Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[rederob]

Bit of conflict going on there............carry on gents

Yep, it's the Marxists again.
Apparently they use empirical data .
Can you imagine that!
Then they go and put it into these massive Reports, and Interim Reports. These are the most "moderated" reports in science.
Unfortunately it looks like their conservatism is being overrun by events.
Which goes to show that empirical data has nothing to do with the moderate views of people on a stock forum.

 

[Smurf1976]

Corporations know the truth and spread misinformation to profit. They may believe the science but put out lies so business doesn't suffer.

I will simply say that those making the most of it for their own gain are those playing both sides. Same with a lot of issues where the aim is conflict regardless of who "wins".

One example on another topic would be the endless "gender wars" perpetuated by a certain mainstream news organisation. Either everyone who works there is incapable of forming personal relationships or it's a deliberate ploy to keep the focus on manufactured nonsense. My bet's firmly on the latter.

Much the same with climate. There's certainly a few stirring up both sides whilst they make big $ with half way solutions in the middle. So long as there's a perceived problem but no emergency then it suits them just nicely since a half way solution is just what they have to offer.

 

[rederob]

Much the same with climate. There's certainly a few stirring up both sides whilst they make big $ with half way solutions in the middle. So long as there's a perceived problem but no emergency then it suits them just nicely since a half way solution is just what they have to offer.

Huh?

 

[Smurf1976]

Huh?

Referring to what's really going on with some of the "debate" about all this, suffice to say that compared to coal the use of oil or gas can achieve emissions reductions in the 17% - 80% range depending on circumstances.

That's a "half way" approach and is the one which ends up happening by default if nothing else gets done. So it's all rather easy if the aim is oil (mostly diesel) or gas - just oppose everything else.

In the Australian domestic energy context coal's stuffed I think everyone knows that. Anyone campaigning for or against it at this point is really just playing politics - trying to claim credit for closures that are a given to happen anyway or trying to claim they tried their best to keep it going. Outcome is the same either way in the absence of someone actually building something new.

Where the debate lies is with the idea of total reliance on renewables versus part renewables and part fossil in the form of mostly gas and a bit of diesel.

The Victorian state government is a classic case in point. They've got a policy aiming for 50% renewable electricity. They also have policies of making sure pretty much everyone has access to gas and uses it. So they'll have 50% renewable electricity but nowhere even remotely close to 50% renewable energy overall.

So Victoria are aiming to phase out coal but they sure aren't phasing out gas, hence the two LNG import terminals proposed for the state.

Now I don't have anything against the gas industry as such but I do think there's a lot of misleading stuff going on with all this. Looking across the political spectrum there are those who are pro-coal and those who are anti-coal but there's less attention to our rising oil consumption and that we're rolling out new gas infrastructure with a lifespan measured in decades or longer. We might be getting out of coal but we're still ramping up oil and we're doubling down on gas - the "half way" solution.

That's not surprising and the same would happen basically anywhere. If there's no agreement to build coal, nuclear or renewables then oil and/or gas ends up being used by default as a relatively quick, easy and low risk option albeit not necessarily a cheap or ideal one.

 

[wayneL]

Bit of conflict going on there............carry on gents

Yes badly worded. Duh.

But if you guys can't see the man behind the curtain... actually you guys are WITH the man behind the curtain.

...and I gotta give the corporatists equal credit there.

 

[rederob]

Referring to what's really going on with some of the "debate" about all this, suffice to say that compared to coal the use of oil or gas can achieve emissions reductions in the 17% - 80% range depending on circumstances.

That's a "half way" approach and is the one which ends up happening by default if nothing else gets done. So it's all rather easy if the aim is oil (mostly diesel) or gas - just oppose everything else.

In the Australian domestic energy context coal's stuffed I think everyone knows that. Anyone campaigning for or against it at this point is really just playing politics - trying to claim credit for closures that are a given to happen anyway or trying to claim they tried their best to keep it going. Outcome is the same either way in the absence of someone actually building something new.

