# The psychology of climate change



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Some interesting articles ... 

http://blogs.abc.net.au/events/2009/11/the-psychology-of-climate-change.html

Is this a problem with the human psyche - i.e. that climate change is (arguably) slipping down our 'To Do' list?

Or our leaders perhaps - how they describe the problem to an electorate, a bare 1 or 2% of whom have read the IPCC report or even an excerpt..   If they paint it "easy to fix", then we say "can't be that bad" 
If they paint it as potentially a disaster just down the road a bit , then the public finds it too scary. ( a recent UK ad)



> I've heard exasperated climate scientists similarly ponder what they regard as bewildering inaction.
> 
> CSIRO's former climate director, Dr Graeme Pearman, suffered a personal crisis after confronting this question before deciding to study psychology, which he describes as the new frontier in climate change:
> 
> "Behavioural issues are likely to be much more important than the development of improved descriptions of exactly what happens or might happen to the climate. These are the main barriers to the actions that are needed."






> Harvard University's Daniel Gilbert has provided a sharply amusing account of how global warming challenges our evolutionary psychology -  if it doesn't make us duck or twitch or even feel repulsed, can it really be so bad?
> 
> Behavioural scientists... "Simply laying out the facts won't work … The barrage of negative, even terrifying, information can trigger denial or paralysis or, at the very least, procrastination." Sounds like a bad rap for his Academy Award winning film, An Inconvenient Truth, which helped raise global awareness of the issue.






> "Messages are more effective if framed to warn people that they will lose $500 over 10 years if they don't follow a particular course of action to limit climate change, than if they are told they'll be $500 better off if they do take action," the report says.
> 
> But is our psychology the only reason why climate change is slipping down our 'To Do' list?  Does lack of political and economic leadership, inaccessible science (how many people have really read the 2007 IPCC report?), aggressive vested industrial interests and extremist greenies all combine to dilute the collective will Mr Gore is trying to summon on this epic issue? Another one of his chapters analyses the political obstacles.






> David Spratt, an Australian climate activist and co-author of Climate Code Red, blames apathy on "a systemic political under-estimation of the seriousness of the problem … Because governments are not honest with themselves about the size and urgency of the problem, they necessarily transmit a shallow view of the problem to the electorate, who follow suit in seeing climate as an incremental problem. Voters are sold a show-bag of dinky policy actions on climate as 'solving the problem', and they reasonably conclude the problem can't be all that serious. Much of the climate advocacy lobby is guilty of the same incapacity."
> 
> But a recent public campaign by the UK Government prompted complaints that its TV ad on climate change was too scary.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

then there's managing the effects (real , here , now) on rural families, 

http://www.psychology.org.au/inpsych/climate_rural/



> Suicide rates, on the other hand, have been consistently reported as higher in the farming population for some years (Judd et al, 2006; Kilkkinen et al, 2007). A range of biopsychosocial factors have been proposed to explain why the suicide rate is high in the farming population but as yet there is no definitive answer, and the impact of climate change on suicidal behaviour so far has only been inferred.




Environmental psychology: An endangered species? P


> Environmental psychology is an area of psychology which places particular emphasis on people-environment interrelationships and transactions. It is a well-established area of psychology which has been going strong since the late 1960s, with specific environmental psychology journals, courses, textbooks, handbooks, web sites, and postgraduate programs.
> ...
> The current situation for environmental psychology in Australia, however, is looking increasingly dire. It would appear that there are now very few Departments or Schools offering such a subject at an undergraduate level, etc


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Personally, when I see Barnaby Joyce giving public talks to country folk, I'm certain that there's more going on in their minds than the science 

I can empathise and sympathise, but we'll all (including them) still have to come back to the science eventually to find a way through this problem.


----------



## Sean K (14 November 2009)

I unchecked 2020 from my Ignore List just to check what was posted here because I am very bored.

Back on ignore.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

sorry to hear you're bored kennas, 
try this one - help fill in a few minutes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WM09qoR8oi0 The Psychology of Climate Change 2008


----------



## Julia (14 November 2009)

kennas said:


> I unchecked 2020 from my Ignore List just to check what was posted here because I am very bored.
> 
> Back on ignore.




Ah, Kennas, thank you for reminding me of this facility.
In my entire time on ASF, there is only one person who prompts me to engage it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 November 2009)

Calliope said:


> Here we go again. I have no doubt your Guardian-reading disciples will flock to your banner. At best this thread will act as a cesspool to attract the crazies and stop them from trying to hi-jack other threads for their ulterior purposes.



I like the idea of concentrating all nutters in one thread.  (oh i just posted 
	

		
			
		

		
	






	

		
			
		

		
	
 )


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2009)

I've been interested in the issue since the 1980's and I'm well aware of what would need to be done to solve it (assuming the science is correct).

That I hear so many claims of outright nonsense from all sides in terms of solutions is what turns me off. Whether they're outright lies or carefully constructed attempts at pursuing some other agenda is an arguable point, but the certainty is that they don't actually fix the problem, at least not without causing other major problems in the first place.

Restore some honesty to the whole thing and then I'll take people seriously. But I can't take anyone seriously who tells me that installing a water tank will help (it will do absolutely no good whatsoever) or that shuffling emissions between countries will help (also does no good at all). Even worse are those who try introducing socialism under the guise of climate change - stick to the CC issue please and don't use it to pursue other agendas.

Keep it real, stick to the facts, stop telling lies and then I'll listen. That's aimed at the debate in general, not specifically the original poster on this thread.

Is the climate changing? Having seen plenty of figures and real world examples, I'd say yes, it certainly is changing at least in WA and Tas where there's rather a lot of proof in relation to rainfall patterns. Whether that's due to global CO2 emissions is another matter but the link between temperature and rainfall seems pretty clear.


----------



## MACCA350 (14 November 2009)

Last I heard the Earth's temp hasn't increased since 2001

Also heard this wasn't a global warming but a solar system warming as other planets have also increased in temp in line with the suns increased solar radiation activity. 

I saw a graph which used ice core samples to determine the temp change over millions of years, looked like a mountain range with the swings up and down. We're apparently at or near the high for this cycle.

So what's the reality? 
Are the governments of the world strings being pulled using this as an excuse to plough more money off us and create a "one world government" ...........all the while knowing that their public attempts to reduce global warming are like using a babies toy bulldozer to flatten the Himalayas(ie useless as .... on a bull) , yet will seem affective because they already know we're coming(or have already passed) to the end of the warming cycle.

All bollocks if you ask me, and in the future if some "Top Secret Documents" come to light showing the governments of the world know as such, they should be shot for scaremongering.

cheers


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

The psychology of global warming , bad weather or whatever you want to call it is similar to that of religion.

Non-believers are ridiculed or punished.

It is not proveable.

Rewards for Scientific endeavour are reserved for believers, and the case for a god, or a flat earth, or global whatchamacallit is pushed down the throats of children or innocents.

People collect in spaces/churches/etc. to reinforce their beliefs.

The Psychology is Fear of Retribution from a Greater Being.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

MACCA350 said:


> Last I heard the Earth's temp hasn't increased since 2001
> ... cheers



macca, here's an article you may have missed ...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

no point in asking gg to read it , lol - he's too busy enjoying the weather.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Non-believers are ridiculed or punished.
> ...
> gg



non-believers ( and believers alike) will be exposed to diseases like this too m8.  (and malaria etc etc ).

Ever had dengue fever? - they call it broken bone fever in the islands.  
sheesh, makes the worst flue you've ever had seem like a touch of common cold. 

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2009/11/12/2741216.htm


> Queensland Health has today confirmed three travellers have fallen ill with dengue fever on return to Cairns from the Asia and South Pacific Region.
> 
> Queensland Health has today also confirmed Townsville's first case of the virus for the season.
> 
> ...



Apparently a really early start to the season   - you could well be getting it all year round one of these days.


----------



## Calliope (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> non-believers ( and believers alike) will be exposed to diseases like this too m8.  (and malaria etc etc ).
> 
> Ever had dengue fever? - they call it broken bone fever in the islands.
> sheesh, makes the worst flue you've ever had seem like a touch of common cold.




Climate change, yes, but where's the psychology?


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The psychology of global warming , bad weather or whatever you want to call it is similar to that of religion.
> 
> Non-believers are ridiculed or punished.
> 
> ...



Being sceptical _of anything_ is nearly always a good thing and it's what leads to the great discoveries being made in the first place. It wasn't that long ago that only sceptics thought CO2-induced climate change was possible - it certainly wasn't the mainstream view until quite recently.

The simple fact that sceptics are being ridiculed confirms absolutely that this has taken on a religion-like approach where people should just believe what they're told and not question. That's not at all scientific in any way.

Now I don't know about you, but whenever someone trys to stop me from thinking and says "trust me", I'm immediately suspicious. Even moreso when they are proposing that I part with significant sums of money or permanently hand over my rights.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Being sceptical _of anything_ is nearly always a good thing and it's what leads to the great discoveries being made in the first place. It wasn't that long ago that only sceptics thought CO2-induced climate change was possible - it certainly wasn't the mainstream view until quite recently.
> 
> The simple fact that sceptics are being ridiculed confirms absolutely that this has taken on a religion-like approach where people should just believe what they're told and not question. That's not at all scientific in any way.
> 
> Now I don't know about you, but whenever someone trys to stop me from thinking and says "trust me", I'm immediately suspicious. Even moreso when they are proposing that I part with significant sums of money or permanently hand over my rights.




Sorry just posted this on the Confucius thread but it seems so apt for weather and climate discussion.



> He who learns but does not think, is lost He who thinks but does not learn is in great danger.




gg


----------



## OzWaveGuy (14 November 2009)

Interesting thread and a good one.  There's actually quite considerably more to the background of climate change than most realize. Unfortunately, I don't have time at the moment to put thoughts to ascii.

One observation I will make now is that the folks behind climate change missed a huge opportunity to implement a world wide carbon tax years ago. If one were to consider the AGW scam a 'project'  ,  analysis of this project's deployment strategy and timing would have been a critical success factor. The key, IMHO, would be to deliver the project with the least resistance from the distracted public - and timing would have played a very key part in the strategy.

Of course, as most are now aware and as clearly documented in other threads the real agenda is out and people globally know it's a scam. Even if the ETS get's up here in AU, a growing awareness will unfold and will be unstoppable with some severe consequences.

More sometime later.


----------



## gav (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> then there's managing the effects (real , here , now) on rural families,
> 
> 
> 
> > Suicide rates, on the other hand, have been consistently reported as higher in the farming population for some years (Judd et al, 2006; Kilkkinen et al, 2007). A range of biopsychosocial factors have been proposed to explain why the suicide rate is high in the farming population but as yet there is no definitive answer, and the impact of climate change on suicidal behaviour so far has only been inferred.




Well then, I better tell my parents and relatives to stop farming! 

Farming can be an be an extremely tough gig, physically, mentally, and financially.  I'm sure this can affect farmers psychologically.  Loneliness is  another factor.  Being rural, most farmers generally have a lot less contact with people, compared than those who live in cities - which can also affect someone psychologically, especially if they were already feeling down.  

Growing up in the country, most people dont "talk about feelings", it is not the way they were raised.  Not being able to express feelings will also affect someone psychologically, when they are feeling down.  All of these psychological factors could contribute to the increased number of farming suicides.  

Yes, things like drought, floods, etc. will cause a farmer stress.  But the reason behind the stress is NOT the reason that some commits suicide. It's how they deal with this stress psychologically that will determine whether they commit suicide or choose to live (see the points I mentioned above).  There are many, many things that cause farmers stress -unfavourable weather is just one.  But to claim "climate change" as a contributing factor to farmers suicides is simply grasping at straws, and shows how weak your argument really is.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

gav said:


> But to claim "climate change" as a contributing factor to farmers suicides is simply grasping at straws, and shows how weak your argument really is.



well gav, I would have thought that increasing fire risk and/or drought and/or floods and/or rapidly rising insurance premiums for these things were a contributing factor. 

but since you insist that they are not - then I guess they are not. 

PS I seem to recall I posted the proposition that it was a complex subject - open for discussion if you will.  Thanks for your comments.  ( I also had grandparents and great grandparents who went broke on the land - going back to the 1901 ( I think) drought / bank crisis (and before) 

PS gav, when I first started on ASF, one of my main motivations was to try to lighten things up a bit - add a bit of humour for country folk - try to stem the fact that rural suicides were running at crazy levels.  Since then I seem to have bogged down arguing with people who pretend to want to reduce pollution, but then argue against the best chance to do so , namely Copenhagen . 

http://www.abc.net.au/rural/content/2008/s2543219.htm]


> A 2008 World Health Organisation study says the rate of rural suicide in Australia is among the highest in the developed world.
> 
> Our farmers battle the crippling challenges and profound stresses of years of drought, failed crops, floods, mounting debt and decaying towns.
> 
> ...



more suicides in Australia than killed in motor vehicles


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

> well gav, I would have thought that increasing fire risk and/or drought and/or floods and/or rapidly rising insurance premiums for these things were a contributing factor.



