Resisting Climate Hysteria

[Smurf1976]

But pretending that the issue is "someones else" problem and that "we" aren't responsible/don't matter/ aren't significant is just a pretext for doing SFA.

My point is about what's required physically and that, primarily, it's not about politics doing things.

Rather, it's about politics getting out of the way and leaving science, engineering, business etc to get on and do things.

I say that as someone who's watched this debate for an extended period. Politics has had the odd moment of usefulness but only the odd one. Far more often politics is the problem rather than the solution.

Politics has helped fix climate change in the same way not wearing a seat belt has saved lives. Whilst technically true, there have been freak occurrences, overall it's done far more harm than good. Far, far more.

It's not engineering or proper environmental science that decided to put gas into practically every house and to whip up a public frenzy about transmission lines, hydro, nuclear and even wind farms. It's not meteorology that created doubt in the minds of many about climate science by attributing short term weather to climate change. It's not hydrology that made extreme predictions about rivers ceasing to flow and so on. No, it's politics that created the monster of opposition to the means of fixing the problem and doubt about the need to do it in the first place. Politics.

 

[basilio]

My point is about what's required physically and that, primarily, it's not about politics doing things.

Rather, it's about politics getting out of the way and leaving science, engineering, business etc to get on and do things.

I say that as someone who's watched this debate for an extended period. Politics has had the odd moment of usefulness but only the odd one. Far more often politics is the problem rather than the solution.

Politics has helped fix climate change in the same way not wearing a seat belt has saved lives. Whilst technically true, there have been freak occurrences, overall it's done far more harm than good. Far, far more.

It's not engineering or proper environmental science that decided to put gas into practically every house and to whip up a public frenzy about transmission lines, hydro, nuclear and even wind farms. It's not meteorology that created doubt in the minds of many about climate science by attributing short term weather to climate change. It's not hydrology that made extreme predictions about rivers ceasing to flow and so on. No, it's politics that created the monster of opposition to the means of fixing the problem and doubt about the need to do it in the first place. Politics.

I think we are at at cross purposes here Smurf.

We need "politics" to do what is necessary to tackle CC. Firstly we need a broad political consensus that there is a critical problem in the first place. Without that level of agreement it is exceptionally hard to take the broad steps required to address the problem.

Moving to a carbon neutral economy would always require a massive change in societies direction. However the most powerful political force in the world is the fossil fuel industry. Challenging this industry to effectively give up the trillions of dollars of wealth they had in their control would require immense public political support . It would require politicians to recognise the reality of what the scientific community was telling them and push back at the lies and deceptions promulgated by the fossil fuel industry. The result ?

Coal, Oil and Gas have won. Fossil fuels continue to be the overwhelming source of energy. We don't even have the political strength to put a timeline on the eventual wind down of CO2 emitting fuels.

One could point to the rapid development and deployment of solar, wind and other renewable energy sources as evidence that all is not lost and in fact we could, conceivably, reduce the impact of CC to a bearable catastrophe.

The trouble is even that development has to fight the legion of lies thrown against renewable energy by the fossil fuel industry. Look at almost all the opposition to renewable energy and you will find the lying, sociopathetic hand of the fossil fuel lobbies. Even on a purely economic basis the industry still refuses to acknowledge renewable energy is cheaper and far less polluting than coal/oil/gas.

This is politics. This is exactly the same politics that protected the tobacco industry, the gambling industry, the leaded fuel debate, the use of poisonous insecticides and consumer products way past the time scientists had proven their lethality.

I agree Smurf that theoretically getting "politics" out of mass change in our energy systems could "speed up" progress. But the political reality is that with the current relentless lies and refusal to acknowledge the reality and seriousness of human caused CC massive change can't happen.

 

[IFocus]

 

[IFocus]

 

[basilio]

View attachment 168615

Terrifying isn't it ? Totally hysterical in fact. Accepting the reality of the two posts on sea temperatures and land temperatures the only rational conclusion is holy xhit.

I wonder what Andrew Bolt has to say ? The leader in climate change lies. Yep right on cue

 

[IFocus]

Terrifying isn't it ? Totally hysterical in fact. Accepting the reality of the two posts on sea temperatures and land temperatures the only rational conclusion is holy xhit.

I wonder what Andrew Bolt has to say ? The leader in climate change lies. Yep right on cue

View attachment 168616

That's hilarious except for Bolts (Gina's poodle) continued deception cheered on by conservatives the closure has SFA to do with climate change what an idiot.