Where the debate lies is with the idea of total reliance on renewables versus part renewables and part fossil in the form of mostly gas and a bit of diesel.

The Victorian state government is a classic case in point. They've got a policy aiming for 50% renewable electricity. They also have policies of making sure pretty much everyone has access to gas and uses it. So they'll have 50% renewable electricity but nowhere even remotely close to 50% renewable energy overall.

So Victoria are aiming to phase out coal but they sure aren't phasing out gas, hence the two LNG import terminals proposed for the state.

Now I don't have anything against the gas industry as such but I do think there's a lot of misleading stuff going on with all this. Looking across the political spectrum there are those who are pro-coal and those who are anti-coal but there's less attention to our rising oil consumption and that we're rolling out new gas infrastructure with a lifespan measured in decades or longer. We might be getting out of coal but we're still ramping up oil and we're doubling down on gas - the "half way" solution.

That's not surprising and the same would happen basically anywhere. If there's no agreement to build coal, nuclear or renewables then oil and/or gas ends up being used by default as a relatively quick, easy and low risk option albeit not necessarily a cheap or ideal one.

I remain confused.
You said:

Same with a lot of issues where the aim is conflict regardless of who "wins".

I get the info about power generation but that seems more about policy failure in a setting of platitudes rather than action.
Moreover, power industry players are currently "gaming the system" until they are offered the investment certainty needed to fix what is a cascading mess.
"Climate" is impacted by the industry but I can't see they are fostering "conflict" except with an inept federal Energy Minister.

 

[Logique]

Only too obvious to casual thread readers, I find the the Climate threads the most exasperating!

These threads, as much as anything, could see me go the way of former posters such as Calliope, Todster and especially the outrageous Nunthewiser (Joe, I'm sure remembers! The Nun was out there..)

I actually quite liked these posters, as I do Bas and Red. They are outspoken, and rebels. I don't agree with them on climate change, but so what, they add colour and life!

 

[IFocus]

Only too obvious to casual thread readers, I find the the Climate threads the most exasperating!

These threads, as much as anything, could see me go the way of former posters such as Calliope, Todster and especially the outrageous Nunthewiser (Joe, I'm sure remembers! The Nun was out there..)

I actually quite liked these posters, as I do Bas and Red. They are outspoken, and rebels. I don't agree with them on climate change, but so what, they add colour and life!

Hmmm Red and Bas are mainstream, they argue the main consensus, the rest are rebels IMHO.

Both have had the kitchen sink thrown at them and yet both stay with quoting evidence from the mainstream and by and large refrain from the personal attacks.

As some one who has had my fair share of nasty personal remarks thrown my way over the years (which I am OK with lets me know I am right ) qualify's me to make a totally un-bias opinion.

Totally agree regards the posters you named

 

[moXJO]

Huh?

You need my help so you understand that rob?

 

[basilio]

Always interesting to recognizes the history of research on climate science an then the denialism from vested interests that can only see their profits fall and not the existential damage they are causing to our future.

Greta Thunberg is a painful reminder of decades of climate failures
By Dana Nuccitelli, September 19, 2019

Greta Thunberg. Photograph: Hanna Franzen/EPA

This story is part of Covering Climate Now, a global collaboration of more than 300 news outlets to strengthen coverage of the climate story.

Sixteen-year-old Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg has ignited the climate movement, most recently taking a zero-carbon ocean voyage to America to attend the September 23rd UN climate summit in New York City. She’s become so effective and inspiring that those who want to maintain the status quo—predominantly wealthy and powerful old white men—have begun to attack her. Greta has been called “the international mascot for climate alarmism … mentally unstable,” “a millenarian cult leader,” a “deeply disturbed messiah of the global warming movement,” a “teenage puppet,” a “petulant child,” and much more.

