I think believing that renewable energy was the saviour. Or that bleating about doing something would somehow bring about change. Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.Bad luck kids. We dropped the ball. Sorry.
Our excuse is that we had two many dumbfcks that believe everything they are told.
Every continent 'dangerously off track' as extreme weather smashes global records
A new Climate Council report chronicles the succession of disasters that have struck since last November's global climate summit in Scotland.www.sbs.com.au
If we could change smugness into a reduction in power usage it would be a massive step forward in reducing climate change.Yup. The ball was dropped many years ago. The International Panel on Climate Change was established in 1988 so there has been ample warning.
If society wants a non-emitting energy system then, in the Australian context at least, it's not all that hard technically. There's plenty of people up to the task of designing and building.The same stupidity that made the covid response such a totalitarian fckfest is similar to the climate mess. There are too many activist groups with no give. Who also want unrealistic measures that will never be implemented, turning off too large a group of general population.
Especially when they were taking stop gap measures like nuclear off the table.
You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.Meanwhile from NASSA....
Antarctica is losing ice mass (melting) at an average rate of about 150 billion tons per year, and Greenland is losing about 280 billion tons per year, adding to sea level rise.
Ice Sheets | NASA Global Climate Change
Vital Signs of the Planet: Global Climate Change and Global Warming. Current news and data streams about global warming and climate change from NASA.climate.nasa.gov
You didn't even watch the vid, just assumed s++t.
I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.Rarely ever watch vids, they tend to be total emotive dribble did how ever read Dr Judith Curry's bio which was interesting wouldn't ever call her sensible but certainly well qualified and a contrarian.
The rate of depletion of earths ice mass does blow away 99'9% of the anti climate change claims.
This is why I enjoyed the J Curry interview aboveI don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.
There is a desalination plant in Sydney built in 2007, that is costing people a lot of money, that stands testament to that.
2009
2022Coral growth in decline at Great Barrier Reef
The growth of coral in the Great Barrier Reef has slowed to the most sluggish rate in at least 400 years and signs point to manmade greenhouse gas emissions as the culprit, according to a new study.www.nbcnews.com
IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .
I don't disagree with climate change, I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it
The physics of climate change is certain.I do disagree that anyone has any idea how to stop it and I doubt anyone is 100% sure on what is causing it or what effect it is going to have.
IPCC Reports do not use sensationalism or emotional language. International collaboration brings together experts in their many fields to produce the climate synthesis that's freely available to anyone caring to read it. That said, there are scenarios based on current emission levels which, if they play out over the next century, are reasonably described as catastrophic.IMO it is time technical people took the reigns from emotional people and the media gave fair commentary to all sides and became facilitator to forward facts, not their personal opinion of the facts, unless the reporter is qualified in the subject .
It's almost as if it logic or evidence have no place in the "other sides" denial of any climate emergency.Looking at scientists from the "other side" we get the following claims declaring there is no climate emergency:
I will cover each point in turn,
- Natural as well as anthropogenic factors cause warming
- Warming is far slower than predicted
- Climate policy relies on inadequate models
- CO2 is plant food, the basis of all life on Earth
- Global warming has not increased natural disasters
- Climate policy must respect scientific and economic realities
First, that is not an argument. There is an observable warming trend consistent with principles of physics as a result of increased GHG emissions that has no plausible scientific counter.
Second, that's palpably false. The trend is even consistent with Hansen's original forecasts made in the 1970s.
Third, the models have proved reliable over m0re than 4 decades. There is regular variation from predictions but these are as expected and do not change the trend.
Fourthly, so what! More to the point, CO2 causes warming which, into the future, will reduce agricultural production, plus lead to water insecurity likely to cause cross-border conflict.
Fifth point fails to mention that irrespective of number, there is the more important concern of increasing duration and intensity of natural disasters.
Sixth seems to be an own goal. Governments and major companies are increasingly implementing strategies to reduce GHG emissions. The economic realities are predicated on defined risk.
It does not seem to matter how many times the "other side's" claims are debunked or shown to be irrelevant or lacking foundation, they keep popping up.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?