirts ?

Let them eat coal?

The greens with their hard left ideology (across the globe), hang on to climate change like it's their problem, they provide their solutions which are based not at all on science but on socialist ideology (it's the rich people's fault and they must pay).

Please cite examples. Perhaps in the 70s? But it seems to me at least that the Greens are pro growth. There's the population control ratbag fringe but they're hardly mainstream or influential. And as noted the investment in renewables seems to be working out pretty good for everyone - except those who stayed blindly locked into non renewable energy, sure the greener options were cloud cuckoo land. And unfortunately at a govt and business level this includes Australia

Of course it's easier to just dig stuff up than develop new technology

That is easily the worst way of trying to influence things, and hence they have failed completely - study European politics of the 1980s , and more specifically UK left wing politics of the 1980s because that is when the socialists morphed across into green parties and pushed the environmentallists out - green peace is a good place to start.

And the relevance to what we should do today is?

It's obvious that the issue needs to be taken away from a left versus right, but the left truly believe it's theirs, that the only solution is to curb consumption and more importantly to curb economic growth - that requirement will never win out unless water is lapping at washingtons threshold

the greater cost to growth will be leaving it too late, unless your idyllic warmist utopia eventuates. If rich people invest in cleaner tech it's all good. But rich people are rich in the status quo. Change threatens investments based on past conditions. For lazy investors its easier to try to resist the change than to risk adapting to the new.

Edit in response to your edit:
While I think you're oversimplifying the forest argument is very much old school environmentalism in spite of the alleged socialist takeover of the green movement

 

[Haakon]

I'm leaving this installed http://stoptonymeow.com

Just in case...

 

[John U]

Agree with everything there.

Unlike hifi, there is nothing that convinces me that human induced climate change has to be catastrophic . There is definately a risk that it will be, but a previously far warmer world also seemed to be greener with greater precipitation . If course, there will be places much drier and also places much wetter, which will be a shit if you happen to be in a place that goes from moderate to dry.

The reason I have that view is that 15 years I read extensively on this subject as a skeptic and also an amateur statistician. Around 2000, there were plenty of people like hifi predicting the end of the world, in fact markedly higher sea levels and storms were predicted for the near future (now past). None of it came to pass. The only thing that does come to pass, is that pessimists with no understanding of statistics or observation bias, have repeatedly sighted events which to them seem extraordinary but to history and stats to be completely normal, and tagged them with climate change ( unfortunately I'd put our local palaeontologist scare mongerin this group).

The outcome of that bleating, is that the doubters can still point to all the idiotic predictions by doomsayers, and say - "see, it didn't happen, you must be wrong".

If you want proof, talk to insurance actuaries in competitive markets - these people have a really good handle on whether weather events are changing substantially.

You've gone from skeptic to believer in AGW. What changed your mind?

I have few mates who were/are AGW deniers and insurance brokers. I asked them whether the impacts of climate change had been taken into account as risks on policies. They told me that it had been added. This was about 10 years ago.

 

[paulb]

but the left truly believe it's theirs

Reading it again, this has never been the case. They've been trying to share it all along. But the old right would never accept any of it. Though as mentioned by others a younger Greg Hunt had a plan

I'm assuming that the people who've made renewables work include quite a few more modern right wingers* - they're not all wrong all the time and the left may not always be right either. In the 70s some thought hair shirts would be necessary but they were wrong too.

*Of course I'd consider people like Hawke and Keating right wingers too - you may have a different view

 

[Haakon]

Remember when conservatives were interested in conserving things...

 

[pharmaboy]

You've gone from skeptic to believer in AGW. What changed your mind?

Gradual thing - but by and large it was reading about confirmation bias on dedicated skeptic websites (not AGW skeptic site I hasten to add). I realised that when looking for evidence, the way I searched necessarily produced the outcome I sought - this wa she exact same argument that I used against climate science - ie groupthink.

There is a throwing the baby out with the bath water aspect to this. The world of climate politics and indeed "science" is full of capital B believers, eg Tim Flannery - used to piss me off no end because he lacks understanding of statistics and says things so far out of his expertise it isn't funny. I realised these fools were simply that, in exactly the same way as a skeptic I don't want to be associated with George Bush or other Deniers ( there is a difference in my mind between a skeptic and a denier).

The Believers are just as big a fools as the deniers - the true skeptics aren't that far away from the proper scientists. In my experience personally, skeptics were mostly far more educated and smarter than the AGW proponents - but this is a personal quality and should not be mistaken for influencing truth

 

[hifiandmtb]

Fools. Skeptics. Believers. Deniers. Groupthink.

It's a bit hard to appropriately & intelligently discuss AGW with these terms being used.

 

[pharmaboy]

*Of course I'd consider people like Hawke and Keating right wingers too - you may have a different view

You are welcome to that view, but through that prism what I wrote is incomprehensible, because you probably believe the greens aren't left of centre ( economically or socially)

 

[pink poodle]

Fools. Skeptics. Believers. Deniers. Groupthink.

It's a bit hard to appropriately & intelligently discuss AGW with these terms being used.