Country Folk are unlikely to be affected by the rising insurance for sea level near the coast I concede - but that is yet another "proof" that it's happening - I mean Exxon Mobil can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool the insurance companies  (otherwise called the "bookies")


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Country Folk are unlikely to be affected by the rising insurance for sea level near the coast I concede - but that is yet another "proof" that it's happening - I mean Exxon Mobil can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool the insurance companies  (otherwise called the "bookies")




Many of us in "the country" have beach houses or huts, and will be severely affected if rising sea levels occur. 

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

well gg, why not put your money where your mouth is - 
 become a bookie / insurance company. - give the best premiums by gambling that it won't happen - 
you'll be rich when it all turns out to be a fizzer.


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Julia said:


> Ah, Kennas, thank you for reminding me of this facility.
> In my entire time on ASF, there is only one person who prompts me to engage it.




gee whiz julia - that's pretty mean. 
How would you have learnt how to edit photos if you had me on ignore?

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=372157

PS I usually charge "significant" consultancy fees,  but in your case, I'll settle for a smile.  - second thoughts - forget it.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well gg, why not put your money where your mouth is -
> become a bookie / insurance company. - give the best premiums by gambling that it won't happen -
> you'll be rich when it all turns out to be a fizzer.




Mate , I just go with the science, I don't bet on religious prophesies, like climate change.

gg


----------



## 2020hindsight (14 November 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Mate , I just go with the science, I don't bet on religious prophesies, like climate change.
> 
> gg



lol - what you're saying is you don't bet against so-called "religious prophesies" either  - go for it.
Let me know when yuo work out where you really stand with this  lol.


----------



## wayneL (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Country Folk are unlikely to be affected by the rising insurance for sea level near the coast I concede - but that is yet another "proof" that it's happening - I mean Exxon Mobil can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool the insurance companies  (otherwise called the "bookies")




What proof?


----------



## gav (14 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well gav, I would have thought that increasing fire risk and/or drought and/or floods and/or rapidly rising insurance premiums for these things were a contributing factor.
> 
> but since you insist that they are not - then I guess they are not.
> 
> ...




2020, there are many Australians who struggle financially to feed themselves/their families, struggle emotionally, mentally and are under extreme stress.  Farmers aren't the only ones.  Why aren't other stressed Australians committing suicide at a similar rate to farmers?  

It is their lack of ability to cope with the stress psychologically that is the problem, not the factor causing the stress.  I was merely pointing out factors that I believe contribute to the farmers inability to cope with the stress.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Now I don't know about you, but whenever someone trys to stop me from thinking and says "trust me", I'm immediately suspicious. Even moreso when they are proposing that I part with significant sums of money or permanently hand over my rights.




Yes. It's almost as bad as those dreaded words "I'm from the Government and I here to help you." Recently a bloke flogging roof insulation door to door said very similar words to me. I told him my roof had been insulated during construction. He said "That's all right this time we will lay it on the ceiling, and it will cost you nothing" 

The relevant bit is that this crook said he was from the Government, and in a way, he was. Kevin had given these predators _carte blanche_ to waste millions of dollars and no questions asked, as long as it was done quickly.

So I guess the psychology of greed is bound up with the psychology of climate change.


----------



## wayneL (15 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> What proof?




Still waiting.....


----------



## Julia (15 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> Still waiting.....



I trust you're not holding your breath.


----------



## Calliope (15 November 2009)

Forbidden love.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/forbidden-love-20091114-ifid.html


----------



## 2020hindsight (15 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> Still waiting.....




what?
that insurance is rising ?
so if I post evidence you'll agree that you were wrong?
here's one of countless articles ...
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/insurance-to-rise-with-sea-levels-20091027-hj2u.html

and some locations in Vic are apparently uninsurable ( after Black Saturday) 
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Black_Saturday_bushfires?t=13.
"Australia's worst natural disaster"
or as I think you called it  - "so it got hot and someone lit a fire?"


----------



## basilio (15 November 2009)

Great thread  2020 

Having a look at the psychology of climate change and started to explore the feelings that many people have (and in a number of cases climate scientists) as they come to realise what is happening to the climate is powerful stuff. It is very confronting to watch more and more pieces of the puzzle fall into place with the answer being a disaster. Certainly that was Greame Pearmans (CSIRO)  public comment and I'm aware that many scientists in the field share similar private views.

I can't offer a simple antidote but for what it's worth, a couple of points.

1) Taking actual constructive action to reducing ones impact on the environment and simplifying ones lifestyle offers some relief. Whether it's planting a vegetable garden, working with others to redirect their lives (see Permablitzes(  http://www.permablitz.net/ ) or just planting trees with environment groups - they all help

2) Trying to recognise that we can only live the day that is ahead of us. It is too easy to look ahead and imagine  the possible outcomes of where we are going. Not good....

Another possibility of course is outright denial. Just try and say that all these scientists with all their theories and models and measurements are misguided, ignorant or just in it for the money. That it simply isn't happening or that we will (magically) get over it because , "we're White, Bright and Proud to be Right" And if you say it it loud enough and often enough -- well a lot of people who don't want to hear uncomfortable realities will accept a comfortable lie.  

And perhaps that is good. One could ask the question just what would be the mental health of our society if most people  did consciously understand and accept what our scientific community has been saying about global warming for the last 20 years.


----------



## basilio (15 November 2009)

Comfortable lies versus uncomfortable truths. I dropped this line in my earlier post on the psychology of climate change. Just to explore it a bit further consider the following thoughts.

Perhaps much of our society  and current economy  is based on comfortable lies being accepted before uncomfortable realities. And perhaps because we see this consciously and unconsciously much of the time we desperately wish that all this climate change nonsense will simply go away and never happen. After all this approach seems to be working elsewhere.

Some examples? For decades and decades companies selling dangerous and poisonous products like tobacco and asbestos managed to lie to their staff, customers and the community about the likely effects of  these products. Fact is that as far as I can tell the industries made out like bandits and the punters have paid the price.

Similarly does anyone seriously believe that poker machines aren’t designed to create a host of addicts to feed the pockets of the manufactures and casinos ?  The best psychologists in the world work to create pleasurable worlds of addiction through these machines which  inevitably destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people.  But we as a society accept the comfortable lie of allowing the free market to reign versus questioning the effects of this decision.

More recently wasn’t it just a bit crazy to have every man and their dog in America and elsewhere buying homes with 105% loans no income, no jobs and having this all approved by financial institutions? How about simply using the “rapidly appreciating value of your home” as an ATM where you could draw extra loan money for that holiday, car or new spa? Wasn’t this last boom just the biggest lie we have lived for a long time? 

And the biggest lie of all? That our whole political system  believes we must have perpetual increase in economic growth with perpetual increases in resource use to keep the economy afloat. We have one limited earth with certain real limits to resources. You can’t have unlimited growth in a limited  ecosystem. You simply run out of resources.

So perhaps it is not that strange that the main movers and shakers in our society pay only lip service to what a bunch of  pointy headed scientists might say. After they buy and sell these guys. So they must know more…

The whole point is that simply laying out the facts doesn’t cut any ice with people who routinely deal in lies.


----------



## Julia (16 November 2009)

basilio said:


> And the biggest lie of all? That our whole political system  believes we must have perpetual increase in economic growth with perpetual increases in resource use to keep the economy afloat. We have one limited earth with certain real limits to resources. You can’t have unlimited growth in a limited  ecosystem. You simply run out of resources.
> 
> .



Basilio, you make some good points, especially that above.

If we accept that climate change exists, and we further accept human beings' activities are contributing to it, could you then comment on the usefulness of Australia's proposed ETS, particularly if the rest of the world (as looks likely) fails to commit to anything similar at Copenhagen?

I imagine, from your comment above, that you won't be worried if some of our big companies move their operations offshore to enable them to avoid the costs of the ETS in Australia, and the subsequent effect on our economy?

If you consider the ETS will "work", could you say to what extent it will alter  the rate of climate change?  How will this be measured?

How can you be assured that Australia - in adopting the ETS - will not be implementing what even Ross Garnaut says is a deeply flawed scheme, and in the process imposing an additional tax on everything we buy, sell and make, without making any appreciable difference to global emissions?


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Country Folk are unlikely to be affected by the rising insurance for sea level near the coast I concede - but that is yet another "proof" that it's happening - I mean Exxon Mobil can fool some of the people some of the time, but they can't fool the insurance companies  (otherwise called the "bookies")






2020hindsight said:


> what?
> that insurance is rising ?
> so if I post evidence you'll agree that you were wrong?
> here's one of countless articles ...
> ...




You make the straight out out claim that rising insurance premiums are proof of anthropogenic climate change.

Your first link was a scare story, an if-then hypothesis from a politician.

The second link was about bushfires which happen irrespective of climate change. Insurers do the same thing with flood prone areas.

That doesn't even approach the standard of proof required. How Exxon-Mobil became involved in this particular passage leaves me puzzled/amused.

Aside from that, insurance premiums are rising through a number of other reasons which are purely structural. It is not just weather prone endeavours.

Do you have any actual scientific proof that insurance premiums are rising due to MMCC, rather than ludicrous logical fallacies?


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

basilio said:


> Comfortable lies versus uncomfortable truths. I dropped this line in my earlier post on the psychology of climate change. Just to explore it a bit further consider the following thoughts.
> 
> Perhaps much of our society  and current economy  is based on comfortable lies being accepted before uncomfortable realities. And perhaps because we see this consciously and unconsciously much of the time we desperately wish that all this climate change nonsense will simply go away and never happen. After all this approach seems to be working elsewhere.
> 
> ...



I agree with Julia. This is a good post on the psychology of major issues. I kave a bunch of comments about the perpetual growth issue, ut that is off topic.

But unfortunately the facts in the case of CC have become obfuscated by politics and VIs. In this case the facts are not being laid out in an open honest manner. The science is being cherrypicked by both sides of the debate.

Representing the increase in CO2 as causing AGW as "the facts" and all else as psychologically expedient denial is not at all scientifically honest. I just wish people would stop defending sacred cows and address the real issues that I have detailed _ad nauseaum_.

This is in fact the real denial. eg the North Pacific garbage vortex )and hundreds of other similar real time current and addressable environmental disasters gets a simple shrug of the shoulders and ignored while the politically motivated IPCC dominates the agenda.

This is in fact the biggest problem of all and the source of real denial. Who wants a world with purportedly "normal" co2 levels that has been trashed in a million other ways?


----------



## Knobby22 (16 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> I
> 
> This is in fact the biggest problem of all and the source of real denial. Who wants a world with purportedly "normal" co2 levels that has been trashed in a million other ways?




It will be the first step. If we can fix one problem, then we can fix others. Nations acting together for the common good can only be a good thing. 

Of course we will have the hysterical extremists screaming from the sidelines about how wrong it is to have effectively a world UN government, conspiracy theories et all.


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> It will be the first step. If we can fix one problem, then we can fix others. Nations acting together for the common good can only be a good thing.
> 
> Of course we will have the hysterical extremists screaming from the sidelines about how wrong it is to have effectively a world UN government, conspiracy theories et all.



It is not extremist to be suspicious of a one world government. That is a rather repulsive straw man argument there Knobby.

As far as fixing one problem, the problem is one that is low on the agenda.

For instance building Priuses purportedly addresses carbon, but creates far more obnoxious environmental problems. Same with corn ethanol, etc etc

co2 is a minor issue. Let's fix real problems.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

The psychology of climate change apparently dictates that the alarmists adopt a sneering and holier than thou attitude to those disagree with them. Local alarmists take their lead from their Dear Leader who gave GW sceptics a nasty spray recently. 

But what about the psychology of apology. Today Rudd is going to apologise to the 500,000 Australians who grew up in institutions. (The Forgotten Australians) It should be noted that Rudd only apologises as a symbolic gesture and then on behalf of all of us. He never makes personal apologies.

He puts his spin doctors to work to justify his errors of judgement. You will never hear an apology for his slur on sceptics, when he eventually has to eat crow.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2009)

well I invite anyone - Wayne, Calliope  included - to put all your money into the insurance game - and make NO ADJUSTMENT whatsoever for 
rising temperatures and bushfire threat (some relevant areas)
rising sealevels (ditto)
more frequent flooding (ditto).

Of course drought effects are partly "insured" by the Aussie taxpayer, who picks up the tab for drought relief - not that I don't think the bushies need and deserve it - just that the cost of rising insurance due to drought is hidden by that system. .

PS Wayne, I'm still waiting for you to confirm that I posted you scientific evidence that the rate of seal level rise has increased from mean of 1.7mm per year ( approx 1900 to 1975 ) to 3mm per year since then.  (going from memory here - it's on the "is it ok to jest about GW" thread - as you will recall).  Jason 1 and Jason 2 - all seriously scientific stuff!!

Hell there are plenty of articles on the IPCC website - 

but then they aren't scientific enough for you as I recall


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> well I invite anyone - Wayne, Calliope  included - to put all your money into the insurance game - and make NO ADJUSTMENT whatsoever for
> rising temperatures and bushfire threat (some relevant areas)
> rising sealevels (ditto)
> more frequent flooding (ditto).




An absolutely ludicrous argument. Akin to me inviting you to sell waterfront blocks in Penrith. Get real. 



> Of course drought effects are partly "insured" by the Aussie taxpayer, who picks up the tab for drought relief - not that I don't think the bushies need and deserve it - just that the cost of rising insurance due to drought is hidden by that system. .
> 
> PS Wayne, I'm still waiting for you to confirm that I posted you scientific evidence that the rate of seal level rise has increased from mean of 1.7mm per year ( approx 1900 to 1975 ) to 3mm per year since then.  (going from memory here - it's on the "is it ok to jest about GW" thread - as you will recall).  Jason 1 and Jason 2 - all seriously scientific stuff!!