Greta articulated her views in a TEDx talk in which she accurately described the state of climate science and the fact that if we are to meet the Paris climate targets, developed countries in particular must rapidly reduce their carbon pollution. As Greta notes, the world has thus far failed to act, in part because most people don’t realize that rapid change is required.

But climate scientists have been warning about a potential climate crisis for decades, while the Silent Generation and Baby Boomers failed to act on those warnings. As a result, they frittered away the opportunity to transition away from fossil fuels with relative ease. Because of those decades of inaction, we now face a daunting task.

While some older Americans may “have no patience for teenagers who lecture adults,” Greta’s generation has every right to criticize them for endangering humanity’s future prosperity. Let’s examine the history of climate change warnings and missed opportunities.
https://thebulletin.org/2019/09/greta-thunberg-is-a-painful-reminder-of-decades-of-climate-failures/

 

[wayneL]

Nuttercelli has never been the best at sophistry has he? What a dog turd of an article.

 

[basilio]

Nuttercelli has never been the best at sophistry has he? What a dog turd of an article.

What a dog turd of a response.

We wasted decades; now time is running out. Crucially, the longer we wait to substantially curb carbon pollution, the more difficult and expensive it will be to avoid a climate crisis. This is elegantly illustrated in a chartsometimes referred to as the “ski slopes.” Had global emissions peaked in the 1990s, we could have met the Paris targets by slowly and gradually reducing carbon pollution in the ensuing decades—a “bunny slope” path. Had they peaked in the early 2000s, we could have met the Paris goals with more moderate emissions cuts—the “intermediate slope.” But emissions have not yet peaked as we approach the year 2020, and we’re nearing the “double black diamond” slope requiring extremely rapid pollution cuts if we’re to avoid dangerous warming beyond the Paris targets.

In short, despite decades’ worth of warnings from climate scientists, the elder generations squandered away the opportunity for a relatively easy transition away from fossil fuels toward a stable climate future. Much of the blame lies with the fossil fuel industry and its costly climate disinformation campaign, but there is plenty of blame to go around.

 

[wayneL]

 

[Logique]

Hmmm Red and Bas are mainstream, they argue the main consensus, the rest are rebels IMHO.

Both have had the kitchen sink thrown at them and yet both stay with quoting evidence from the mainstream and by and large refrain from the personal attacks.

As some one who has had my fair share of nasty personal remarks thrown my way over the years (which I am OK with lets me know I am right ) qualify's me to make a totally un-bias opinion.

Totally agree regards the posters you named

Cheers IF

 

[orr]

What a dog turd of a response.

Don't take it to heart Bas.
Keep in mind the people you're arguing with are in lock step with 'intellects of the like of Craig Kelly, Malcolm Roberts, James Dellingpole, Miranda Devine, Pauline Hanson, Ray Hadley. Take a moment and Just imagine that these people were in charge of maintenance of an aircraft you were about to board(saves the concerns as what to do at a supposed destination though). All have a proven record to be impervious to reason and logic are incapable of formal thinking applied to the consequence of cause and effect. And all in the pockets of vested interest.
Oh and Via the 'Green Left World Government Social Alliance Trotskyite Spartacus anti Capitalist' Chapter of the Deeper Deep state Universal conspiracy...

 

[wayneL]

@orr whatever their IQs are, I would stake money that the average would be at least 3 sigmas higher than yours.

 

[Smurf1976]

There comes a point in life where if someone hasn't done something then the truth is they at best don't view it as a priority and at worst are actively avoiding it.

If someone is, say, 50 years old and living in Australia and has never been to Sydney then unless there's some abnormal circumstance, eg being in prison or having some serious permanent medical condition, then the truth is they're not really that keen on visiting Sydney. They'd have been there by now if they were.

With not too many exceptions if there's any band that you haven't seen live then it's not through lack of opportunity. It would be easier to list the bands which haven't toured over the past decade than those which have, between stand alone shows and festivals there's been an incredible range and volume of live performances. If you didn't see whoever then it wasn't due to lack of opportunity given the abundance of current and retro performers who have toured in recent years.