Alcoa have been trying for years (20 to 30 ) to close the Kwinana refinery after they built Pinjara and Wangerup it's been a bleeding sore all that time for the business only kept open by black mail from state governments and trade off to keep mining in Jarrah forests along the escarpment.

Maybe Bolt would like a caustic red mud lake next to him, another reason Alcoa wanted out.

Wikimapia - Let's describe the whole world!

Wikimapia is an online editable map - you can describe any place on Earth. Or just surf the map discovering tonns of already marked places.

wikimapia.org

 

[Smurf1976]

the closure has SFA to do with climate change

Agreed it's not due to climate - the energy situation in WA is a part of it though.

It's not a coincidence that the closure comes at the same time, almost to the day, a gas supply shortfall was otherwise going to widen.

WA might like to think they're doing fine with all this but suffice to say they're in quite a pickle in terms of supply versus demand.

 

[Smurf1976]

On a lighter, or should I say darker in this case, note the Russians have a brilliant method here.

Very environmentally friendly.....



Now I want to see that done with the fire going.

 

[Smurf1976]

We need "politics" to do what is necessary to tackle CC.

In the Australian context, consider where we were some decades ago with our scientific and engineering capability and the public's confidence in them, our trades, our public utilities and so on.

Now look at where we are today.

What went wrong?

Did our scientists, engineers and tradies all make a pact with the devil?

Or did politics go on a rampage of destruction right across the entire sector, from high school science education to building regulations to power generation to the very structure of the nation's economy?

I think we all know the truth there. It wasn't scientists, engineers or tradies who put us into a time warp, created pubic cynicism and turned the nation into Asia's quarry. It was politics which did that and all sides are to blame with their anti-science approach and chasing of short term easy money and political gain.

 

[Knobby22]

In the Australian context, consider where we were some decades ago with our scientific and engineering capability and the public's confidence in them, our trades, our public utilities and so on.

Now look at where we are today.

What went wrong?

Did our scientists, engineers and tradies all make a pact with the devil?

Or did politics go on a rampage of destruction right across the entire sector, from high school science education to building regulations to power generation to the very structure of the nation's economy?

I think we all know the truth there. It wasn't scientists, engineers or tradies who put us into a time warp, created pubic cynicism and turned the nation into Asia's quarry. It was politics which did that and all sides are to blame with their anti-science approach and chasing of short term easy money and political gain.

And the use of disinformation from lobby groups that was highly effective.

 

[sptrawler]

On a lighter, or should I say darker in this case, note the Russians have a brilliant method here.

Very environmentally friendly.....



Now I want to see that done with the fire going.

Well it shows precips were a waste of money, now all we are doing is robbing the soil of nutrients..

 

[sptrawler]

The climate is changing, but as is being shown constantly, the science is anything but conclusive, definitive or accurate.

Why is Sydney’s summer so rainy? The answer challenges our idea of El Nino

Here’s why your beach days have been slashed this summer.

www.smh.com.au

This season was supposed to mark the return of the glorious Sydney summers of old that have been choked by Black Summer smoke, ruined by COVID lockdowns and battered by La Nina rain in recent years.

And while NSW has largely dodged the deadly storms and floods that have lashed Queensland and Victoria, Sydney has often fallen under the shadow of rain clouds many expected El Nino would banish from summer skies.
Now Sydney is in for another wet week. For the rest of January, there’s a 60 to 80 per cent chance of above-average rainfall for NSW and much of the eastern seaboard, according to the Bureau of Meteorology.

“It’s really quite exceptional rainfall that we’ve seen in the last few weeks across Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria,” Dr Andrew King, a Melbourne University climate scientist, said. “It’s probably not really what we would expect during an El Nino year.”
“I think it’s first worth noting that the El Nino influence on Australian climate is really at its strongest in late winter and spring, rather than in summer,” King said.

“During El Nino events, we’d expect to see drier warmer springs, but by summer, the link wears off a bit.”
In any case, El Nino only increases the probability of dry, hot days. Whether these eventuate is still a roll of the dice.

Loading
Sticking with that metaphor, CSIRO climate extremes researcher Dr Carly Tozer said you could imagine a six-sided dice which, in normal conditions, has two faces corresponding to wet weather, two faces corresponding to dry, and two corresponding to neutral.

“In an El Nino, you might change two of those faces to dry,” Tozer said. “So you increase the chance of dry weather, but you still have an average and a wet face. You still could roll on wet.”