What the assertion of being right through belittlement of hose foolish enough to think differently to you? Off to the gulag with you!

 

[Linga]

Very true mate. The mining industry sacked 12% of it's workers in 2008 with the onset of the Global Financial Crisis, if all of indusry followed their lead we would have had 19% unemployment. People just don't know the actual figures of what is going on. Big mining and oil and gas shut and cut whenever it isn't viable and shelve it until it is. Mining was also consulted but they just have the money to market. Mining want you to believe that royalties count as tax... Royalties is the money the government charges for taking the actual ore/oil/gas, it is not a tax it is the price of purchase.

On the Emissions trading scheme (as that is what it was and will be) the sale of that was abominable as it was effective and other countries (primarily China) have modelled theirs of ours... Because it worked. Calling it a tax always wound me up as it was not. Using emissions trading schemes is how we managed chlorine and sulphur to stop the deterioration of the ozone layer and now it is repairing itself.
Also I'm not a scientist but part of my job is to measure C02 levels in the air. I generally am testing in the middle of the ocean away from industry in some of the cleanest air. We are currently sitting at around 360-380ppm, which is almost twice pre industrial levels. It is almost outside the parameters set for breathing air under pressure. This means that in the next few years that you will not be able to just compress air and breath it under water, it will have to be cleaned of CO2 or there is a potentioal for injury to Hypercapnia (elevated CO2 in the body)

For me that is the tipping point... We are very close to not being able to breathe our own air... That is crazy

There are so many errors in there.

But the highlighted section is just wrong in fact. Banning Chloroflourocarbons (CFC's) is mainly what halted the ozone hole increasing.

We are still phasing out CFC's or more accurately Ozone depleting substances, so not banned but a phase out. We also subsidise developing nations to help them do that. This is what an ETS is trying to ease the world into. We cannot outright ban climate changing emissions as they are vital to the planet. We can however move to ban the processes that produce too much of them. Hence the ETS was the beginning of, shown by Australia's drop in emissions due to the ETS and the subsequent spike after it's renewal. Sulphur has been traded successfully and many lesson have been learned from this venture, ODS are still being discovered (lobbied for and against) and are being put on the list, with us paying counrties (or them selling to us ie, ETS).
I did not mean to infer that sulphur itself was responsible for the Ozone depletion but show that it was successful in working.
I hope that has clarified it better, sorry for the poor writing saying sulphur was directly responisble along with chlorine.
What were the other errors?

 

[al_]

Right now?

The classic, is the GOP for ignoring facts. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with some imagined corporate libertarian ideology. The markets will operate just as well with a price on carbon as in any other environment.

The socialist ideology? What can be done,; we should all just stop burning coal? And do you give a shit about the worlds poor, the malnourished, those without their espresso shops and merino t shirts ?

The greens with their hard left ideology (across the globe), hang on to climate change like it's their problem, they provide their solutions which are based not at all on science but on socialist ideology (it's the rich people's fault and they must pay).

That is easily the worst way of trying to influence things, and hence they have failed completely - study European politics of the 1980s , and more specifically UK left wing politics of the 1980s because that is when the socialists morphed across into green parties and pushed the environmentallists out - green peace is a good place to start.

It's obvious that the issue needs to be taken away from a left versus right, but the left truly believe it's theirs, that the only solution is to curb consumption and more importantly to curb economic growth - that requirement will never win out unless water is lapping at washingtons threshold

Edit - classic example of greens doing the wrong thing through ideology. Anti any logging in native forest. Ok, I'm building a house, it is a high quality build with >100 year building life expectancy - intention is for all screw fittings (enables recycling) and use of Australian class 1 timbers. This will lock up a substantial amount of carbon for a long period, yet the greens would have me build out of fast growing pine, or probably mud bricks........

So in this example, the correct policy for maximising carbon lock up would involve high durability reforestation after logging, perhaps forcing higher quality construction, and recyclable construction techniques. Their anti stance, means that most hardwood for construction in Australia is sourced from SE Asia

10 characters

 

[Ivan]

The election thread - for the conferring of knighthoods and gazing of navels.

The worlds poor don't want coal, they want solar PV because it's cheaper.

Take a look at what's happening around the world now in places like India. A High voltage poles and wires network is too expensive to build. It's cheaper, and much faster, to have localised power generation with solar.

 

[pharmaboy]

The worlds poor don't want coal, they want solar PV because it's cheaper.

Take a look at what's happening around the world now in places like India.A High voltage poles and wires network is too expensive to build. It cheaper, and much faster, to have localised power generation with solar

I admire your optimism, right now however, solar produces a bit over 1% of Indias power according to Wikipedia . I don't even want to look up the planned coal power stations, but I bet it's a few.

BTW poodle, when I said fools, it was referring to capital B believers and capital D deniers equally - that is people who think in certainties. It's nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with my position, it's fundamental that a black and white position is untenable in most areas of science. In this area of science it is an undeniable situation that it is a set of likelihoods - both for current and modelled effects

Ooh look, a post from someone on ignore.......