Resisting Climate Hysteria

[ghotib]

You don't think a CTS is the epitome of politics?

You don't think ipso facto mandatory support of CTS is having to toe the political line?

I think banging your head against a brick wall is very probably hysterical

Julia called Dr Spash a valuable scientist. That suggested to me that she was thinking his work is about climate science, which further suggested that the political line she meant is something to do with the physical climate. That's why I asked the question.

Julia??

 

[wayneL]

I think banging your head against a brick wall is very probably hysterical

By strange coincidence, I banged my head against a fence rail this morning.

My buddy thought it was hysterical.

I didn't.

 

[Julia]

Which political line do you suggest Dr Spash failed to toe?

You don't think a CTS is the epitome of politics?

You don't think ipso facto mandatory support of CTS is having to toe the political line?

Ghoti, Wayne's comment pretty much covers it. In a radio interview I heard with Dr Splash he was expressing his disquiet that because at least some of his thoughts did not align with the fervour of the government about global warming/climate change and from my now vague memory I think he was against the ETS (which seems now to be the position of most of the world) his paper was suppressed or cut or whatever. I simply can't remember now.

Neither do I have any interest in becoming involved in discussion about this whole fraught subject which seems to be slipping from the global radar anyway.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

Well I'd have to say I'm fairly moderate about climate change. I agree with a couple of the posters on here though that prevention is much better than cure.

I've come to realize though that what is the point of trying to control the actions of others? Just like Copenhagen, when a group of people with diverse views on the subject try to come to compromise it's almost impossible to agree on anything.

So I can only do, over what I control.

I have solar panels on my house in (mostly) sunny QLD.
I have a water tank (which is plumbed to our toilets and washing machine)
I have about 1800 m2 of forest as a "carbon sink".

I've put an order in for two cars from MDI in France -When they move into full scale production. (the one I want is at 36 seconds in the vid below).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ttEYhiRAjo

Having said that (which makes me sound quite green), it only makes sense to me.

I have solar panels = I save on electricity costs
I have a water tank = I save on water costs
I have 1800 m2 of forest that is allowed to grow = I love my restful and peaceful block of land (except for the occasional damned Kookaburra that wakes me at 5am).
I'll buy an MDI car = because I'd like to be able to travel 1500km on two litres of petrol and laugh at Garpal when he puts $100 a week into the Arnage.

It's only when Green is more economical than other methods will they be adopted by the majority - because most people (and countries) think with their wallets. Depressing but true.

Cheers

Sir O

 

[Knobby22]

True Sir Osisflivor

It is also human nature to not act until it is almost too late or too late.
All through history this has happened - from Easter Island, Incans, etc.

I know mankind will act but not too we feel the pressure of a gun on our head.

I think the heat is out of the argument because the moderates are resigned to the inevitable and sick of reading conspiracy theories.

We had a famous climate change denier here from England recently and he appeared on every type of press there is and lied about many things and the reporters didn't find out the truth for days later, and at that stage it is stale news and he has achieved his aims.

It all came out on Media Watch a week later but who watches that except rabble rousers and malcontents?

Que Sera Sera.

 

[Mofra]

Well I'd have to say I'm fairly moderate about climate change. I agree with a couple of the posters on here though that prevention is much better than cure.

That in itself is debatable; the book "Freakonomics" cites a possible solution of emitting sulfur dioxide into the stratosphere that would cost (dollar values from a few years ago) US$150m then US$100m pa to maintain.

Any international ETS will cost billions, as well as have a massive impact on the world's poor (cost of food increases as farmers change crop from food production to alternate fuel sources such as maize for ethanol production).

The human costs of "prevention" never seem to be considered.

 

[derty]

I find the "OMG the last week is so hot the world really is heating up" and the "FFS this summer is really cold! Global warming my ar$e" brigades infuriating.

I noticed on the previous page of posts quite a several comments about how cold it is etc etc. And thought I would just check the monthly averages for the areas mentioned to see how the summer went. It was quite interesting. FYI.

Extreme weather conditions are still playing out in Australia and around the world.
January 2010 is unfolding as the coolest January on record for the south east corner of Queensland, with many days of well below normal temperatures. Today's 5 degrees near Stanthorpe was the coldest January day ever recorded in the south east region.

Global cooling?

Well, a few days ago here in Melbourne - we had a rather chilly night, and I actually had to wear a sweater to bed! Some Summer this has turned out to be. We've had maybe 4 beach-worthy days.

Global warming my foot.