Please read this. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/...mm-a-year-uc-sea-level-data-says-differently/


----------



## Knobby22 (16 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> It is not extremist to be suspicious of a one world government. That is a rather repulsive straw man argument there Knobby.
> 
> As far as fixing one problem, the problem is one that is low on the agenda.
> 
> ...




It will be a government that consists of a stronger UN.  A sort of Commonwealth. The world would be better off if the UN had teeth.

And that Prius argument is furphy pushed by certain interest groups.
The Prius is greener than a Hummer in all stages of its lifecycle. 
Refer. http://docs.google.com/gview?a=v&q=...3IZT01Fu7ICd4AtxVzpbDHPFAPqE1CCO62M2naFfFVGw&

I have seen this argument countermanded by a different sources worldwide.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2009)

The international emissions trading scheme is conceived as a world wide approach to tackling climate change. The theory (and reality) is that reducing greenhouse gas emissions is a monumental task which requires every country to pull its weight.

The scheme is actually one developed through the business world. In theory it says that  businesses will find the most economical way to reduce carbon emissions and that an international ETS scheme will enable this.

I scouted the net for a “simple to understand” explanation of how the scheme is suppose to work and  the Australian Conservation foundation seemed to have the cleanest version .  http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1817

Will it work and how will Australia be affected  ?  As I see it the reality of my previous premise, that the world  is broadly living a lie in it’s approach to expecting never ending growth, means that  no approach will work.  One can already see the gaming approaches by financial institutions with illusionary carbon savings and creative accounting.  On a national level the “negotiations” over how  we slice and dice quotas, supervise them and help each other make this work are downright ugly . I have posted a reference to one insight into the process

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/07/climate-change-talks-2009

So what will work ?  It sounds idealistic and naÃ¯ve but perhaps the united actions of millions of people to lead by example and force business and governments to take the issue seriously may be the  most effective way. The Berlin Wall fell to people power; The  corrupt Philippines government probably a number of other institutions. Interestingly enough there is a grass roots program going through the UK at the moment called 10/10. It asks people and institutions to reduce their  greenhouse gase by 10% in 2010 as a first step and public example of what is required to make a dent in greenhouse gas emissions.  Worth a look
http://www.1010uk.org/1010/what_is_1010


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> It will be a government that consists of a stronger UN.  A sort of Commonwealth. The world would be better off if the UN had




OK that is better wording. Of course I disagree, but that's your opinion.

Re Prius - I will look into this, but I doubt it would fair very well against a comparable conventional 4 cylinder car.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> OK that is better wording. Of course I disagree, but that's your opinion.
> 
> Re Prius - I will look into this, but I doubt it would fair very well against a comparable conventional 4 cylinder car.




I'll give you that. I believe the new fiat, lightweight with a diesal engine beats the Prius.


----------



## Calliope (16 November 2009)

basilio said:


> I scouted the net for a “simple to understand” explanation of how the scheme is suppose to work and  the Australian Conservation foundation seemed to have the cleanest version .



http://www.acfonline.org.au/articles/news.asp?news_id=1817

Ah.There's the rub.



> Over time a good carbon trading scheme with strong national caps can help Australia to become a world leader in tackling climate change with a booming clean energy economy. CSIRO research shows that strong action on climate change will see three million new green collar jobs.




The sceptic interpretation of this little gem is that it would make our Kevin a world leader on "tackling climate change." Obama has already allowed him to assume this role in Singapore and in the absence of Obama he will take over in Copenhagen. It's all about Rudd's ambition to be a world statesman, looked up to by all leaders.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2009)

*Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?  *

Wayne L and others note that the real problems of the world lie in the  North Pacific garbage vortex and hundreds of similar issue. To this I would add that the most critical i*mmediate problem* is our worlds dependence on fossil fuels when

1)	The CO2 emissions and other pollutions from fossil fuels are fouling our earth
2)	Every  piece of evidence is telling us we have almost peaked in our production of oil and that much of our current industrial  society simply won’t function within a  decade with the precipitous decline of this energy source.

I agree that focusing solely on reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions is too limited.  In fact the range of problems is so big and interrelated it will require  unprecedented   clever, co-operative actions to tackle pollution  *and * failing energy resources *and*  global warming and land degradation *and *so on.  When the boat has so many holes you can’t simply fix a couple and expect  to sail on.

But it comes back to the first question  we have to acknowledge
*“Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?”  *

I have framed it this way because as I see it almost every “solution” attempts to argue the economic costs of tackling the issue,s or suggest there are great business opportunities if we go in a particular direction. With that profit driven  framework I just can’t see how we can effectively tackle the issues.

*As I see it the  goal and prize in this case is  simple survival *- not making the next million dollars.. Keeping the world somewhat habitable, allowing as much of the ecosystem to survive as we can manage,  creating  a sustainable  niche in the system for humankind. Our current  perpetual growth paradigm cannot achieve this goal. Our  refusal to acknowledge this fact is a death sentence.


----------



## basilio (16 November 2009)

*Do we have deadly serious environmental problems in our world and will we actually try and fix them ?  *


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2009)

so wayne - I post CSIRO evidence that Jason 1 & 2 are monoitoring 3mm per year sea level rise - we're talking NASA et al here - orbiting satellites that can plot this superaccurately ;   and you counter with a challenge.

I still prefer the attitude you held a year or two back.  Much more consistent with what most would call "a sensible risk-averse approach"
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (16 November 2009)

basilio,


> I would add that the most critical i*mmediate problem* is our worlds dependence on fossil fuels when



Do you drive a car Basilio?


----------



## Julia (16 November 2009)

2020, unless I've missed it (quite possible given the now multiple threads relating to climate change and the ETS), you haven't explained to us exactly how the ETS will work, how it will reduce CO2, and how global climate will be affected if Australia is the only country with such a scheme.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2009)

thousands of articles , papers, powerpoint presentations, etc on the IPCC website - one there (can't find it immediately) that not only shows the rate of 3mm per year now as against half that 60 years or so ago -  but shows the best estimate of the relative contributing causes, eg thermal expansion of the oceans ( and they are getting warmer you know) - as well as the runoff from melting glaciers etc. 

PS you know, I was speaking to a bloke from Sweden yesterday (well about 40 year old) - he measures ice depth etc (amongst other environmental science stuff).

THey used to be able to drive across the northern end of the sea between Sweden and Finland (somewhere there) - used to be 4 feet thick .

these  days even in mid-winter - there is frequently no ice at all


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2009)

Julia said:


> 2020, unless I've missed it (quite possible given the now multiple threads relating to climate change and the ETS), you haven't explained to us exactly how the ETS will work, how it will reduce CO2, and how global climate will be affected if Australia is the only country with such a scheme.



Julia
and unless I've missed it, you haven't acknowledged that there's a problem.  - and a serious one.  Sorry gotta run. work calls.


----------



## Agentm (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> so wayne - I post CSIRO evidence that Jason 1 & 2 are monoitoring 3mm per year sea level rise - we're talking NASA et al here - orbiting satellites that can plot this superaccurately ;   and you counter with a challenge.
> 
> I still prefer the attitude you held a year or two back.  Much more consistent with what most would call "a sensible risk-averse approach"
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=230853




lol

in some regions the sea levels are falling. others its increasing..

overall, its been increasing for some time through the natural global warming cycle.. theres nil connection to carbon..











as for superaccurate  readings from space..


doubt it.. 

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601110&sid=aIe9swvOqwIY


the whole plot of the global warming fairytale is propaganda.. 





http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/02/save_the_children_from_global.html


where is the connection of carbon causing a rise in sea level??


----------



## wayneL (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> thousands of articles , papers, powerpoint presentations, etc on the IPCC website - one there (can't find it immediately) that not only shows the rate of 3mm per year now as against half that 60 years or so ago -  but shows the best estimate of the relative contributing causes, eg thermal expansion of the oceans ( and they are getting warmer you know) - as well as the runoff from melting glaciers etc.
> 
> PS you know, I was speaking to a bloke from Sweden yesterday (well about 40 year old) - he measures ice depth etc (amongst other environmental science stuff).
> 
> ...




You still can't seem to separate climate change and its relationship to co2.

We all accept that climate changes. The link to co2, and to what extent, compared to other anthropogenic and natural factors, is what is in dispute.

Read Pielke et al for scientific opinion here.

My position is well known and need not be repeated again... misrepresent that, or anyone else's views at your peril.


----------



## 2020hindsight (16 November 2009)

Agentm said:


> lol
> 
> 1. in some regions the sea levels are falling. others its increasing..
> 
> ...




I could argue with you ageo - or ask you to present proof that "there is no connection between co2 and sea level",  or"the whole plot is a fairy tale"
but I won't bother.

I would be wasting my breath - just as you are wasting your breath posting this stuff to me.   I'm off to read some more science.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> I'm off to read some more science.




That is the problem with many warmeners, they read science, and don't do it.

My sticking my head out the window and reporting on Townsville weather is scientific data collection.

Your trawling of the web for studies supporting your theories is not.

I dare you to do a meta analysis of the data in favour of your argument.

gg


----------



## noco (16 November 2009)

I often read where ALARMIST are quoting rising sea levels on some of the Pacific Islands.

While many of these islands are on what they call the RING OF FIRE embracing Indonesia, New Guinea through various Pacific Islands to New Zealand, the sesmic disturbance of EARTH QUAKES and VOLCANIC ACTIVITIES  must be quite relavent.

If for instances the Earth's plates move against  each other, away from each other or even side ways, there has to be some variation in the height of those tiny islands due to subsidence created by the movement of those plates. The void has to be filled and the islands may be sacrificed.

So could  it  be possible that  the ALARMIST are using Climate Change,caused by CO2 emissions, to fake rising sea levels in certain parts of the world  instead of considering the fact that these islands may be sinking due to sesmic disturbance?


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> It will be the first step. If we can fix one problem, then we can fix others. Nations acting together for the common good can only be a good thing.



Probable attempts to reduce CO2 emissions _directly_ lead to other forms of environmental damage.

Examples: nuclear energy, recycling isn't viable in terms of CO2 so would likely be dropped, switch from petrol to diesel with greater non-CO2 emissions, large scale hydro and wind energy construction, production and use of biofuels etc.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2009)

basilio said:


> *2)	Every  piece of evidence is telling us we have almost peaked in our production of oil and that much of our current industrial  society simply won’t function within a  decade with the precipitous decline of this energy source.
> *



*
Strongly agreed there and I think CO2 is the wrong focus largely for that reason. It's rather frightening when you look at what's going on with oil and natural gas behind the scense - how much we have, where it is, how much we use, which reserves are being used up first. It leads the West down a very predictable path of outright war in my opinion.

Agreed with cutting fossil fuel use as a worthwhile objective. But I'd start with oil and gas first, leaving coal untill last since at least there's plenty of it and it won't likely start a war anytime soon. That the West is marching toward outright dependence on Middle East and Russian oil and gas truly scares me...*


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 November 2009)

basilio said:


> ?  As I see it the reality of my previous premise, that the world  is broadly living a lie in it’s approach to expecting never ending growth, means that  no approach will work.  One can already see the gaming approaches by financial institutions with illusionary carbon savings and creative accounting.
> 
> So what will work ?



Hit the nail on the head there - with constant growth we're destined to use up the world's resources, the only question being at what rate and in what order in terms of specific mineral deposits. 

With oil in particular, we seem determined to use the whole lot all at once (in terms of known deposits) and as quickly as possible. Much the same with gas too.

Been there and seen that first hand with the creative accounting. It's how you turn an increase in emissions into a "real terms" decrease by factoring out constant growth. That growth is the problem in the first place seems difficult for many to comprehend.

As for what works, well I think it's rather interesting that most serious discussions of environmental issues that I see ultimately come down to the point that growth must stop. We must aim for GDP in 10 or 20 years time to be lower than it is today. And that means that if we are to maintain living standards, we need to aim for population to decline also. 

That scenario applies whether we're talking about oil depletion, CO2, dams or anything else environmental - we'll end up trashing the whole lot if we keep growing. 

The shocking statistic that I often quote is for people to realise that at the magic 4% growth that politicians and economists pursue, in the year 2100 Tasmania alone will have a larger economy and use more resources than the entire country does now. I'd challenge anyone to come up with a workable means of implementing that situation even if you were prepared to completely trash the environment. There just aren't enough resources to do it.

And if you want another scare, realise that at this rate of growth Australia alone will use nearly the entire world oil resources over the next century.

As with any pyramid scheme, constant growth falls over eventually and the whole thing comes crashing down. It's inevitable at some point and my guess is that peak oil will be the trigger - the alternatives are less productive and will crimp GDP growth permanently.


----------



## Julia (16 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Julia
> and unless I've missed it, you haven't acknowledged that there's a problem.  - and a serious one.  Sorry gotta run. work calls.



I don't have to acknowledge anything.

You are the one who is claiming human beings are the cause of 'climate change'.
You have indicated a belief that this is as a result of increased CO2.
The ETS is supposed to be a means of reducing CO2.

