Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

Knowledge continues to improve over time as research is refined. That's good scientific process.
Right now, most experts on climate say the climate is changing and humans are contributing to that change. Note I didn't say 100% causing the change, just contributing to it.
The experts in this field also are clear that emissions are accelerating the change. They also say the change is making weather events more extreme, both droughts and floods.
When Australia had a carbon tax for 3 years, emissions fell every year, but since it was removed, emissions have risen every year, so that's a clear message about what works.
Frankly, these things are so clear that I don't see how they can be denied, except by denying credible science, just like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers deny science.
I'm interested in science and facts, not ideological points-scoring and scare-mongering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

because 99.99999% of them haven't done the science themselves.

---

And the ones who have seem to be palaeontologists or microbiologist. Can someone please tell me what discipline a "climate scientist" studies?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by trout1105

The way the earths population is exploding we will run out of water and food LONG before a rise of 2-3C kills us off.

---

Nope. Logically, an increase in C02 will increase food production, as C02 is plant food, fertiliser. Extra heat also increases production, as anyone who has ever grown tomatoes in a hothouse will tell you. Water, if you believe the C02 fools, will actually increase, and it won't just be in the seas, and even if it is it will rain.... that is the cycle; if it warms, it cools, condensation happens.

What the doomers aren't telling you is that we are far more likely to be heading into an ice age. There have ben many "little ice ages" in recent times, and we are likely heading for another. C02 will have nothing to do with it, as it never has in history.

The medieval warming period was far warmer than we see now. A thousand years ago. Wheat growing in Greenland. Wine grapes north of Hadrian's wall ( not far south of Scotland.. Try it now. ) Was C02 the issue then? Of course not.

I know I'll be shouted down on this forum, but I have read the literature ( that is NOT the Guardian or Newsweek, in case you were wondering Bob ), and I can post REAL links if I can be bothered.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by vnx205

So you don't mind the straw man arguments, the nirvana fallacy, the generalisations and the terms with negative connotations? :)

---

Didn’t you just do your best Straw Man impression 6 posts up?

What Nirvana fallacy?

The Terms was used in response to the ongoing alternates “Denialist” for example.


For ALL the scientific claims, and the constant cries for reductions of X% in emissions immediately etc...

Not ONE single article I have read throughout this entire Climate Change discussion, nor in any Climate Change paper, have I seen any worthwhile suggestions that will help us globally achieve the projected targets required.

“Stop using coal”, “Switch to renewables” are great statements. Real headline catchers.

Where are the realistic, project plan style solutions?

If this is really, absolutely, without a doubt, end of the world type ‘stuff’ then we must, absolutely, immediately, implement a plan to prevent global dehumanisation. If that requires drastic measures then surely for the “good of all mankind” all governments must act immediately.

Australia fluffing around, as one of the highest emitters of carbon per person, is not going to help whilst China and India keep on pumping it out en-mass.

So what’s the solution? We keep **** farting around, whining and bitching. Not a ****ing solution in sight!

As I ask of my workers - feel free to bring your problems to me - as long as you also bring a suggested solution.

Read this thread, not one solution has been offered up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

When Australia had a carbon tax for 3 years, emissions fell every year, but since it was removed, emissions have risen every year, so that's a clear message about what works.
Frankly, these things are so clear that I don't see how they can be denied, except by denying credible science, just like Flat Earthers and anti-vaxxers deny science.
I'm interested in science and facts, not ideological points-scoring and scare-mongering.

---

Here’s some facts to look up:

During the 3 years the Carbon Tax existed in Australia a significant amount of Carbon-shedding took place.

It was achieved with large volumes of domestic manufacturing being sent overseas.

During the same period significant job losses were incurred in Australia.

During the same period several high emissions businesses did major refurbishments gaining small reductions. During their refurbishments their emissions levels were significantly lower (shut down).

