Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

[rederob]

The cognitive dissonance of the alarmist left is... alarming. Wow!

Since when have you been part of the "left"?

 

[rederob]

We should do both.
We should aim to stop arsonists setting things on fire certainly but we should also have competent and adequately resourced fire brigades to deal with fires when they do occur given that we can't reduce them to zero.

Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing demand for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding. That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing demand for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding. That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.

Things like a sugar tax, salt tax fat tax alcohol taxes can reduce demand for health services at the same time as increasing revenue. Certainly as demand for salty sugary or fatty foods reduces (if it does) then revenue will reduce, that's the idea.

If the taxes have no effect on the demand for health services then at least you still have the revenue to deal with the problem.

 

[rederob]

Things like a sugar tax, salt tax fat tax alcohol taxes can reduce demand for health services at the same time as increasing revenue. Certainly as demand for salty sugary or fatty foods reduces (if it does) then revenue will reduce, that's the idea.

If the taxes have no effect on the demand for health services then at least you still have the revenue to deal with the problem.

?
The role of tax as an ingredient in the pudding has been eaten already as it has reduced demand. But tax is just one of many ingredients for a good pudding.
You idea is flawed as the logic leaves you with extra ingredients instead of good puddings.

 

[SirRumpole]

?
The role of tax as an ingredient in the pudding has been eaten already as it has reduced demand. But tax is just one of many ingredients for a good pudding.
You idea is flawed as the logic leaves you with extra ingredients instead of good puddings.

I wish you would write in specifics rather than idioms.

 

[wayneL]

Since when have you been part of the "left"?

When you can actually explain how I am cognitively dissonent in on this issue Robbie, oh actually go ahead and join the Labor Party. I have been utterly consistent on this issue.

However your tacit agreement with me is noted.

 

[rederob]

When you can actually explain how I am cognitively dissonent in on this issue Robbie, oh actually go ahead and join the Labor Party. I have been utterly consistent on this issue.
However your tacit agreement with me is noted.

You are wholly consistent with being clueless on climate matters since first you ever posted to ASF, and are equally consistent with your "labelling" which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, except in your mind.
Try dealing with facts for a change.

 

[Smurf1976]

Not sound logic Smurf, as reducing demand for services should go hand in glove with reduced funding. That's also different from the services not being adequately funded to begin.

That is true but demand for anything which must be delivered instantaneously is peak not average, a point many in political circles fail to grasp.

If the number of fires drops by 50% then that doesn't necessarily mean peak demand has reduced at all, indeed it could even have gone up, since it's the maximum fire fighting effort required at any one time which will determine the scale of resources required to be available. Just because you've got less fires doesn't necessarily mean you can make do with fewer resources to fight them with if the peak occurrence of fire hasn't reduced.

Same applies to anything where the production aspect has to match consumption in real time.

In the context of climate change, the argument that we don't need to put resources into adaptation may well be true but relies upon the notion that changes experienced thus far, and those which are in practice locked in, are either inconsequential or beneficial. That is, that we have thus far experienced zero negative impacts from climate change and that none are expected in the medium term.

If we have experienced negative impacts or are expecting them in the medium term, well then the need to deal with those consequences is very real.

 

[wayneL]

You are wholly consistent with being clueless on climate matters since first you ever posted to ASF, and are equally consistent with your "labelling" which is irrelevant to the topic at hand, except in your mind.
Try dealing with facts for a change.

Ad hom doesn't count Robbie.

The Labor Party is safe from me unless you come up with evidence of CD.

Please look up this condition so you at least know what the fxck you are accusing me of.

 

[basilio]

The issue with this thread is it's based on a lie. Global Heating is real and the people who measure it are in full agreement.

Congratulations, You Just Survived The 5 Hottest Years on Record

JASON SAMENOW, THE WASHINGTON POST
7 FEB 2019
Five different organizations that track temperatures have all come to this conclusion: 2018 ranked among the five warmest years on record, landing in fourth place.

All of them - NOAA, NASA, Berkeley Earth, the United Kingdom's Hadley Centre and the Japan Meteorological Agency - crunched the numbers using different methods, but they each arrived at the same answer.

Confidence in this ranking is, thus, very high.

The past five years have each now ranked among the five warmest on record. According to NASA, 18 of the 19 warmest years have occurred since 2000.

The warming of the planet is unambiguous and irrefutable.

https://www.sciencealert.com/the-planet-s-hottest-five-years-on-record-are-the-last-five-years

 

[rederob]

Ad hom doesn't count Robbie.
The Labor Party is safe from me unless you come up with evidence of CD.
Please look up this condition so you at least know what the fxck you are accusing me of.

I comment on your posts which typically say very little or are otherwise meaningless.
You keep using inappropriate words, and seem to think "labels" have something to do with climate science facts.
Added to that, you seldom ever present an argument.
On those points you are consistent.

 

[GlennC]

ok, I havent read all these posts. Meanwhile, Rio Tinto and BHP to name but a few major companies have accepted the science of Climate Change/ Global warming and are putting in strategies to adapt. As a disclaimer, i retired from Rio Tinto lat year, and they have a very informative 62 page document available on their web site explaining their policy and approach.

In my view the 'free market' is already pretty much accepting the science as well, and looking to what we need to do to adapt to the possible scenarios over the next few decades . There are many opportunities for Australia in emerging renewables technologies , such as hydrogen economy, grid battery technology, fast charging etc. Many of our universities are partnering with local and overseas companies in developing the technology. If we get this right Australia can become a major energy player, with a lot of investment opportunities.