Same with anything. Ask anyone who quit smoking, learned a foreign language or went to uni as a mature age student. The task itself wasn't impossible, the key was having decided that they really did want to achieve it.

Looking at the climate issue, it's been in the mainstream consciousness since about 1987 and in that time we've collectively made all manner of excuses as to why something else was more important.

Listed in no particular order, the following all have something in common: personal comfort, nuclear issues, development of the Third World, not damming rivers, tourism, scenery preservation of agricultural land, fashion, urban aesthetics, economic ideology of competitive free markets, reducing urban smog, being on time.

What those things have in common is that society has in practice deemed every one of them and many more to be more important than reducing CO2 emissions. Of themselves they may well be important causes, and I agree many of them are, but they have collectively acted to ensure that CO2 never makes it to the top of the priority list.

Do anything big to cut emissions and someone deems it too big and refers to one of the above as to why. Do anything minor to cut emissions and it's dismissed as too little to matter and merely "greenwashing" which of course it is. Can't win.

If this is going to be fixed then hard decisions and sacrifices have to be made and stop the nonsense and that goes for all sides politically.

Liberals - stop opposing things which save money that's just silly. You guys support free markets and all that, right? Do so then, stop meddling and get out of the way.

Labor - stop opposing things which create more employment than they lose. See the bigger picture and work out a way to effect the transition. Nobody's saying the workers can't be in a union or whatever if that's what you want, there's no need to be bogged down with detail like that.

Greens - stop coming up with excuses about impacts which can be reversed. See the bigger picture and realise that "big" is exactly what we need to be focusing on and that small scale stuff might look nice but it's not going to fix the problem. Also realise that capitalism's going to be funding it so embrace it.

Local government - see the bigger picture beyond your own municipality. However ugly you think some panels on a roof or a transmission line or whatever might be, they're damn beautiful compared to a hole in the ground and a smokestack wherever that happens to be. Move with the times and embrace the future - "prestige" areas included drag them along too.

Public - stop applying different standards. Nobody ever did an ROI calculation and pondered whether or not leather seats or a bigger TV was "viable" and nobody complains that land was cleared to build and expand the cities or build roads so quit that line of thinking when it comes to things which reduce emissions. It's an excuse and nothing else. Consistency please.

Business - bring an end to the problem of split incentives which are ultimately a consequence of doing the accounting with bits missing. Approach that the same way as everything else and much will be achieved. Also for those actually spending money to pollute, well that's just silly.

Until that happens though, the only rational conclusion is that as a society we're like the 80 year old who didn't do whatever during their lifetime. Truth is they didn't want to - if they really had wanted to go to Paris or learn to play piano then they'd have found some way to make it happen rather than keep making excuses.

 

[basilio]

Post of the year Smurf..
That overview of why "we" havn't done anything about reducing emissions has a lot of resonation.
I wouldn't totally agree with it but there is enough there (in my view) to encourage a more collective response to what is a collective issue. Well worth pinching!!

 

[rederob]

There comes a point in life where if someone hasn't done something then the truth is they at best don't view it as a priority and at worst are actively avoiding it.

There was a short period where Labor and the Coalition agreed on an approach to mitigate CO2 emissions, but Coalition ideology gave that short shrift.
Later on Gillard introduced a carbon pricing scheme which came into effect on 1 July 2012, and that too was put to the knife once Abbott came into power.
So it has not been for want of trying, or acting, but on pure ideology that we have been so backward in tackling carbon emissions.
So the truth is we elected people who did care, and did act, but later on preferred to believe the economy was more important than the environment. That message range loud at the last election, so we get what we deserve.

 

[rederob]

@orr whatever their IQs are, I would stake money that the average would be at least 3 sigmas higher than yours.

I owe @cynic an apology as there is someone who actually makes more useless comments at ASF.