As a devout believer in all this, I am asking you to explain to the rest of us how the ETS is going to address the problem you believe exists.  If you can't do that, then just say so.  Don't be pathetic about saying "work calls".
That has never stopped you in the past.

2020, you constantly go on about this topic, implicitly berating those of us who are, at best, agnostic about how much climate is changing, and whether such changes are anthropogenic in nature, ridiculing anyone who doesn't follow the religious zeal of the climate change enthusiasts.

Well, unless you can come up with a genuine understanding of how any ETS, particularly that currently proposed by the Australian government, is going to address what you see as a problem, I suggest you just stop harassing others on the subject.

In the meantime, you might care to take a few hints from Basilio who presents a balanced expression of what he believes.  His posts represent someone who thinks for himself, in contrast to someone who is only capable of parroting off the semi-formed views of others.

In other words, 2020, put up or shut up.


----------



## drsmith (16 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> As with any pyramid scheme, constant growth falls over eventually and the whole thing comes crashing down. It's inevitable at some point and my guess is that peak oil will be the trigger - the alternatives are less productive and will crimp GDP growth permanently.



The answer is technological advancement to new energy sources before fossil fuels expire so we can continue our growth. The alternative is a serious and sudden reduction of the human population as the latter runs out, most likely by war.

One would hope that by 2100 we have established colonies on the moon and Mars that are largely self sustaining. In a cosmic sense we are still very much at the bottom of the pyramid.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 November 2009)

drsmith said:


> The answer is technological advancement to new energy sources before fossil fuels expire so we can continue our growth. The alternative is a serious and sudden reduction of the human population as the latter runs out, most likely by war.



I'm willing to bet, and have done so by my investments, that we've got not more than 3 years to get that technological advancement done and actually built - we just don't have the oil extraction capacity for another round of "growth" before the constraints hit. 

We don't even seem to have the capacity now just to go back to 2007 consumption rates without drawing down storage. I could be wrong, but that's how it looks.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't have to acknowledge anything.
> 
> You are the one who is claiming human beings are the cause of 'climate change'.
> You have indicated a belief that this is as a result of increased CO2.
> ...



julia ,
this thread is about the psychology of climate change
You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
sorry - but you're off thread.

(apart from which, I would be the first to agree that the current ETS is far from perfect, - being a "camel" of political compromises to satisfy the various vested interests - and those who have been swayed by the billions spent by Exxon Mobil to obfuscate the arguments  - all admitted by the way  - and haven't they done a great job !   - 

BUT
at least it starts to deter people collectively from using as much CO2 and/or ( if it were properly designed) from cutting down as many trees.  (call it a cost, call it a tax, call it a permit scheme - all adds up to the same thing - it's a deterrent - or at least it should be).

There will be no gain here unless there is some pain. (especially for the developed world).

But let's get 100% agreement that something has to be done.
Or (as far as this thread is concerned) let's look at why people don't want to do that, given that it is ( at the very LEAST) the risk-averse thing to do .


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> But let's get 100% agreement that something has to be done.
> Or (as far as this thread is concerned) let's look at why people don't want to do that, given that it is ( at the very LEAST) the risk-averse thing to do .




I agree 2020. Oh and by the way. I asked this fella in the street the other day "what colour is the sky"? He said, "blue".


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 November 2009)

So does wasting energy or emitting CO2 cause climate change?


----------



## wayneL (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> BUT
> at least it starts to deter people collectively from using as much CO2 and/or ( if it were properly designed) from cutting down as many trees.  (call it a cost, call it a tax, call it a permit scheme - all adds up to the same thing - it's a deterrent - or at least it should be).
> 
> There will be no gain here unless there is some pain. (especially for the developed world).



It's pretty universally recognised that all the agreement will do is transfer emissions to the third world, enriching them at The West's expense.

That's pretty dumb. At best ineffectual, at worst it may increase co2 emissions overall and even cause civil unrest... perhaps eventually war.

Meanwhile, the true factors of MMCC continue on, unabated and ignored.


----------



## Calliope (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> julia ,
> this thread is about the psychology of climate change
> You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
> sorry - but you're off thread.




I like it, 2020 wants to stay on thread. Hooray, his days of hijacking threads are over.


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

Wayne mentioned wars back there.
I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions - 

the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
the food wars / ditto
starvation of millions in dry areas like Ethiopia, etc
the mass migration of environmental refugees - probable hardening of hearts to our fellow man (when we as Australians produce the most CO2e per capita in the world except for a couple of oil exporters - and neck and neck with USA.)

I'm sure the critters like the Congo apes and - yes - the polar bears - even the koals - even the brown bears wondering why the salmon runs are so depleted lately  - if they could all post on ASF, would add a few more concerns.  Coral reefs - not that they say much - but gee we're gonna miss em - and the fish they sponsor.

Hardening of hearts - selfishness as a means of survival against rapidly developing unprecedented threats - an almost certain consequence .   "Critters, biodiversity, third world starving and flooded millions - all manner of environmental refugees - who gives a damn" sorta thing 

PS but my bet is that we as a nation will be leant on bigtime by the world at large to help sort out the problem ( environmetal refugees etc) when we have been so laxidazical in helping avoid / minimise it in the first place.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne mentioned wars back there.
> I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions -
> 
> the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
> ...



Why is the natural attrition rate v natural birth rate  out of balance? 

I was thinking ... 

a) medical intervention in regards to disease and being kept alive longer
b) no natural predators


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Why is the natural attrition rate v natural birth rate  out of balance?
> 
> I was thinking ...
> 
> ...



There's always Soylent Green to fall back on I guess ...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Wayne mentioned wars back there.
> I'd say that there are some big issues of that nature ahead with the current trends of GW/CC plus population explosions -
> 
> the fishing rights wars / disputes at least
> ...



Here is a classic case of the "we must act now" psychology that has been bandied about for the past 20 years. Non of the above is substantiated by _fact_ and is alarmist. The psychology is that some feel they have to save the world and use alarmist doctrine which fits with the new religion.

And to suggest coral can sponsor fish, is a total attack on the English language. 

Australia should cut some emissions without the socialist bent.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> There's always Soylent Green to fall back on I guess ...
> 
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070723/



Think the plot is unimaginative.

"In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked by government agents when he gets too close to *a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff." *

Fruit and vegetables diseased out of production?


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Think the plot is unimaginative.
> 
> "In an overpopulated futuristic Earth, a New York police detective finds himself marked by government agents when he gets too close to *a bizarre state secret involving the origins of a revolutionary and needed new foodstuff." *
> 
> Fruit and vegetables diseased out of production?



lol - try recycling gone to the limit :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soylent_Green


> Plot
> In the year 2022, the population has grown to forty million people in New York City alone. Most housing is dilapidated and overcrowded, and the homeless fill the streets and line the fire escapes and stairways of buildings. Food as we know it today is a rare and expensive commodity. Most of the world's population survives on processed rations produced by the massive Soylent Corporation, including Soylent Red and Soylent Yellow, which are advertised as "high-energy vegetable concentrates". The newest product is Soylent Green - a small green wafer which is advertised as being produced from "high-energy plankton". It is much more nutritious and palatable than the red and yellow varieties, but it is””like most other food””in short supply, which often leads to food riots.
> 
> ........
> Thorn sneaks into the basement ...  Once inside the plant, Thorn sees how corpses are processed into Soylent Green wafers. ... the horrible secret ... "Soylent Green is people! We've got to stop them somehow!"





> SciFi.com film reviewer Tamara Hladik calls the film a “basic, cautionary tale of what could become of humanity physically and spiritually [if humans do not take care of the planet.]" She points out that “there is little in this film that has not been seen in other films," such as the film's depiction of “faceless, oppressive crowds; sheep mentality; the corrosion of the soul, of imagination, [and] of collective memory.”


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> And to suggest coral can sponsor fish, is a total attack on the English language.




comma is wrong - give this kid a fail ...
next ...:viking:

actually, 
to suggest coral can sponsor fish will be an anachronism if we're not careful. 
(bit like those around here who somehow link concern for the climate with socialism  )


----------



## 2020hindsight (17 November 2009)

:topic
praps snake we should start a thread entitled "the psychology of pedantry" 

PS at least your last sentence is partly right (albeit truncated ) ...


> Australia should cut some emissions  ...


----------



## Julia (17 November 2009)

wayneL said:


> It's pretty universally recognised that all the agreement will do is transfer emissions to the third world, enriching them at The West's expense.
> 
> That's pretty dumb. At best ineffectual, at worst it may increase co2 emissions overall and even cause civil unrest... perhaps eventually war.
> 
> Meanwhile, the true factors of MMCC continue on, unabated and ignored.



Agreed entirely.



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Here is a classic case of the "we must act now" psychology that has been bandied about for the past 20 years. Non of the above is substantiated by _fact_ and is alarmist. The psychology is that some feel they have to save the world and use alarmist doctrine which fits with the new religion.



Yes, it's the messianic religious zeal that so arouses concern on the part of those of us who would like to see a little objectivity, along with the total lack of information provided to the public about how exactly an ETS will affect all our lives.

If Anna can spend some taxpayer dollars on explaining to households why Qld is selling assets, then surely the Feds can issue some basic information on a new tax which will have a far greater impact on our economy and personal existence than did the GST.  The latter at least was explained in detail to the electorate before anyone had to vote on it.




2020hindsight said:


> julia ,
> this thread is about the psychology of climate change
> You ask me to justify the ETS as currently proposed.
> sorry - but you're off thread.



Repeating my request on this thread was my sad attempt to get a response from you, given you'd ignored the request on other threads where, yes, I agree it would have been more appropriate.



> (apart from which, I would be the first to agree that the current ETS is far from perfect, - being a "camel" of political compromises to satisfy the various vested interests



But you still want it passed with all its attendant effects on the economy and on individuals, many of whom are currently struggling to make ends meet.
Why on earth wouldn't you want it to be modified so as to be actually useful and for this to happen after there is global awareness of any decisions which may be (or may not be) taken at Copenhagen?

By all means answer this on another thread if you wish.  Just post a reference to where I may seek your answer.


----------



## Vizion (17 November 2009)

I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.

http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html

Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 November 2009)

> messianic religious zeal



I like this cute little three piece number. Matter of fact I might file it and use at a later date. Not on this forum though.


----------



## dbcok (18 November 2009)

I am for supporting a risk-management approach to climate change,
Are there those on this forum that be believe Australia should do nothing?
Why do I think that these threads ,in general,follow one political line or the other.Probably because there seems to be a link between the Rudd-haters and those that oppose any strategy to reduce emissions.


----------



## Vizion (18 November 2009)

All three of the threads going on this topic have descended into name calling. As some one involved in research with a partner in medical research. One thing is very clear from what is quoted from articles on here, that there is a marked lack of understanding of what proper research, let alone good research actually is.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2009)

Vizion said:


> All three of the threads going on this topic have descended into name calling. As some one involved in research with a partner in medical research. One thing is very clear from what is quoted from articles on here, that there is a marked lack of understanding of what proper research, let alone good research actually is.




Can you show me where the name calling is? The mod team are really trying to make sure everyone can have a say without abuse. Via PM if you could.

Thanks


----------



## basilio (18 November 2009)

> I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.
> 
> http://environmentalchemistry.com/yo...alwarming.html
> 
> Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.




Thanks for the reference Vizion. Clean, clear, provable explanation of how the carbon cycle works. 

Really hope it is read by other members of the forum as an agreed basis for where the extra CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from.

Cheers


----------



## 2020hindsight (18 November 2009)

Vizion, does reading of books and articles count as "hard research"?  (books were hardback btw )

As for your article (no argument from me that's for sure) - and just sticking with that first "chapter" :- 

George Bush's famous backflip on the classification of CO2 :-  the fact that this INITIALLY helped the car industry, by giving them permission to ignore CO2 and miss innovative opportunities - only for them to become the basket cases they were when Obama took over - now needing MASSIVE taxpayer funding to "try again fellas" 

To argue otherwise falls into the category of the psychology of denial. 



> Carbon dioxide has taken center stage in the environmental arena in recent months. In August of 2003 the US Administration reversed the 1998 decision of the previous administration, which had classified carbon dioxide as a pollutant, and made it subject to the provisions of the Clean Air Act. *As a result of the reversal of the 1998 decision, automobile manufacturers and power plants have been able to avoid making costly modifications that would have been required under the 1998 ruling. *In 2006 environmental groups pushed for legislation that would reinstate carbon dioxide as a pollutant. In August of 2006 EPA General Counsel Robert Fabricant concluded that since the Clean Air Act does not specifically authorize regulation to address climate change, CO2 is not a pollutant (1).





> The reason given for not classifying CO2 as a pollutant is based upon the fact that it is a natural component of the atmosphere and needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis. No one would argue the fact that carbon dioxide is a necessary component of the atmosphere any more than one would argue the fact that Vitamin D is necessary in the human diet. However, excess Vitamin D in the diet can be extremely toxic (6).
> 
> ...... When one substance is present in excess and as a result threatens the wellbeing of an ecosystem, it becomes toxic, and could be considered to be a pollutant, despite the fact that it is required in small quantities.



Amazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed . 
the psychology of greed and hypocrisy.


