Resisting Climate Hysteria

basilio said:

So what do you take from the above figures Mick ? That Australia doesn't face a threat of "permanent drought" from global heating ? Or that there is no significant global heating in Australia so ... what is to worry about ?

Click to expand...

As with most of this, the problem is the politics.

More droughts and floods are going to happen they say.

Seeking to address this problem, one thing we'll need then is to store more water. Capture and store the floods for use during the droughts.

Those screaming loudest about climate are however the very same people who object to the construction of large scale water infrastructure.

What more can I say?

Both sides of the debate play games and treat it as a joke, leaving those who might actually fix the problem baffled as to whether it's serious or whether it's an elaborate hoax. The words say it's serious, the actions of the same people say it's not.

At the risk of being accused of being boring, heres another one of those failed predictions about climate catastrophe from the experts.
A quick bit of mat tells that four years after the post in 2012 is 2016.
seven years later, we are still waiting.
Mick

Airbus gets a special mention from Tony Heller this week in regards to the climate catastrophe occurring in Tuvalu.

Heller is a nutcase completely detached from reality and some.

Didn't watch the vid pointless.

State of emergency declared in Iceland, as they area around 15000 earthquakes struck the coastal town of Grindivik.
There are fears for an eruption of a volcano in the area.
Iceland has been on my bucket list for a long time.
Hope it does not get messed up.
Mick

IFocus said:

Heller is a nutcase completely detached from reality and some.

Didn't watch the vid pointless.

Click to expand...

I understand why. He keeps on pointing out some inconvenient facts that don't support the CAGW narrative. Must be very frustrating and confusing for the indoctrinated.

A bit of fun.

People who build wind turbines at sea do not care if whales live or die. Monsters!​

First Dog on the Moon


Donald Trump said it so it must be true

basilio said:

A bit of fun.

​

Click to expand...

I fully agree with the point being made there and have done for a very long time.

I do have a question however.

Anyone got any tips on how to convince others of this when it comes to transmission lines?

Or coastal wind farms?

Or dare I say hydro?

Or nuclear?

Or even heat pumps and air-conditioners within certain states and local government areas with 0dB noise limits that in practice are bans?

Biggest problem with all this is every workable solution has someone opposed to it, usually for reasons that are trivial to say the least.

Smurf1976 said:

I fully agree with the point being made there and have done for a very long time.

I do have a question however.

Anyone got any tips on how to convince others of this when it comes to transmission lines?

Or coastal wind farms?

Or dare I say hydro?

Or nuclear?

Or even heat pumps and air-conditioners within certain states and local government areas with 0dB noise limits that in practice are bans?

Biggest problem with all this is every workable solution has someone opposed to it, usually for reasons that are trivial to say the least.

Click to expand...

Yeah. Really challenging it isn't it ? But I'll take the excellent points you raise.

Firstly and most critically our society don't have a collective agreement that we do face a grave climate emergency situation and that therefore we must take unprecedented actions to deal with the situation.

Historically it has taken situations like a large scale war, massive natural disaster or equally massive social/financial disaster to enable a government to take sweeping measures that would otherwise not been accepted. Even in those circumstances there will be protest and rebellion. Governments will then fall back on emergency powers legislation.

The issue of climate change has not been treated like a collective emergency. As a microcosm of a conservative element in our society ASF demonstrates how far many people reject out of hand any question that there is an issue at all. But far more importantly the active opposition here mirrors the determination of powerful groups of people/institutions to stop any actions that might affect their own own economic interest.

In the case of CC action the current fossil fuel industry is the overwhelming power group undermining all efforts to tackle global warming. They are the critical sources of influence on governments and then behind all the major and minor efforts to undermine public acknowledgement of the problems and community support for solutions.

In a rational world that took action based on scientific evidence and then risk management strategies that (theologically) underpin all major decisions we would be well down the path of a transition to a renewable energy future. In the 1980's there was clear evidence of how excess human created greenhouse gases would warm the climate. Even the oil companies scientists were in agreement with this evidence.

Exactly how quickly this would happen was open to debate. Exactly what the consequences would be was also open to question. But what was understood was the process of how humanities production of excess CO2 would warm the globe past the points at which our current ecosystems would survive. At this stage risk management would have demanded that even without complete certainty of the outcome we could not take the risk.

But the fossil fuel industry won the debate. Reason, evidence and risk management principles have been forfeited . The lies and BS about wind farms, bird deaths and whale deaths is just an expression of this destruction of evidence based science.

basilio said:

Even the oil companies scientists were in agreement with this evidence.

Click to expand...

FWIW at least one of them actually lists climate change as a specific operational risk in their own field manuals.

That's in the context that climate change might cause worse storms that knock the oil platform over. Etc. It's very matter of fact in the way it's written. It's just field manual stuff, they're not questioning the science even slightly just noting it as a risk.

To the broader issue, what I see is far too many demanding perfection. They want the omelette made but won't accept the breaking of even one egg or the use of a frypan.

That's not to say we should cover the entire coastline in wind turbines, dam every last creek and nuke whatever's left but it's equally irrational to reject doing such things anywhere at all.

The very nature of a renewable energy system is that it involves harnessing low density sources of energy and concentrating them for use. That inherently gives it a much larger physical footprint and requires a transport system, that is transmission lines, connecting those diffuse generation sources to major points of consumption eg cities and industry. There's no getting around that fundamental reality of lower density, indeed it's the high energy density of fossil fuels that made them attractive in the first place.