Here are the deviations in monthly average minimums and maximums for the last 3 months in degrees Celsius.

Stanthorpe, deviation from monthly averages (1873-2008):

Dec 09 min +1.9 max +1.1
Jan 10 min 0.0 max +1.5
Feb 10 min +0.9 max -0.6

Melbourne, deviation from monthly averages (1855-2008):

Dec 09 min +1.8 max +1.7
Jan 10 min +1.6 max +1.6
Feb 10 min +3.6 max +2.4

I'm in Kalgoorlie and it certainly hasn't felt like a cool summer here so the results were not too surprising.

Kalgoorlie, deviation from monthly averages (1943-2008):

Dec 09 min +1.9 max +1.6
Jan 10 min +1.6 max +2.9
Feb 10 min +2.0 max +3.4

It doesn't really make sense to take a days, a weeks or even a seasons weather and make extrapolations. Though so many still feel the need to to get that little dig in for their side.

 

[gav]

It's only when Green is more economical than other methods will they be adopted by the majority - because most people (and countries) think with their wallets. Depressing but true.

What do you expect? If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house. Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.

I was considering getting a water tank. However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees. It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.

Same goes with solar panels. You use energy generated from the solar panels during the day and any excess is fed back into the grid, which you get paid bugger all for. You then have to pay the maximum rate to use power from the grid at night. You then have to pay for the maintenance of the solar panels.

My hippy g/f might not think it matters that it costs so much more. But I certainly do. Maybe she can buy those things when she finishes uni

 

[Mr J]

I noticed on the previous page of posts quite a several comments about how cold it is etc etc.

Bunyip's comment about global cooling seems tongue in cheek, and Nyden just seems to be annoyed at the lack of a decent summer . I don't think either were seriously suggesting that a day or a season were proper evidence against the hypothesis of global warming.

 

[derty]

Bunyip's comment about global cooling seems tongue in cheek, and Nyden just seems to be annoyed at the lack of a decent summer . I don't think either were seriously suggesting that a day or a season were proper evidence against the hypothesis of global warming.

It is just something that gets up my nose. I just grabbed those two posts as they were recent and mentioned a location that I could check and I did not look too much into the between-the-lines sentiment. Apologies for the spotlight Bunyip and Nyden and thank you for being the subjects in my little demonstration.

 

[Sir Osisofliver]

What do you expect? If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house. Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.

I was considering getting a water tank. However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees. It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.

Hey Gav - I'd just like to preface this by saying...I'm not having a go.

What you're saying Gav is exactly the same as a lot of people will say..the vast majority, thinking with the wallet... but that sort of thinking is short-term thinking. What advantage do I get now.

Do you plan to have kids? (trust me teenage girls spend an appreciable percentage of their life in the bathroom) Do you plan to put in a pool in some stage over the next x years you live in that house? Do you have a vege patch? Intend to buy your future son or daughter a pony? Etc Etc Etc. Your water needs and the cost of water will change in the future.

Do you think you will regret not making that purchase in the future?

Same goes with solar panels. You use energy generated from the solar panels during the day and any excess is fed back into the grid, which you get paid bugger all for. You then have to pay the maximum rate to use power from the grid at night. You then have to pay for the maintenance of the solar panels.

The cost/benefit of Solar panels depends on how long you intend to keep the house. I don't intend to ever sell the house I live in (although I may get bored in ten years or so and move away) so I understand that they may not be economic for everyone, but once again - electricity will get more expensive not less, regardless of whether I produce at offpeak times and use a greater proportion during peak times.

My hippy g/f might not think it matters that it costs so much more. But I certainly do. Maybe she can buy those things when she finishes uni

I notice you didn't mention the car however? Is that because a car that costs $1.50 to fill the tank isn't attractive because it hasn't got enough machismo or whatever it is you look for in a car?

The economics of that car aren't hard to work out. It'll cost almost nothing to run the vehicle, only servicing and maintenance costs. Can't wait to get one. (The wife is even trying to convince me to go to France and ship one back - but I think she just wants to go to France on Holiday).

Cheers

Sir O

 

[GumbyLearner]

What do you expect? If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house. Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.

I was considering getting a water tank. However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees. It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.

I do remember the bad old days in the 80's where certain city councils in Melbourne would fine you for installing a water tank in your backyard. These days you get a rebate. Those with the foresight to see the potential for drought were unfairly usurped and punished. Bloody bureaucrats.