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2009)

basilio said:


> Thanks for the reference Vizion. Clean, clear, provable explanation of how the carbon cycle works.
> 
> Really hope it is read by other members of the forum as an agreed basis for where the extra CO2 in our atmosphere is coming from.
> 
> Cheers



I wasn't aware of any major disagreement on where the co2 is coming from. (Except those on the fringes maybe) The discussion revolves around the effect.

Honestly, pro warmers need to focus on the main issue rather back slapping over proof that some co2 come from cars etc.

D'oh!


----------



## wayneL (18 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> Amazing how the US car industry totally crashed - and amazing how hard they then pleaded for govt handouts when the blinkered capitalist method failed .
> the psychology of greed and hypocrisy.



:topic

Excuse me? 

The psychology in the car industry was certainly greed an hypocrisy, but it had nothing to do with capitalism.

In a capitalist system businesses are allowed to thrive or fail. In a truly capitalist society, companies live or die by their commercial decisions. If they can't make a profit, they go bankrupt. 

This bears no resemblance to what has actually transpired where the car industry has become de-facto nationalized industry, a corporate welfare client of the state.

Capitalism has not failed. In fact what has happened is that it has been prevented from working properly by the socialists.

People wanted more economical, more reliable cars, Chevy and Ford et al delivered crappy SUVs and failed to adapts to people's environmental concerns.

It is Keynesian socialism (even if under the guise of republicanism) that has perpetuated the pollution problem from industry, not capitalism.

I guarantee you that under an Austrian classically liberal system (aka true capitalism) the market would be much further down the road to providing answers to purported MMCC.


----------



## lasty (18 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> I am for supporting a risk-management approach to climate change,
> Are there those on this forum that be believe Australia should do nothing?
> Why do I think that these threads ,in general,follow one political line or the other.Probably because there seems to be a link between the Rudd-haters and those that oppose any strategy to reduce emissions.




If you believe that taxing emitters will reduce CO2 levels, I think you have been spun well and truely by Rudd and Wong.
If your concern is about reducing carbon levels, then lets start with planting 1Billion trees.
That creates jobs,saves jobs and the planet. Now isnt that a simple solution?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (18 November 2009)

2020hindsight,


> comma is wrong - give this kid a fail ...



Thanks


> actually,
> to suggest coral can sponsor fish will be an anachronism if we're not careful.
> (bit like those around here who somehow link concern for the climate with socialism



I must be mentally deficient so could you please explain this a bit more with some body in it?

The word "sponsor" was used by the poster and it would evoke emotional reaction, hence my pick up on it.


----------



## brty (19 November 2009)

The first point that I would like to concede is that there is climate change, simply because there always has been and there always will be.

 There have been times that the climate has been far warmer than now and other times when ice sheets covered large parts of the planet. Changes in climate have happened abruptly in the past, and will in the future.

As humans who like to be in control of things, first we take responsibility then try to stop detrimental things happening. Yet throughout eons of animal life on this planet it has been those able to adapt to change that survive. Here in Australia we should be taking precautions, adapting for predicted climate change, not wasting time and effort on paper and money shuffling (ETS). Then we should have a plan B (survival strategies for an ice age, if we got the warming thing wrong)

If we were serious about CO2 in the atmosphere, we wouldn't be exporting millions of tonnes of coal to be burnt in power stations in India and China. Obviously we are not serious about CO2, nor about adapting to any change, therefore time to move on to important things..

brty


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 November 2009)

brty said:


> Here in Australia we should be taking precautions, adapting for predicted climate change, not wasting time and effort on paper and money shuffling (ETS). Then we should have a plan B (survival strategies for an ice age, if we got the warming thing wrong)
> brty



Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.


----------



## Vizion (19 November 2009)

For what its worth, I believe that the ETS is a deeply flawed piece of legislation. I agree with many here that it is not going to work on many levels. Anything that is trade based is going to make someone richer & someone poorer, it is the nature of the beast. 

We are all to some degree hypocritical & blind on this subject. For-instance one of our chief researchers, who recently presented a paper on sustainable "green" road infrastructure & management, drives a large 4x4.

Anyhoo... below are some links you might like to read.

Someone mentioned solar flares. 
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/19990408/
http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/glob-warm.html

The paper from an organisation that people keep throwing ridicule on.
Goes into allot more than just carbon I might add.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

A certain professors own scientific organisations view on the subject matter.
http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html

As always... DYOR


----------



## basilio (19 November 2009)

> A certain professors own scientific organisations view on the subject matter.
> http://ametsoc.org/POLICY/2007climatechange.html




Thanks for the research Vizion. I was particularly impressed with the scope and clarity of the American Meteorological  societies analysis. The final remarks are worth a look.



> Final remarks
> Despite the uncertainties noted above, there is adequate evidence from observations and interpretations of climate simulations to conclude that the atmosphere, ocean, and land surface are warming; that humans have significantly contributed to this change; and that further climate change will continue to have important impacts on human societies, on economies, on ecosystems, and on wildlife through the 21st century and beyond. Focusing on the next 30 years, convergence among emission scenarios and model results suggest strongly that increasing air temperatures will reduce snowpack, shift snowmelt timing, reduce crop production and rangeland fertility, and cause continued melting of the ice caps and sea level rise. Important goals for future work include the need to understand the relation of climate at the state and regional level to the patterns of global climate and to reverse the decline in observational networks that are so critical to accurate climate monitoring and prediction.
> 
> Policy choices in the near future will determine the extent of the impacts of climate change.* Policy decisions are seldom made in a context of absolute certainty*. Some continued climate change is inevitable, and the policy debate should also consider the best ways to adapt to climate change. *Prudence dictates extreme care in managing our relationship with the only planet known to be capable of sustaining human life*.


----------



## brty (19 November 2009)

Wysiwyg,



> Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.




You are correct about the tunnel vision, but it is not me that has it. It is those that are the true believers in MMCC that put all their eggs in the one "let's stop CO2 going into the atmosphere" basket, with the belief that all will be 'normal' again, whatever that means.

brty


----------



## dbcok (19 November 2009)

lasty said:


> If you believe that taxing emitters will reduce CO2 levels, I think you have been spun well and truely by Rudd and Wong.
> If your concern is about reducing carbon levels, then lets start with planting 1Billion trees.
> That creates jobs,saves jobs and the planet. Now isnt that a simple solution?




You seem to be having a political conversation with yourself-This issue is bigger than party politics .


----------



## lasty (19 November 2009)

dbcok said:


> You seem to be having a political conversation with yourself-This issue is bigger than party politics .




Sounds like a load of hot air to me.

Infact bring on the derivative of hot air.. I cant wait to trade it..
There will be no insider trading rules... because we dont know if its an act of God or man.


----------



## Calliope (19 November 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> calliope I have had hundreds of posts deleted on ASF - sometimes from simply giving a link to someone else's post  - praps a moderator's - often in agreement with that post .
> 
> But if your post isn't deleted on purely "bad taste" grounds - and you continue to be the moderator's pet - then I for one can't see much point in sticking around.
> 
> cheers




Sorry 2020. Apparently there was something so deeply profound in your egg riddle that it went over my head. I do however, think that eggs are apposite to the GW argument.

As you know the Lilliputians were continually at war with their neighbours on the profound question of whether their eggs should be broken at the rounded end or the pointy end.

Similarly we are continually at war over the question of whether our pollution of the atmosphere will cause catastrophic change to the earth, or the sceptics argument, that while mankind is a big polluter, we are not very effective at changing the climate.


----------



## Mofra (19 November 2009)

Vizion said:


> I'm curious, is anyone here actually engaged in research? I'm curious to know how many people here are arguing from a background in any form of hard research.
> 
> http://environmentalchemistry.com/yogi/environmental/200611CO2globalwarming.html
> 
> Interesting article here on a website that is hard research based. Might want to have a squizz.



Excellent article Vizion, I would expect most understand the rise in CO2 is most likely due to man-made factors. The question remains - what will be the likely effects on the global climate as a whole? I think the conclusion is where the most ability to scew the argument for action (or inaction) either way is teh crux of most people's concern.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 November 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Forums are great places to gain knowledge and communicate anonymously about stuff but gee, they can also induce tunnel vision by the looks of it.



Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.

If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.


----------



## Julia (19 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.
> 
> If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.



Thank you for that succinct summary Smurf.
This is precisely why so many people are bemused by the government's urgency to legislate what is clearly an extremely flawed scheme, even if there really was a concensus about anthropogenic climate change.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 November 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Given that there is no actual cut to CO2 emissions actually proposed or even under consideration, you would logically have to believe that climate change does not exist, or at least is not caused by CO2, to argue that there is no need to adapt to a changing climate.
> 
> If CO2 does cause climate change then it's pretty much set that we're going to get climate change since there's no serious proposal to change course.




I pulled this little gem out of cyber-space which addresses the crux of this topic. Have highlighted what I think is important.



> Criteria for Dangerous Warming.
> 
> The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change www.unfccc.int) has *the objective ‘‘to achieve stabilization of GHG* *concentrations’’ at a level preventing ‘‘dangerous anthropogenic** interference’’* *(DAI)* *with climate*, but climate change constituting DAI is defined.
> 
> ...




BAU OR AS.  Is that NOx I see on a windless day?


----------



## basilio (28 July 2018)

The range of extreme weather conditions around the globe are making it clear that human created CC is happening. This is not a "20 years in the fuuture" scenario anymore.

There are consequences - and there wil be many more.  At what point in time will the CC denial industry reassess their position ?  Why is it important  ?

* Extreme global weather is 'the face of climate change' says leading scientist *

*Exclusive: *Prof Michael Mann declares the impacts of global warming are now ‘playing out in real-time’

• Heatwave made more than twice as likely by climate change, scientists find

Damian Carrington Environment editor

 @dpcarrington 
Fri 27 Jul 2018 18.02 BST   Last modified on Fri 27 Jul 2018 22.00 BST






Emergency workers among damaged vehicles in a open parking area of northern Athens after a flash flood struck the Greek capital. Photograph: Angelos Tzortzinis/AFP/Getty Images
The extreme heatwaves and wildfires wreaking havoc around the globe are “the face of climate change”, one of the world’s leading climate scientists has declared, with the impacts of global warming now “playing out in real time”.

Climate change has long been predicted to increase extreme weather incidents, and scientists are now confident these predictions are coming true. Scientists say the global warming has contributed to on the scorching temperatures that have baked the UK and northern Europe for weeks.

The hot spell was made more than twice as likely by climate change, a new analysis found, demonstrating an “unambiguous” link.

Extreme weather has struck across Europe, from the Arctic Circle to Greece, and across the world, from North America to Japan. “This is the face of climate change,” said Prof Michael Mann, at Penn State University, and one the world’s most eminent climate scientists. “We literally would not have seen these extremes in the absence of climate change.”

“The impacts of climate change are no longer subtle,” he told the Guardian. “We are seeing them play out in real time and what is happening this summer is a perfect example of that.”

“We are seeing our predictions come true,” he said. “As a scientist that is reassuring, but as a citizen of planet Earth, it is very distressing to see that as it means we have not taken the necessary action.”





*  Heatwave made more than twice as likely by climate change, scientists find  *
Read more
The rapid scientific assessment of the northern European heatwave was done by Geert Jan van Oldenborgh, at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute and also colleagues in the World Weather Attribution (WWA) consortium. “We can see the fingerprints of climate change on local extremes,” he said.

The current heatwave has been caused by an extraordinary stalling of the jet stream wind, which usually funnels cool Atlantic weather over the continent. This has left hot, dry air in place for two months – far longer than than usual. The stalling of the northern hemisphere jet stream is being increasingly firmly linked to global warming, in particular to the rapid heating of the Arctic and resulting loss of sea ice.

*Prof Mann said that asking if climate change “causes” specific events is the wrong question: “The relevant question is: ‘Is climate change impacting these events and making them more extreme?’, and we can say with great confidence that it is.”*

Mann points out that the link between smoking tobacco and lung cancer is a statistical one, which does not prove every cancer was caused by smoking, but epidemiologists know that smoking greatly increases the risk. “That is enough to say that, for all practical purposes, there is a causal connection between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer and it is the same with climate change,” Mann said.

Other senior scientists agree the link is clear
https://www.theguardian.com/environ...me-global-weather-climate-change-michael-mann


----------



## basilio (28 July 2018)

*When will CC denialists turn? The road to Damascus. *

My previous post opened the discussion regarding the multitude of extreme weather events around the world.  Record breaking heat waves, consequent wild fires, intense storms, consequent floods.. 

The difference between these events and historical heatwaves/ floods is the role that human generated CC is playing by intensifying the effects. CC scientists can identify the role of CC in creating a warmer base climate and an atmosphere that can holder considerably more moisture.

Once-upon-a-time  the threat of global warming was academic. It was going to happen "sometime in the future". For a long time global warming was happening but the effects seemed, to the average person, not that big a deal. "Isn't it great we are getting some decent warm weather" stuff.

Today it's clear we are way past the academic, and the idea of a pleasantly warmer summer has been overtaken by widespread heat related deaths and uncontrollable wildfires.

So I ask the question : 
*When will the main players currently refusing to recognise the reality and/or significance of human caused CC reassess their argument ? *

*What will it take to have an almost wholly united public voice which recognises we have a catastrophic situation and demands our leaders take action?*


----------



## basilio (29 July 2018)

Sometime very, very soon the insurance bill for the latest round of climate based catastrophes will arrive in the mail.