So long as society fails to accept that it's a practical reality that oil and gas are the paths of least resistance by far and that comes down to density. There's 3 gas-fired power stations of significance in metropolitan Melbourne (two are dual fuel also burn oil) for example and yet a good portion of the city's population are likely oblivious to them even existing. Bingo. Much the same in other cities, in Sydney there's one in the suburbs 25km from the CBD and most wouldn't have a clue that it's there.

So as someone focused on the "how to do it" aspect, there's a huge contradiction in all this. There's an inconsistency in arguing that climate change is the top priority then saying oh no but we don't want to see wind turbines if we look out the window, we don't want the countryside spoiled by transmission lines and don't you dare suggest damming anything. And we don't want noisy heat pumps waking people up at 10am whilst those solar panels are spoiling the look of the roof. But we demand you stop burning coal, oil and gas and that the lights stay on. And no you can't use nuclear.

Society needs to get a grip and face reality here.

basilio said:

Yeah. Really challenging it isn't it ? But I'll take the excellent points you raise.

Firstly and most critically our society don't have a collective agreement that we do face a grave climate emergency situation and that therefore we must take unprecedented actions to deal with the situation.

Click to expand...

You may have missed a bit before that. Society does not even have a collective agreement on whether climate is changing, whether its completely anthropogenic versus completely natural or some unknown combination of both, that the effects of climate change are as drastic as doomsayers suggest. When all that has achieved collective agreement, we can move on

basilio said:

But the fossil fuel industry won the debate. Reason, evidence and risk management principles have been forfeited . The lies and BS about wind farms, bird deaths and whale deaths is just an expression of this destruction of evidence based science.

Click to expand...

Nah Bas, its the people who want affordable electricity, heating and cooling , cheap food, and unlimited means of travel who have won the debate.
Mick

I think they are about to plonk a bunch of wind turbines off the coast of Wollongong. I've got to say that the sheer amount of things would have a negative impact. Just the visual pollution alone.

I've heard they lessen the wind, so does it then become hotter in their city without the usual sea breezes?

Personally I think the things will ruin the beauty of the beaches there. Maybe 50km out to sea. Not the 5km or whatever they are proposing.

mullokintyre said:

Nah Bas, its the people who want affordable electricity, heating and cooling , cheap food, and unlimited means of travel who have won the debate.

Click to expand...

I’ll argue the real winner has been anti-intellectualism.

The whole thing is rationally about measuring and calculating. It’s a very “dry” subject dominated by people who tend to look rather serious and who insist that everything is checked and checked again.

That it’s become dominated by politics, the media and “I believe” statements is the greatest failure of the lot.

That goes for both the climate issue itself and the related energy supply issue. It’s a question of numbers that has little need for words and no place for emotion.

This isn't far off what a lot of climate alarmists actually think, they are so unhinged.

Sean K said:

This isn't far off what a lot of climate alarmists actually think, they are so unhinged.

View attachment 165784

Click to expand...

I reckon there might even be members here who would agree with this.

Sean K said:

This isn't far off what a lot of climate alarmists actually think, they are so unhinged.

View attachment 165784

Click to expand...

I also read this on someones twitter feed, and just thought it was the denialists version of anti climate alarmism.
But then I went searching on the dorks website and found the article where he said the above,
Any one else doubt it, you can read it HERE>

The idea was this: The death penalty could be limited by global agreement to people who cause a million deaths (or at least: a very large number). That would be a step toward ending the death penalty universally. It would also turn a handful of highly influential climate deniers into death-penalty candidates.

Needless to say, the global climate denial community was not impressed. But I was merely presenting a logical argument, in the style of a philosopher. I was merely clarifying the unprecedented magnitude of the crime of influential climate denial. Ten years later, the magnitude of that crime is still being ignored, and the right to life of a billion children is still being trashed.

Click to expand...

Jeez, talk about unhinged!
Mick

mullokintyre said:

I also read this on someones twitter feed, and just thought it was the denialists version of anti climate alarmism.
But then I went searching on the dorks website and found the article where he said the above,
Any one else doubt it, you can read it HERE>

Jeez, talk about unhinged!
Mick

Click to expand...

What should we do with with alarmists who nevertheless live lavish, co2 intensive lifestyles?

wayneL said:

What should we do with with alarmists who nevertheless live lavish, co2 intensive lifestyles?

Click to expand...

Hung, drawn and quartered would be justified by Professor Karl's standard.

So more floods and more droughts.

Obvious solution is store more water.

Now there was a proposal to do just that but, strangely enough, politics got in the way......

Smurf1976 said:

So more floods and more droughts.

Obvious solution is store more water.

Now there was a proposal to do just that but, strangely enough, politics got in the way......

Click to expand...

I'm not sure if our current water management plans are sufficient to drought proof the country and support our rapidly growing population. You often hear furphies that we haven't built a dam in 50 years and such, which seem to be incorrect from what I've read. There seems to be a lot of work being done on expanding dams and building new ones here and there but I'm not sure if they're in the right spots, especially in providing irrigation to the MDB.

Plibo doesn't fill me with any confidence that she's over it but I'm probably just biased.

All the info we should need to understand the situation and future resilience to drought should be here: https://www.dcceew.gov.au/water/policy