I'm inclined to agree with you gav. A lot of the proposals we hear today are based on a flawed deonotological premise. If you are not mega-wealthy, you don't have a right to financially adapt or exist for that matter because the so-called "cleaner" technologies are too expensive for most.

Just my

 

[Julia]

What do you expect? If I was a billionaire and cost did not matter, I'd have no problem paying for a green-hippy house. Unfortunately I'm not a billionaire.

And there's nothing wrong with that argument. Too easy for people to make critical sounding noises about others just "thinking through their wallets".
We have a substantial number of Australians who are already struggling to live a basic life. It's pretty hard to see why they should be further penalised by a poorly thought out scheme which no one has actually demonstrated will have any effect on climate anyway.
People are rightly seeing that the political imperatives were/are much greater than any green considerations. Just note how the government has now relegated further discussion of the ETS to May or later. Ditto the global situation.
Mr Rudd a few months ago said climate change was the "greatest moral challenge of our time". Really? It seems that this great moral challenge, following the humiliating fiasco that was Copenhagen, has been superseded by Mr Rudd's more recent great moral challenges, i.e. possibly his own political survival.

I was considering getting a water tank. However, less than 20% of my water bill is from actual water usage, the rest is fees. It's simply not worth the cost, unless I was able to abolish the fees.

Gav, I agree with your decision not to get a water tank. Several years ago I installed 3 x 5000 litre tanks. It takes quite a lot of rain to fill them.
The installation is absolutely not cost effective so far, and I don't anticipate it will be for more than a decade to come.
Part of the problem is that rain where we live comes in concentrated bursts and then nothing for months.
A tank would probably be reasonable value for money if you received regular rain. But hey, then you wouldn't really need it anyway, would you, if you were using it to top up the pool, water the garden etc.

 

[gav]

Hey Gav - I'd just like to preface this by saying...I'm not having a go.

What you're saying Gav is exactly the same as a lot of people will say..the vast majority, thinking with the wallet... but that sort of thinking is short-term thinking. What advantage do I get now.

Do you plan to have kids? (trust me teenage girls spend an appreciable percentage of their life in the bathroom) Do you plan to put in a pool in some stage over the next x years you live in that house? Do you have a vege patch? Intend to buy your future son or daughter a pony? Etc Etc Etc. Your water needs and the cost of water will change in the future.

Do you think you will regret not making that purchase in the future?

Hi Sir O, thanks for the reply.

A bit off topic, but no I don't plan on having children - ever. It's not for me. Fortunately, my partner feels the same way (although says she cant rule out possibly wanting them in the future).

The cost/benefit of Solar panels depends on how long you intend to keep the house. I don't intend to ever sell the house I live in (although I may get bored in ten years or so and move away) so I understand that they may not be economic for everyone, but once again - electricity will get more expensive not less, regardless of whether I produce at offpeak times and use a greater proportion during peak times.

I only bought my house a year ago, and don't intend to move anytime soon. If there were an inexpensive way to store solar power not used during the day so I could use it at night (instead of using power from the grid), I'd consider it.

I notice you didn't mention the car however? Is that because a car that costs $1.50 to fill the tank isn't attractive because it hasn't got enough machismo or whatever it is you look for in a car?

The economics of that car aren't hard to work out. It'll cost almost nothing to run the vehicle, only servicing and maintenance costs. Can't wait to get one. (The wife is even trying to convince me to go to France and ship one back - but I think she just wants to go to France on Holiday).

Not sure why you think I drive a macho car? The reason I didn't mention a car is because my current car is very cost effective. I've been driving a Hyundai Accent for nearly 5 years now. I drive 450KM of city driving per week, yet average 6.4 litres per 100KM due to my driving style. Very cheap car to maintain too.

I won't be buying a new car for a couple of years, but if I had to choose now I'd get the new VW Polo GTI which is due out here at the end of the year. It uses only 5.9 litres of fuel per 100KM, yet is sporty/quick with quality interior. Ticks all boxes :

 

[Smurf1976]

I only bought my house a year ago, and don't intend to move anytime soon. If there were an inexpensive way to store solar power not used during the day so I could use it at night (instead of using power from the grid), I'd consider it.

I can't see your logic there.

I'm not familiar with your local situation, but in general you'd be offsetting consumption / exporting to the grid predominantly at peak rates during the day when the sun is shining. Why would you want to store that energy for use at a (cheaper) off-peak time? It's like wanting to turn $1 into 50 cents.

Or is there some local issue that means it doesn't work like this for you?

 

[gav]

I can't see your logic there.