It’s never as statistically simple as it seems.
And frankly, never as clear cut as it’s made out to be.


Here’s some other ‘facts’ (assuming your facts and science are 100%).

- knowing facts and doing nothing of significance will gain nothing
- knowing facts and belittling others for wanting more facts will gain nothing
- all the facts publicly presented will gain nothing, nobody is willing to give it all up to bring about reduction
- Climate science has said if we don’t reduce THIS YEAR and every year thereafter, we can’t alter the outcome.
- with current global birth rates and population growth, a reduction in per capita emissions will be negated in 5-10 years.

We all accept climate as global - the solution must be global. Immediately that brings out the Agenda 21 conspiracy theorists. Even the simplest actions like - How many Americans for example do you think are going to willing give up their V8s? - will be impossible to make happen. Tax them into oblivion? Watch the civil unrest.


This topic causes nothing but decisiveness, stress and anxiety (ask any School kid; they’re ****ting bricks).


It’s a depressing topic, more so because nobody has managed to present a comprehensive solution that doesn’t have population management or financial ruin in the equation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

When Australia had a carbon tax for 3 years, emissions fell every year, but since it was removed, emissions have risen every year, so that's a clear message about what works.

---

The clear message I'm receiving is that the panic zealots are selectively pushing articles and opinions that sure up their trendy beliefs.
If you were fair dinkum, you wouldn't be dragging a big trailer to the NT and Sydney with a generator for air conditioned camping. A Mazda 2 and tent with a single burner gas stove would be far less polluting , as would staying home and living an Amish existence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by V8Ian

The clear message I'm receiving is that the panic zealots are selectively pushing articles and opinions that sure up their trendy beliefs.
If you were fair dinkum, you wouldn't be dragging a big trailer to the NT and Sydney with a generator for air conditioned camping. A Mazda 2 and tent with a single burner gas stove would be far less polluting , as would staying home and living an Amish existence.

---

Who's panicking? It's just a fact that emissions fell every year under the carbon tax - just a fact.
As for your other comments, why are you getting personal?
Do you really want to compare emissions from your Disco and my Defender, because you'll lose that argument, so let's not get personal.

It's not personal Mike, but you keep on about human factors creating climate change and increased CO2, yet you seem to have little concept of your own contributions.
As for comparing our respective cars, you've churned out more pollution, in the last couple of months than I will in the next year, on fuel usage alone.

Ha Ha, that's true.
I'm not banging on, I talk this way all the time. Times have changed and this is the new normal. Either we keep up or we stagnate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Ha Ha, that's true.
I'm not banging on, I talk this way all the time. Times have changed and this is the new normal. Either we keep up or we stagnate.

---

Isn’t keeping up with the times the primary causation behind the CC movement [emoji6]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tombie

Neither are the Doomers. [emoji41]

Doomers search only for information that supports their hypothesis, never pausing to question any of the information for its source, accuracy or its integrity.

There is admitted evidence of inaccuracies in previous data collection, data sources and methodology used.

Data clusters are at times questionable, and periods of reference often skewed to produce a specific outcome.

FEs and AVs are a different league, basing only on conspiracy theories and nothing else (absolutely no data out there at all can even produce a remotely plausible theory in line with their belief).

Denialist is an inaccurate term, often used to describe anyone who doesn’t blindly follow the masses. Reality is there are some who outright deny any change. There are also many who simply question the “extreme” of the predictions. And there are many who question the actual motives behind much of the movement (follow the financials).

…………………....

---

I think you have the financial motives the wrong way around, the vested interests want the status quo to remain, the coal mining companies, call them coal harvesters, don't want you harvesting sunshine with your solar panels, the power generating co's don't want you generating power from your panels, the fuel co's don't want you plugging in your electric car and refuelling from your solar, they want you buying all of that stuff from them. They want big centralised profits, ideally a monopoly where they get all the profit, they don't want a distributed system where thousands/millions are all making a little money.