 

[basilio]

ok, I havent read all these posts. Meanwhile, Rio Tinto and BHP to name but a few major companies have accepted the science of Climate Change/ Global warming and are putting in strategies to adapt. As a disclaimer, i retired from Rio Tinto lat year, and they have a very informative 62 page document available on their web site explaining their policy and approach.

In my view the 'free market' is already pretty much accepting the science as well, and looking to what we need to do to adapt to the possible scenarios over the next few decades . There are many opportunities for Australia in emerging renewables technologies , such as hydrogen economy, grid battery technology, fast charging etc. Many of our universities are partnering with local and overseas companies in developing the technology. If we get this right Australia can become a major energy player, with a lot of investment opportunities.

Welcome to ASF Glenn. First post and all !
It's fair to say that the CEO of BHP has accepted that Global Warming is very real. In fact this understanding and acceptance of a need to change how we produce energy and to drastically reduce greenhouse gases is welcome.

Unfortunately it is about 30 years too late for a measured approach to dealing with the problem. And also of course there are still plenty of fossil fuel companies who do not (want to) realise that we are now at a totally critical point in terms of rising temperatures and limitations on our carbon budget. Put simply we have to drastically reduce our GG emissions if we are to have any chance of surviving as a civilization.

 

[wayneL]

I comment on your posts which typically say very little or are otherwise meaningless.
You keep using inappropriate words, and seem to think "labels" have something to do with climate science facts.
Added to that, you seldom ever present an argument.
On those points you are consistent.

Robbie, what you have presented hete is nothing more than opinion and an unwillingness to accept any argument outside the narrow confines of your bubble. Hence any meaningful debate with you is futile.

...and you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part. Look it up smarty.

 

[rederob]

Robbie, what you have presented hete is nothing more than opinion and an unwillingness to accept any argument outside the narrow confines of your bubble. Hence any meaningful debate with you is futile.
...and you still haven't demonstrated any cognitive dissonance on my part. Look it up smarty.

You really need to look at the difference between the information I post, with regular links to back up commentary, and the rubbish you post.
You continue to have great difficulty understanding what words mean, because you are not using them properly.
Again, put up something factual for a change so that readers have something which is relevant to this thread.

 

[moXJO]

That's like saying we should put more money into hospitals instead of preventing causative factors - it's a very poor argument!

Not from Australias point of view. Stopping carbon is like pi$sing into the wind. Our contribution to carbon reduction is a joke.
We already have towns at near zero water. Food security is very dodgy. Power.... whats the plan ??

Preventive measures are making sure we are prepared.

 

[rederob]

Not from Australias point of view. Stopping carbon is like pi$sing into the wind. Our contribution to carbon reduction is a joke.

Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China. We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.
But you argument is fundamentally flawed. If everyone adopts the position that they cannot influence change, then nothing will change.
Luckily for us all, Europe, and the UK in particular, have been leading the way. Their reforms have generated innovation in renewables along with massive job creation in an otherwise relatively static employment sector.
It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was.
We also have not incentivised the energy sector to invest in renewables, and nor have we developed simple policies that reduce energy use in residential and industrial situations.
There is a lot we could do, but it's a lot easier to deny responsibility and sit on our hands instead.

 

[Smurf1976]

Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China. We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.

We have however done an order of magnitude better job at keeping population under control than China has.

Not perfect, at 25 million it's arguably at the upper end of what's sustainable environmentally, but that's far better than 1400 million. Much the same could be said for any other large population country - China's just the most extreme example.

7.7 billion people, each consuming more and more year after year, is going to lead to no planet in due course. A sad but blindingly obvious problem to anyone who understands the maths involved with constant compounding growth.

Even in Australia emissions per capita have gone down but total emissions have gone up. Population is the problem there.

 

[Smurf1976]

It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was. We also have not incentivised the energy sector to invest in renewables, and nor have we developed simple policies that reduce energy use in residential and industrial situations. There is a lot we could do, but it's a lot easier to deny responsibility and sit on our hands instead.

No argument there indeed quite a few policies have the effect of frustrating any move to renewables rather than aiding it.

 

[moXJO]

Some decades ago our contributions were 40 times that of a person from India, and 20 times that of a person from China. We remain, today, amongst the worst emitters on a per capita basis.
But you argument is fundamentally flawed. If everyone adopts the position that they cannot influence change, then nothing will change.
Luckily for us all, Europe, and the UK in particular, have been leading the way. Their reforms have generated innovation in renewables along with massive job creation in an otherwise relatively static employment sector.
It's a real shame that Australia is on the back foot because we used to have a proud heritage via the CSIRO, but decided that science isn't deserving of funding in the manner it once was.
We also have not incentivised the energy sector to invest in renewables, and nor have we developed simple policies that reduce energy use in residential and industrial situations.
There is a lot we could do, but it's a lot easier to deny responsibility and sit on our hands instead.

No, we cannot influence meaningful change unless we stop coal exports. And that day is coming.

In the meantime... Prepare.
Using per capita is simply fudging figures. China and India pollute more then we ever could. Go to Jakarta and see the difference in air quality.

Renewables made electricity dearer through Europe I thought: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=i&...aw1NXwD9pB6zBCc26tGOVS8E&ust=1565090547913948