I'm not familiar with your local situation, but in general you'd be offsetting consumption / exporting to the grid predominantly at peak rates during the day when the sun is shining. Why would you want to store that energy for use at a (cheaper) off-peak time? It's like wanting to turn $1 into 50 cents.

Or is there some local issue that means it doesn't work like this for you?

It's my understanding that any solar power not used during the day is fed back into the grid and you are paid a small amount, yet you have to use power from the grid at night and are charged a higher rate. Perhaps I've misunderstood and this isn't the case?

 

[Smurf1976]

It's my understanding that any solar power not used during the day is fed back into the grid and you are paid a small amount, yet you have to use power from the grid at night and are charged a higher rate. Perhaps I've misunderstood and this isn't the case?

It varies a lot across the country, main points as follows:

Generally you get some sort of "Feed In Tariff" (FIT) for energy you export to the grid. Typically, this is a higher rate than for energy you buy from the grid and this is based on net metering.

Example. Your solar PV system is producing 800 Watts, your house is using 500 Watts at the same time. The remaining 300 Watts is exported to the grid and you get whatever the FIT rate is.

NSW has introduced gross metering for solar. That is, 100% of power produced by your solar panels goes into the grid ("on paper") and that is paid at the higher FIT rate. And you buy back 100% of what you use at the lower rate for electricty from the grid. So solar becomes artificially profitable.

Tasmania has a very simple system which is simply the normal electricity rates for import / export to the grid with zero changes compared to a non-solar house. So what time you use the power etc is irrelevant.

Victoria - all sorts of wierd and not so wonderful things happen in Vic where the various electricty companies run what could best be described as a a circus. There are some reasonable deals out there for connection of solar but good luck actually signing up for one of them. Vic does have a very high FIT for exports to the grid so in theory it's quite profitable - the trouble is actually getting the account set up and meter installed which seems to be a nightmare of hassles.

SA - a milder version of the debacle that occurs in Victoria.

So I'd look very seriously at it in Qld, NSW, ACT or WA. In Tas it's very easy and simple but not as profitable. In SA it's a bit of effort to get things sorted out but it's quite doable. In Vic it's an outright minefield but not totally impossible (though there's lots of horror stories...).

I just noticed you're in Victoria - so it's probably best to find some other way of saving energy rather than installing solar PV unless you know someone who can sort things out for you.

 

[ghotib]

Ghoti, Wayne's comment pretty much covers it. In a radio interview I heard with Dr Splash he was expressing his disquiet that because at least some of his thoughts did not align with the fervour of the government about global warming/climate change and from my now vague memory I think he was against the ETS (which seems now to be the position of most of the world) his paper was suppressed or cut or whatever. I simply can't remember now.

Neither do I have any interest in becoming involved in discussion about this whole fraught subject which seems to be slipping from the global radar anyway.

I find it a little less fraught if I can keep the subject of our heating planet separate from the subject of what we might do about it.

"Climate hysteria" seems to be a term that some people use for what I regard as a very reasonable and sensible concern that human activities are causing the climate of our only planet to change very rapidly to something that humans have never known. In that sense, Dr Spash (no "l") is more hysterical than the government. He thinks that the need to cut carbon emissions is so urgent that emissions trading can't be effective or fair. That's an opinion he shares with Dr James Hansen, the climatologist who was one of the first to sound the alarm more than 20 years ago.

You can see why it helps to separate the subjects. Opposing the ETS because you think carbon emissions are no problem is a very different thing from opposing it because you think it's too big a problem.

Ghoti

 

[ghotib]

By strange coincidence, I banged my head against a fence rail this morning.

My buddy thought it was hysterical.

I didn't.

Not even after it stopped hurting??

 

[wayneL]

You can see why it helps to separate the subjects. Opposing the ETS because you think carbon emissions are no problem is a very different thing from opposing it because you think it's too big a problem.

Ghoti

Not really.

It just demonstrates that ETS is pretty much a tax grab and a nice earner for vested interests at the expense of the broader community; with no outcome on co2 levels. That much is patently obvious.

In any case, the pirate ship "global warming" has been holed beneath the water line and taking water fast. It's as good as sunk. Gu'mints will have to think up another method of perpetual alarm quickly...


I'm taking bets on the following possibilties:

Terrorist threat from Aleutian Island separatists.
Invasion from Mars.
An asteroid .
Mutant ladybirds attacking the food supply
The end of the world in 2012

Though that old standard, "nukular" attack has been bubbling away in the background... they could just recycle that one.