That is when the financial world will start calculating the solvency of Insurance companies and asking difficult questions. 
*
Like who is going to pay this bill today and the certain multiples in the near future ?
*
Meanwhile other journalists are asking the question I raised.

*How Did the End of the World Become Old News?*

There has been a lot of burning lately. Last week, wildfires broke out in the Arctic Circle, where temperatures reached almost 90 degrees; they are still roiling northern Sweden, 21 of them. And this week, wildfires swept through the Greek seaside, outside Athens, killing at least 80 and hospitalizing almost 200. At one resort, dozens of guests tried to escape the flames by descending a narrow stone staircase into the Aegean, only to be engulfed along the way, dying literally in each other’s arms.


Last July, I wrote a much-talked-over magazine cover story considering the worst-case scenarios for climate change — much talked over, in part, because it was so terrifying, which made some of the scenarios a bit hard to believe. Those worst-case scenarios are still quite unlikely, since they require both that we do nothing to alter our emissions path, which is still arcing upward, and that those unabated emissions bring us to climate outcomes on the far end of what’s possible by 2100.

 
But, this July, we already seem much farther along on those paths than even the most alarmist climate observers — e.g., me — would have predicted a year ago. In a single week earlier this month, dozens of places around the world were hit with record temperatures in what was, effectively, an unprecedented, planet-encompassing heat wave: from Denver to Burlington to Ottawa; from Glasgow to Shannon to Belfast; from Tbilisi, in Georgia, and Yerevan, in Armenia, to whole swaths of southern Russia. The temperature of one city in Oman, where the daytime highs had reached 122 degrees Fahrenheit, did not drop below 108 all night; in Montreal, Canada, 50 died from the heat. That same week, 30 major wildfires burned in the American West, including one, in California, that grew at the rate of 10,000 football fields each hour, and *another, in Colorado, that produced a volcano-like 300-foot eruption of flames, swallowing an entire subdivision and inventing a new term — “fire tsunami” — along the way*. On the other side of the planet, biblical rains flooded Japan, where 1.2 million were evacuated from their homes. The following week, the heat struck there, killing dozens. _The following week_.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...heatwave-media-old-news-end-of-the-world.html


----------



## Tisme (29 July 2018)

Biblical rains?


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

I wonder when the insurance bill for the latest disasters will hit the press ?


----------



## Tisme (30 July 2018)

Is this thread about psychology or psychometry?


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

Like every other thread on  ASF this thread morphs into the highways and byways of our minds.. 
Just go with the flow Tisme.  
But the discussion I wanted to open up is reposted below


basilio said:


> _*When will CC denialists turn? The road to Damascus. *
> 
> My previous post opened the discussion regarding the multitude of extreme weather events around the world. Record breaking heat waves, consequent wild fires, intense storms, consequent floods..
> 
> ...


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 July 2018)

Looking at my own local area it's a familiar theme.

One of the biggest floods in Hobart's recorded history back in May resulted in a damage bill over $100 million, cars floating around the CBD, basements full of water to the ceiling and so on.

It hasn't been cold though and there has been just one "proper" winter day of cold & wet at the same time and hanging around all day. In other years there's quite a few such days not just one, those being the day which make winter, well, winter from a practical perspective. Cold wet and miserable. There has been a relative lack of such days this year and with July now over the chance that we do get that sort of weather is diminishing.

It's just another random data point that could easily be dismissed as just natural weather variation. Trouble is, there's rather a lot of such data points rapidly piling up globally.

It's like, say, smoking. Some people are unlucky and get lung cancer despite never having smoked even once. Others smoke 50 a day and live to 100. Reality is though that those who smoke are far more likely to get cancer in their lungs than those who don't and a point came historically where, despite the tobacco industry's attempts at denial, the evidence was just too strong to ignore even though it couldn't actually be "proven".

The same applies with many things. It's rather hard to prove that being in the front row at a concert three times a week will send you deaf but all we know on the subject of hearing says it will do some significant damage over time. Again it's not able to be readily proven but we do know that exposure to loud noise over a prolonged period is followed by hearing damage and few would argue otherwise since as with smoking the evidence is overwhelming.

And so with the climate it is fast becoming much the same. We have theory which tells us what we expect to happen and we have a rapidly increasing number of observations which tell us that change is occurring. That's not proof of the cause but it would be an amazing set of coincidences that's for sure if the observed changes, which broadly match those expected, weren't linked to the cause we know is occurring and which we expect would produce those changes.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 July 2018)

*When will CC denialists turn? The road to Damascus. *

I think the denialsts will turn when the Right realise that it's bad for their business, like several big companies have already done.


----------



## basilio (30 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> *When will CC denialists turn? The road to Damascus. *
> 
> I think the denialsts will turn when the Right realise that it's bad for their business, like several big companies have already done.




Not sure about that...
From my perspective the main public denialists are a relatively small group of media people and right wing think tanks that have been overwhelmingly supported by the oil and coal lobbies to create uncertainty about CC. It has been these fossil fuel industries that believe they have the most to lose by a rapid decarbonisation of the worlds energy sources.

These are amongst the most profitable and powerful industries world wide. They have generally had many governments in their pocket in a way that few other industries can achieve. 

The irony is that in 2018 it is becoming quite clear that for economic reasons alone renewable energy sources are more competitive than coal or oil (and that ignores the health issues) But these industries are still fighting to preserve their place in the energy mix.  

I suppose I'm wondering how/when will Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Marc Morano, Fred Singer, Christopher Monckten, Steve Milroy, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Matt Ridley turn the page.
https://www.beforetheflood.com/explore/the-deniers/top-10-climate-deniers/


----------



## SirRumpole (30 July 2018)

basilio said:


> I suppose I'm wondering how/when will Andrew Bolt, Alan Jones, Marc Morano, Fred Singer, Christopher Monckten, Steve Milroy, Patrick Michaels, Bjorn Lomborg, Matt Ridley turn the page.




They may never turn the page themselves, but in the end they will become irrelevant as the reality dawns on the vast majority of the world's population.


----------



## basilio (1 August 2018)

A big part of public perception about the reality and effects of CC is dealing with the changing nature of what we call natural disasters.  The current fires in California share similar characteristics to the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria - a radical step up in intensity which has  caused firefighters to reassess how to deal with the new firestorms.

*As California burns, many fear the future of extreme fire has arrived *
 This Land is Your Land 
 Wildfires 

Experts say the state’s increasingly ferocious wildfires are not an aberration – they are the new reality

Supported by



About this content
Alissa Greenberg and Jason Wilson in Redding

Tue 31 Jul 2018 06.00 BST   Last modified on Tue 31 Jul 2018 20.52 BST

*Shares*
3304




Homes destroyed by the Carr fire in Redding, California. Photograph: Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
Roger Gray has lived in his suburban subdivision in a quiet California city for 30 years. On Thursday, it was struck by a jaw-dropping geophysical phenomenon.

Gray had defied orders to evacuate Redding, in the far north of the state, which was threatened by the fast-growing Carr fire outside town. He and his neighbors wanted to defend their homes. A navy veteran, Gray worked 10 hours preparing his house and was already exhausted when he saw plumes of smoke in the distance. “Then they started to swirl together, and I’m going, ‘Oh, we’re in trouble,’” he said.

His wife evacuated without him, driving through a maelstrom of smoke and burning tree limbs. Not long after, “it was raining fire”, Gray said. He could hear exploding paint cans and ammunition in the distance; he guessed the flames were 100m tall. “Are we going to die?” his neighbor asked him.

*The firenado, a huge rotating whorl of smoke, flame and ash, was upon them. 
*
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/jul/30/california-wildfires-climate-change-new-normal


----------



## rederob (8 October 2019)

This is nearly 10 years old, leading up to "Climategate," but remains as relevant now as it was then.
It shows that *denialism *has a strong base, and was already in place some 30 years ago.
When you read some of the rubbish posts at ASF about climate, you will b able to find a reference to its nature in Mashey's linked paper.


----------



## qldfrog (8 October 2019)

The good point for those still believing the co2 is the cause of it all is:
as global warming intensifies and in itself increases co2 level, they will be able to say, i told you so
Cause and consequences are not always obvious to distinguish especially when there is no will to even try


----------



## rederob (8 October 2019)

qldfrog said:


> The good point for those still believing the co2 is the cause of it all is:
> as global warming intensifies and in itself increases co2 level, they will be able to say, i told you so
> Cause and consequences are not always obvious to distinguish especially when there is no will to even try



Only more CO2 can add to its presence so that claim of yours was completely bogus.
Meanwhile 5 IPCC Reports confirm you know nothing about climate change cause and effect.


----------



## bi-polar (9 October 2019)

qldfrog said:


> Cause and consequences are not always obvious to distinguish especially when there is no will to even try



cough cough


----------



## Logique (9 October 2019)

This thread is hosted on a stock market forum.  Unfortunately for the pavement gluers, we recall Tulip Mania, the South Sea Bubble, the Tech bubble, and for that matter Y2K.

The pavement gluers don't. The only thing they read is today's speaking notes from propaganda central. A goldfish knows more about science than them.

Anyway, there is still recourse to the Ignore function.


----------



## bi-polar (9 October 2019)

https://phys.org/news/2018-04-ocean-circulation-ice-age.html 
 Findings showed that the release of CO2 by the North Pacific was caused by a change in its circulation  .

Evidently there was a landform change possibly due to Pacific earthquakes and cold ocean waters gained more tropical flows.  CO2 is less soluble in heated water . The CO2 today comes from industrial outputs and not earthquakes and the results are melted ice.  But faster than the ice age melting.


----------



## bi-polar (9 October 2019)

Chemistry:
CO2 solubility at atmospheric pressure is .0013 mole fraction in water at 0 degrees (compared to the other little molecules of stuff). At 10 degrees it's .0009 , about 2/3 as soluble.  At 20 degrees it's .0007 , around half as soluble.

In 200 years there has been 1300 gig tonnes CO2 added , 800 into air and 500 into water.  Our rate is now at 2000 gt per 200 years , 1500 to air and 500 to water.    Then the solubility is 2/3 normal.  A rising part of rising CO2 load is added each year to air , compounding the compounded interest .


----------



## basilio (10 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> Chemistry:
> CO2 solubility at atmospheric pressure is .0013 mole fraction in water at 0 degrees (compared to the other little molecules of stuff). At 10 degrees it's .0009 , about 2/3 as soluble.  At 20 degrees it's .0007 , around half as soluble.
> 
> In 200 years there has been 1300 gig tonnes CO2 added , 800 into air and 500 into water.  Our rate is now at 2000 gt per 200 years , 1500 to air and 500 to water.    Then the solubility is 2/3 normal.  A rising part of rising CO2 load is added each year to air , compounding the compounded interest .




WTF !! Are you trying to say there is a scientific basis to this CC shite ?   And who is this (Kylie) Mole your banging on about.?


----------



## basilio (10 October 2019)

This is an excellent analysis of just how we have been conned into believing CC is our individual fault rather than something much larger.

* The big polluters’ masterstroke was to blame the climate crisis on you and me *
George Monbiot
Fossil fuel giants have known the harm they do for decades. But they created a system that absolves them of responsibility




 
Illustration: Eva Bee

Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction. Let’s start calling it what it is: the “first great extermination”. A recent essay by the environmental historian Justin McBrien argues that describing the current eradication of living systems (including human societies) as an extinction event makes this catastrophe sound like a passive accident.

While we are all participants in the first great extermination, our responsibility is not evenly shared. The impacts of most of the world’s people are minimal. Even middle-class people in the rich world, whose effects are significant, are guided by a system of thought and action that is shaped in large part by corporations.

We are guided by an ideology so familiar and pervasive that we do not even recognise it as an ideology. It is called consumerism

The Guardian’s polluters series reports that just 20 fossil fuel companies, some owned by states, some by shareholders, have produced 35% of the carbon dioxide and methane released by human activities since 1965. This was the year in which the president of the American Petroleum Institute told his members that the carbon dioxide they produced could cause “marked changes in climate” by the year 2000. They knew what they were doing.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/oct/09/polluters-climate-crisis-fossil-fuel


----------



## bi-polar (10 October 2019)

basilio said:


> Let’s stop calling this the Sixth Great Extinction.



OK sixth grade extinction.

Preparation time: 10 Minutes. Duration of activity: 15-20 minutes Target age group: 11-14 years old / Grades 5-8 Application: Chemistry and Physics lessons/ Geography/ After school activity Time for data analysis and discusion: 20 minutes. Previous knowledge required: None Cost: 0.50 € for the effervescent tablets .
http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/CO2solubility.pdf


----------



## basilio (10 October 2019)

bi-polar said:


> OK sixth grade extinction.
> 
> Preparation time: 10 Minutes. Duration of activity: 15-20 minutes Target age group: 11-14 years old / Grades 5-8 Application: Chemistry and Physics lessons/ Geography/ After school activity Time for data analysis and discusion: 20 minutes. Previous knowledge required: None Cost: 0.50 € for the effervescent tablets .
> http://www.carboeurope.org/education/CS_Materials/CO2solubility.pdf




Excellent lesson ! Well found.


----------



## bi-polar (10 October 2019)

Previous knowledge required: None.  Cost:  €  .
says it all.....


----------



## mullokintyre (5 September 2021)

The Psychology of climate change.
If one were to look at the debate both in AUS and overseas, the Oz government is constantly berated for "not doing enough", or not having a coherent policy" etc etc. 
And yet, if OZ were to just stop using anything that produces CO2 right now, we would make a minuscule impact on the environment.
The complainants seem to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the major Co2 emitters in the world. 
The top 15 emitters of CO2 contribute 72% of it.
Australia , at 1.% of global emissions does not fit in the top 15.
China, 28%, USA 15% , India 7% , Russia 5%, Japan at 3% make the top 5 for 58% of CO2 emissions.
And of course we will likely be blamed for the fact that we export coal to other countries to burn.
From  ABC News


> Soaring demand for electricity in China and India has put a rocket under the coal market with prices for the fossil fuel hitting a record high despite efforts to de-carbonise the global economy.
> Australian miners have been fetching up to $US180 a tonne for their benchmark thermal coal deliveries this week, setting a new high of more than $240/t in Australian dollar terms.
> 
> The record comes barely six months since prices plumbed lows of just $US50/t as miners dealt with the twin blows of a COVID-induced economic downturn and China's unofficial decision to ban Australian imports.
> ...



So despite all the talk of coal being yesterdays fuel, and we should be shutting it down etc, its something that has contributed heavily to Australia's income as we lose out on revenue from  Education, Tourism, wine sales, lobster sales etc from China.
Its this sort of foreign income that allows us the foreign reserves to buy all that stuff we import - the solar panels from China, the Electric Vehicles from anywhere, the computers , mobile phones, the Wind farm generators and towers, etc etc.
Bit lucky for us.
Mick


----------



## Knobby22 (5 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> The Psychology of climate change.
> If one were to look at the debate both in AUS and overseas, the Oz government is constantly berated for "not doing enough", or not having a coherent policy" etc etc.
> And yet, if OZ were to just stop using anything that produces CO2 right now, we would make a minuscule impact on the environment.
> The complainants seem to turn a deaf ear and blind eye to the major Co2 emitters in the world.
> ...



Per capita we are pretty much the worst emitter and if we don't start pulling our weight soon we can expect sanctions from the EU and maybe even the USA.
The next meeting will be interesting.
The farmers groups in particular are worried.

We can't continue to subsidise coal to help it compete against renewables.

Private companies in Australia can see the future. The new solar battery plant being designed in the north of the country to supply power to Singapore is a good example.


----------



## mullokintyre (5 September 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Per capita we are pretty much the worst emitter and if we don't start pulling our weight soon we can expect sanctions from the EU and maybe even the USA.
> The next meeting will be interesting.
> The farmers groups in particular are worried.
> 
> ...



Exactly how are we subsidising  coal?
The companies pay tax on their income.
There are mining royalties on coal (it varies from state to state and whether its open cut, underground above o below 400 metres etc).
So what are the subsidies given to them?

Mick


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> Exactly how are we subsidising  coal?
> The companies pay tax on their income.
> There are mining royalties on coal (it varies from state to state and whether its open cut, underground above o below 400 metres etc).
> So what are the subsidies given to them?
> ...



not sure if this is the light you'll find to shed on the subject, Mick
no name or credentials so hard to judge the value of the piece
"In fact, $10.3 billion in Government subsidies means that in 2020, 
every minute of every day $19,686 was effectively given to coal, oil and 
gas companies and major users of fossil fuels."








						Australian fossil fuel subsidies hit $10.3 billion in 2020-21 - The Australia Institute
					

Fossil fuel subsidies cost Australians a staggering $10.3 billion in FY 2020-21 with one Commonwealth tax break alone ($7.84 billion) exceeding the $7.82 billion spent on the Australian Army, according to research released today by The Australia Institute. In fact, $10.3 billion in Government...




					australiainstitute.org.au


----------



## Joules MM1 (5 September 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> Per capita we are pretty much the worst emitter and if we don't start pulling our weight soon we can expect sanctions from the EU and maybe even the USA.
> The next meeting will be interesting.
> The farmers groups in particular are worried.
> 
> ...



and this def sheds "some" light on what Knobby was alluding to








						Matt Canavan says there’s no government subsidisation of Australia’s fossil fuel industries. Is he correct?
					

Here's what the research says.




					www.crikey.com.au


----------



## mullokintyre (5 September 2021)

Joules MM1 said:


> not sure if this is the light you'll find to shed on the subject, Mick
> no name or credentials so hard to judge the value of the piece
> "In fact, $10.3 billion in Government subsidies means that in 2020,
> every minute of every day $19,686 was effectively given to coal, oil and
> ...



The article said that part of the figure was made up by money spent by state governments on rail, ports, and other infrastructure.
Some of the infrastructure spending may help a range of industries.
From the report

*Western Australi*a is spending hundreds of millions on fossil fuel-fired power stations, including $93 million on a gas-fired power station in a town of 848 people in partnership with Chevron.
That is not a subsidy for the industry. It might be for town perhaps.

*Queensland* upgraded its coal and gas power stations, ran a ‘mine dozer replacement program’ and provided other assistance measures worth $744 million last year, only slightly less than the $818 million spent on Fire and Emergency Services.
Upgrading its gas and power coal fired power stations is not a subsidy to the industry. if these power stations were to switch from diesel to say bio fuels produced from renewable plant material (like ethanol is produced from sugar cane or corn syrup in the US) it would count int C)@ game because its renewable rather than from fossil fuels, but the end result is the same - an output of CO2.
Part of the reasoning in the article is that so much of the total is made of tax rebates for diesel excise paid by primary producers and mining companies. Some mining companies are shifting to electric trucks and electric mining machinery to avoid paying high prices for diesel and  the rates of diesel excise. They also get offset certificates for the green energy to play with.  You might argue that is a subsidy, but  the offset certificates are available to any industry.
Its hard to call the diesel offset rebate a subsidy, as its merely relief from  a tax that is levied by the feds.
Based on this logic, anyone who gets tax relief from the feds is getting a subsidy.
Mick


----------



## rederob (5 September 2021)

Nobody is responsible for climate change because everyone can blame someone else.
Alternatively, climate change is not real.
Or it's real but we can't do anything about it.
Or, others are worse than us so anything we do won't make a difference.
Or, we want to be part of the solution.

What causes people to think the way they do - that's psychology.
Discussion about economics or politics or policies might condition psychology, but they are not generally causal.
In purist terms climate change is an issue for science to resolve.

And if it's real then what needs to be done?
The solution would be to reduce GHG emissions globally.
Not sure that involves any psychology.


----------



## orr (5 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> Exactly how are we subsidising  coal?
> The companies pay tax on their income.
> There are mining royalties on coal (it varies from state to state and whether its open cut, underground above o below 400 metres etc).
> So what are the subsidies given to them?
> ...



This Points to $4 billion since 2003 to develop CCS/carbon capture and storage... Coal and Gas

As to your tax and royalties. Qatar exports less gas than Australia  and recieves north of $25billion/ annum in royalties. Australia recieves in royalties??? I think we've just scratched over $1 billion



.... this level of background knowledge to an investment forum??? god help you...

And there's $50million  subsidy on the table for Beetaloo... $18 just shoveled out the door with no due dillegence by Pitt and Angus; on what basis? .... a cynic might judge, shoring up their retiement...


----------



## mullokintyre (5 September 2021)

orr said:


> This Points to $4 billion since 2003 to develop CCS/carbon capture and storage... Coal and Gas
> 
> As to your tax and royalties. Qatar exports less gas than Australia  and recieves north of $25billion/ annum in royalties. Australia recieves in royalties??? I think we've just scratched over $1 billion




So, you are basing your effort on a  fake Ad from Juice Media?
The thing about carbon capture and storage is that if they get it to work (a big if), it can keep right on reducing the CO2 even after the Co2 emissions are stabilised, and we can get back to pre industrial levels if people think thats a good idea.


Well, I don't know where the figure of 1 billion came from, but according to
Mineral Council


> Queensland’s coal royalties reached a record breaking contribution of $3.8 billion for 2017-18 to the State Budget, up from a previous record of $3.4 billion in 2016-17.
> 
> The boost in royalties will pay for the Palaszczuk government’s infrastructure and vital services such as health and education.
> 
> Along with the increased contribution from minerals and LNG, the overall resources sector experienced a hike in royalties which amounted to $4.3 billion this financial year. With a boost expected from petroleum and minerals, the Budget forecasted further climb in total royalties next financial year up to a total of $4.5 billion.



And thats just coal.  Ad its just queensland. But I am sure you get my message.


orr said:


> And Mulligan??? you bring this level of knowledge to an investment forum??? god help you...




As I am a comitted athiest, I doubt  yours or anyone else;s god is going to help me, should there be any faint chance I was interested.
But thanks for for generous offer.
Mick


----------



## Knobby22 (6 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> So, you are basing your effort on a  fake Ad from Juice Media?
> The thing about carbon capture and storage is that if they get it to work (a big if), it can keep right on reducing the CO2 even after the Co2 emissions are stabilised, and we can get back to pre industrial levels if people think thats a good idea.
> 
> 
> ...



It's a good point Mullokintyre regarding the loss or royalties.
It's true that with renewables, once you build it you just get free power with no royalty payments to government.


----------



## mullokintyre (6 September 2021)

Knobby22 said:


> It's a good point Mullokintyre regarding the loss or royalties.
> It's true that with renewables, once you build it you just get free power with no royalty payments to government.



Never assume a government won't spend a lot of time and effort in looking for ways to skim some off the top.
Notice   the sort of gyrations they are going through looking for ways to get users of EV's to pay some equivalent of the fuel excise tax, plus GST that ICE cars now pay. Govts  need to pay for the roads and other infrastructure, so somewhere it will cost EV users.
Its a bit like the transmission costs we now pay for in our electricity bills. I still pay a fixed charge every month on my electric bill whether I use any electricity or not.
 Same with water, there is an infrastructure charge.
Once they have killed off all the fossil fuels, you can bet your life that green levies will start to appear, with the usual justification.
Mick


----------



## Knobby22 (6 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> Never assume a government won't spend a lot of time and effort in looking for ways to skim some off the top.
> Notice   the sort of gyrations they are going through looking for ways to get users of EV's to pay some equivalent of the fuel excise tax, plus GST that ICE cars now pay. Govts  need to pay for the roads and other infrastructure, so somewhere it will cost EV users.
> Its a bit like the transmission costs we now pay for in our electricity bills. I still pay a fixed charge every month on my electric bill whether I use any electricity or not.
> Same with water, there is an infrastructure charge.
> ...



There will definitely be infrastructure costs that have to be paid for.


----------



## mullokintyre (8 September 2021)

To go back to the original post I made last week about the psychology of climate change  that somehow allows nations to bag Australia for its lack of climate action, while allowing the biggest emitters off scot free.
From Todays OZ


> China has told Britain it will not yield to international pressure to further improve its climate change commitments at the Cop26 climate change conference in Glasgow.
> Beijing’s warning came after Alok Sharma, the UK senior climate change representative, arrived for pre-summit talks with the intention of persuading China to “enhance” its targets to curb carbon emissions.
> 
> An official Chinese pledge that carbon emissions will peak by 2030 has resulted in recent months in a flurry of provincial governments commissioning new coal-fired power stations, critics said.
> ...



So once again I ask, why are CO2 molecules emitted by China and India different from the CO2 molecules that Australia emits?
Is Sharma, the European Union and Biden all going to demand that China and india "do more", as has been the consistent theme that has been app[lied to Australia?
There is so little logic applied to so much of the climate debate.
The climate debate has become a political game of  power struggles.
The climate is just one of a number of pawns that are used to sizee  authority and place it in the hands of the elites.
Mick


----------



## rederob (8 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> There is so little logic applied to so much of the climate debate.



What is your contribution?


mullokintyre said:


> The climate debate has become a political game of  power struggles.



And your evidence is what?


mullokintyre said:


> The climate is just one of a number of pawns that are used to sizee  authority and place it in the hands of the elites.



Another conspiracy theory!

Australia is being bagged for its lack of climate action because that is what reviews of its performance suggest is the case.
At a global level we rate  as shown:





We are one of the five G20 nations not assessed as on track to meet our 2030 NDC (nationally determined commitment).

The psychology often applied to debate on climate is to look at who is the biggest offender.
But that idea ignores who has been the biggest offender to date - the USA by a country mile - and per capita emissions (as at 2018 China was not in the top 20 emitters). 

People who bag China are poor at maths and logic.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2021)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Many of us in "the country" have beach houses or huts, and will be severely affected if rising sea levels occur.
> 
> gg




Those of us who don't have beach houses and live in the mountains couldn't give a stuff.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 September 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> Those of us who don't have beach houses and live in the mountains couldn't give a stuff.



My good god, Rumpole. 

You are alive, or should I say, live. 

How is the view in to the smoky valleys? 

Remind me, does fire run up mountains or down, or both or jump across. 

Good to see you back on ASF. 

gg


----------



## basilio (8 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> The thing about carbon capture and storage is that if they get it to work (a big if), it can keep right on reducing the CO2 even after the Co2 emissions are stabilised, and we can get back to pre industrial levels if people think that's a good idea.




 CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)  is complex and still  unproven process on the scale that is required to have any impact on global warming. One scenario was capturing CO2 from fossil fuel power stations liquefying it and then storing it safely underground. By *defination *it cannot take more CO2 out of the atmosphere than was going to be produced by the power station in the first place.

This process was supposed to be the way to produce clean energy from polluting coal fired power. Trouble is it hasn't proven commercially viable insofar as the technology hasn't worked the way it was intended and the cost was just too high.  In the last few years the steep reduction in renewable energy power has  undermined the economic viability of coal fired power let alone adding CO2 scrubbers.

However there are some technologies which "promise" to just keep sucking CO2 out.  Trouble is the cost and engineering is mammoth. If one thinks for a minute about the  billions of tons CO2 that is emitted every year by cars, power stations, heavy industry, agriculture  and then considers reversing the process !!! then it's easy to realise just how unrealistic the proposal is. You wouldn't want to bet your life on it.

Check out the analysis on VOX









						Pulling CO2 out of the air and using it could be a trillion-dollar business
					

Meet "carbon capture and utilization," which puts CO2 to work making valuable products.




					www.vox.com


----------



## basilio (8 September 2021)

Wikileaks has very good indepth analysis of  Carbon Capture and Carbon removal process.









						Carbon dioxide removal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				












						Carbon capture and storage - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## SirRumpole (8 September 2021)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> My good god, Rumpole.
> 
> You are alive, or should I say, live.
> 
> ...



You are right Garpal. The smoke was terrible a couple of years ago.

My apologies for my smirk.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 September 2021)

SirRumpole said:


> You are right Garpal. The smoke was terrible a couple of years ago.
> 
> My apologies for my smirk.



Indeed @SirRumpole ,

We will all be rooned.  

Stay safe and well in woody places this summer. 

gg


----------



## mullokintyre (8 September 2021)

Hanrahan agrees.
mick


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 September 2021)

basilio said:


> CCS (Carbon Capture and storage)



Bottom line is the technology does work if applied to a reasonably concentrated stream or if you only want to remove a portion of the CO2 but you won't find anyone in the power industry who sees it at a serious thing to be applied to coal plant.

Burn the coal in pure oxygen and sure it works. Cost a fortune to do that though so not really practical.

If you just want to get a bit of CO2, because you want the CO2 for some purpose in industry etc, then that also works. Doesn't matter that most of it's still going up the stack when you only need a relatively small amount of it to be captured. That's actually done at Torrens Island B power station for that exact reason - someone wanted to buy some CO2 for whatever purpose. 

Doesn't really work as a means of capturing all or even most of the emissions from coal burned in air though. Not impossible but hardly practical and I've not come across anyone in recent times who sees it as an option.


----------



## mullokintyre (9 September 2021)

I don't understand why people think CCS has to be limited to place of "burning".
The CO2 molecules don't remember their origin,
So if you use CCS to take out a C02 molecule that was created from the breakdown of a methane rich fart from Saint Greta, it still counts equally as well as one that was taken directly from a coal fired power station smokestack.
You can have numerous small plants scattered all over the place quietly sucking out CO2, regardless of what happens with the activities of CO2 emitters. 
Geez, if they got really creative they could use some of extra power developed with all the renewables during the day to add some oxygen and nitrogen (both in abundant supply in the atmosphere) and create ammonia.
I am not activating for CCS, I just don't understand the narrow thinking in regard to its application.
Mick


----------



## basilio (9 September 2021)

Re CO2 removal..


basilio said:


> However there are some technologies which "promise" to just keep sucking CO2 out. Trouble is the cost and engineering is mammoth. If one thinks for a minute about the billions of tons CO2 that is emitted every year by cars, power stations, heavy industry, agriculture and then considers reversing the process !!! then it's easy to realise just how unrealistic the proposal is. You wouldn't want to bet your life on it.











						Carbon dioxide removal - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				




The most cost effective practical ways to remove CO2 to date are the various environmental process. These can be beefed up with some human intervention ie developing kelp forests, *not *cutting down the Amazon, restoring wetlands and so on. The Wiki article offers a good overview of the options.

In practical terms we start with reducing emissions as much as possible as quickly as possible and protecting and enhancing the natural environment to draw down as much CO2 as can be achieved.

Or we don't.


----------



## rederob (9 September 2021)

mullokintyre said:


> I don't understand why people think CCS has to be limited to place of "burning".



CCS *is* limited to place of burning, as you call it.


mullokintyre said:


> So if you use CCS to take out a C02 molecule that was created from the breakdown of a methane rich fart from Saint Greta, it still counts equally as well as one that was taken directly from a coal fired power station smokestack.



Is that an example of your logic in this thread?


mullokintyre said:


> You can have numerous small plants scattered all over the place quietly sucking out CO2, regardless of what happens with the activities of CO2 emitters.



No you can't.  There is, however, a very different technology - DAC - that extracts CO2 from the air, but it is prohibitively expensive and would have significantly less impact than a tree planting strategy.


mullokintyre said:


> I am not activating for CCS, I just don't understand the narrow thinking in regard to its application.



If you are going to suggest CCS for consideration then where are your costings and data showing effectiveness?


----------



## basilio (9 September 2021)

The Yale 360 reference  from Redrobs last comment is  worth a read. 









						The Dream of Carbon Air Capture Edges Toward Reality
					

Next month, an industrial facility in Iceland will join a growing number of projects to remove CO2 from the air and put it underground. But major hurdles, including high costs, remain before this technology can be widely deployed and play a key role in tackling climate change.




					e360.yale.edu


----------



## rederob (10 November 2021)

Watching the antivaxxers and their tactics unfold over the past year is reminiscent of what has gone on in climate change arenas.

Various groups of medical professionals have bandied together to create websites, twitter accounts and other media that promotes pseudoscience, blatant misinformation,  unproven medicines and conspiracies.

In some countries a strong political overtone also railed against vaccines - Brazil being a prime example. 

What is common to both settings is the amount of evidence in support of positive action based on the underpinning science and credibility of the proponents, versus the opposite on the other.

Why antivaxxers fall for the BS is not necessarily a mystery.   Some simply don't believe that covid is real, or that its a pandemic requiring action.  Some have a reasonable belief that we don't have knowledge of the long term effects of covid vaccines, and it's undeniably true with barely a year's data available.  Some don't trust their government's track record on truth - Russia being a prime example.  Some believe their wealth or education trumps any downside from covid and makes them safer than a vaccine.  And I am sure there a lots of other reasons antivaxxers can justify.

For each of the above reasons for antivaxxers we could equally substitute climate change deniers.  No matter what they are told to counter their claims, their beliefs will hold sway.  Incredibly, there are Youtube videos of people on their literal deathbeds from covid who refused to believe they actually had covid.

The conundrum faced by those who choose to believe in abundant evidence is that our goals are not different to those who do not. Antivaxxers don't want their kids (or themselves) to get harmed from vaccines, and climate science deniers want a world unaffected by climate change.  You would think there had to be some common ground given this situation, but it's difficult to find.

About all we can hope for is that there are so few antivaxxers that their stance won't undo the proven good done by high vaccine penetration.  Similarly, if enough governments commit with decisive actions to curtail CO2 emissions asap, then we might not reach levels of warming that trigger tipping points that exacerbate the trend.


----------



## rederob (20 March 2022)

China has made clear its CO2 emissions intentions and has definitive plans to peak before 2030 and thereafter be CO2 neutral by 2060.  
While many in Australia slam China for being the world's biggest CO2 emitter, we are more than happy to keep digging out as much coal as they need and ship it, as Scomo showed to all in Parliament.  Lucky he's not a hypocrite!

Less well know is how China is tackling polluters:


----------



## SirRumpole (20 March 2022)

rederob said:


> China has made clear its CO2 emissions intentions and has definitive plans to peak before 2030 and thereafter be CO2 neutral by 2060.
> While many in Australia slam China for being the world's biggest CO2 emitter, we are more than happy to keep digging out as much coal as they need and ship it, as Scomo showed to all in Parliament.  Lucky he's not a hypocrite!
> 
> Less well know is how China is tackling polluters:





The burden of CO2 emissions from coal should rest with the people who burn it , not those who sell it.


----------



## rederob (20 March 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> The burden of CO2 emissions from coal should rest with the people who burn it , not those who sell it.



Really?
Why do we have gun laws then?
Why do we have nuclear disarmament protocols?
Why do we need prescriptions for certain medications?

I think you have faulty logic!


----------



## SirRumpole (20 March 2022)

rederob said:


> Really?
> Why do we have gun laws then?
> Why do we have nuclear disarmament protocols?
> Why do we need prescriptions for certain medications?
> ...




OK then, blame the Arabs for all the petrol & diesel that we burn !


----------



## rederob (20 March 2022)

SirRumpole said:


> OK then, blame the Arabs for all the petrol & diesel that we burn !



We were burning fuels here before the Arabs were on the scene.

The logic is simple.  If you cannot access a resource than you cannot use it!  If everyone sanctioned coal sales to China they would need to quickly find an alternative.

But the real problem is we - the global "we" - have no regulated commitment to climate change and therefore rely on nations to do their best to honour unenforceable paper commitments.


----------



## basilio (22 March 2022)

rederob said:


> China has made clear its CO2 emissions intentions and has definitive plans to peak before 2030 and thereafter be CO2 neutral by 2060.
> While many in Australia slam China for being the world's biggest CO2 emitter, we are more than happy to keep digging out as much coal as they need and ship it, as Scomo showed to all in Parliament.  Lucky he's not a hypocrite!
> 
> Less well know is how China is tackling polluters:





Very interesting.  Certainly an eye opener.  Well worth viewing IMO


----------



## sptrawler (22 March 2022)

rederob said:


> While many in Australia slam China for being the world's biggest CO2 emitter, we are more than happy to keep digging out as much coal as they need and ship it, as Scomo showed to all in Parliament.  Lucky he's not a hypocrite!



Well there is always the other option, if we don't sell coal to them and no one else sells coal to them and they need it. They could just come here and take it, seriously who would stop them? 
We are forever telling the U.S and U.K to fluck off, we really are a bunch of wankers when you boil it down, full of our own importance and about as usefull as a bucket full of ar$holes, we haven't finished putting our SAS through the wringer yet. We are just a global embarrassment IMO.
Even if like Ukraine they said every man and boy will stay and fight, how long would we last 15 maybe twenty minutes if we were lucky enough to be where the Chinese landed, all the media people would head off as was shown with covid.
people need to wake up to themselves IMO
We have the best welfare systems in the World, we are leading the World in transitioning to renewables, yet we can't stop whining and winging, were just an embarrassment.


----------



## rederob (23 March 2022)

sptrawler said:


> Well there is always the other option, if we don't sell coal to them and no one else sells coal to them and they need it. They could just come here and take it, seriously who would stop them?



China has Provinces that run out of coal every year as they operate on a quota system.
Last year when they ran out they still let Australian coal carriers sit in their harbours fully loaded with coal.
So it looks like China has a regenerative braking system for coal and waits until their new quota kicks in before kicking off again.
On a more serious note, China could cap its coal power plant construction program now and just use their annual additional renewable capacity if they wanted to.  By way of comparison our NEM's *total *generation capacity is about 55 GW while in 2020 China added about 280 GW of *renewable *capacity alone and continues to increase its annual additions.


----------



## basilio (23 March 2022)

A group of former defence leaders have penned an open letter to all politicians highlighting how  dangerous climate change is to Australia.
Interestingly enough the letter will be placed in The Australian.
I wonder if the penny will ever drop ?

Climate crisis is greatest threat to Australia’s future and security, former defence leaders warn​Open letter calls on politicians to make climate a primary focus in election year and ‘address this clear and present danger’

Get our free news app; get our morning email briefing






Army air crew surveys flood waters over Lismore. The defence force is being increasingly called upon to undertake climate-related humanitarian and disaster relief. Photograph: Bradley Richardson/Australian Defence Force/AFP/Getty Images

Lisa Cox
Tue 22 Mar 2022 16.30 GMTLast modified on Tue 22 Mar 2022 16.32 GMT

The climate crisis is the greatest threat to the future and security of Australians and the country is unprepared for its increasingly harsh impacts, a group of defence leaders has warned.

In a statement, to be published in a full-page advertisement in The Australian newspaper on Wednesday, senior retired defence and security personnel have called on political leaders to make the security risks posed by climate change a central issue of the forthcoming federal election.

“As ex-service members and experienced security practitioners who have witnessed up-close the devastation of war and crisis, we consider that climate change now represents the greatest threat to the future and security of Australians,” the letter says.



Defence personnel not allowed to speak about climate ‘unless they go through Peter Dutton’s office’
Read more
“The first duty of government is the safety and protection of the people, but Australia has failed when it comes to climate change threats. Australia currently has no credible climate policy, leaving our nation unprepared for increasingly harsh impacts.

“We call upon all those offering themselves as political leaders in this election year to make climate change a primary focus and commit to mobilising the resources necessary to address this clear and present danger.”

The statement has been issued by the Australian Security Leaders Climate Group (ASLCG) and signed by 17 senior former defence and security personnel including former defence force chief Admiral Chris Barrie and former deputy chief of the Royal Australian Air Force Air Vice-Marshal John Blackburn.









						Climate crisis is greatest threat to Australia’s future and security, former defence leaders warn
					

Open letter calls on politicians to make climate a primary focus in election year and ‘address this clear and present danger’




					www.theguardian.com


----------