 

[Smurf1976]

And the use of disinformation from lobby groups that was highly effective.

Absolutely and again that goes for both sides.

The fossil fuel industry and the political Right denying there's anything to be concerned about on one hand. Meanwhile their own internal documents freely acknowledge it.

The political Left thwarting solutions and entrenching gas on the other hand. Meanwhile they've managed to convince many that they're somehow the good guys.

On the politics I'll just give this example as to why we've been putting gas into the overwhelming majority of new homes built over the past 15 years despite the obvious folly of doing so.

It came about due to a commitment by Labor, then in opposition, prior to the 2007 federal election in order to gain support and thus preferences from the Greens. In due course Labor was elected, Kevin Rudd as PM, and at a COAG meeting later that year all states except one agreed to go along with the plan. Out with electric hot water for new builds but gas is just fine.

The dissenting state which refused being Tasmania which at that time also had a Labor state government. The feds didn't push it too hard, Tasmania simply outright refused, and that was that. The other states went all in on gas, Tasmania stuck with electricity. Thankfully Qld and NSW also later saw the light, albeit not without having done some damage in the meantime.

Fast forward to 2024 and we've got renewable energy going to waste due to a lack of off-peak loads. Off peak loads yes. Things that can put to use that renewable energy when it's available at midday and there's not a lot of load from other uses. Things like, you know, water heaters....

At 11am AEST today, there was just over 5000MW of wind and solar generation curtailed in the National Electricity Market with curtailment occurring in every state except one. No prize for guessing which state the exception is.

What more can be said? At the federal level Liberal, Labor, Greens, Nationals, One Nation and others are all as bad as each other. They're like comparing brands of cigars - you get to pick a different name on the box but they all stink and they'll all kill you.

In theory I agree politicians ought be part of the solution and they could, in theory, achieve quite a lot. In practice though well if you find yourself working with someone, in any situation, who not only messes up but does so consistently and intentionally, well then in practice you're better off without them.

The trouble with politicians is simply their focus and experience. Most have a career background that's either purely political or it's something where success is achieved by arguing (eg unions or law). Relatively few have a background in anything where success comes by correctly measuring, calculating or forecasting and where bias guarantees failure.

 

[Sean K]

This was always going to happen.

The next phase will be personal CO2 emission records. There may be a tax on people who have high CO2 emissions recorded due to their credit card purchases, car type and kilometers, and most certainly aircraft flights.

I think we are less than 1% of global emissions now and Asia is replacing all our reductions by the month.

Meanwhile, the Labor government think a few fish in Hastings need to be preserved instead of wind farms to save the planet. Mad.

Australian companies could be given until 2030 to prove their climate disclosures in financial reports, under draft legislation put forward by the government.

On Friday the Albanese government released its proposal to introduce a mandatory climate disclosure regime for large Australian companies under a staggered model set to kick in over three years.

Under the proposed scheme, large companies and asset managers will be required to reveal climate-related risks, risk-management strategies and emissions targets to investors.

The proposed reporting standards would require companies that met certain criteria to begin climate disclosures from mid-2024.

Companies with $500m in revenues would have to report climate matters to investors from July 1, 2024. Smaller companies with a turnover of $200m would start in 2026 and those with $50m in 2027.

Asset owners with more than $5bn under management will be required to begin reporting from July 1, 2026.

 

[macca]

Because 2030 is a Big year for CC mania I thought I would look up the predicted sunspot activity.

In January 2024 they expect 108 sunspots
In January 2030 they are predicting 32 sunspots

Predicted Sunspot Number And Radio Flux | NOAA / NWS Space Weather Prediction Center

www.swpc.noaa.gov

Someone is turning the heater in about 5 years time

Some are suggesting that the arctic blast currently freezing the Northern Hemisphere is simply a foretaste of 2030 winter weather

 

[UMike]

"Drilling had earlier been suspended for about a year after the Federal Court found the oil giant failed to consult local Indigenous people adequately, a tactic employed by opponents to new developments.

Critics of that tactic have argued environmentalists are capitalising on and using Indigenous people to oppose developments resource companies say will bring economic benefits and safeguard regional energy security. Environmentalist deny the claims."

Well DeRRRRRR. Been saying this for years.

 

[Smurf1976]

The proposed reporting standards would require companies that met certain criteria to begin climate disclosures from mid-2024.

Companies with $500m in revenues would have to report climate matters to investors from July 1, 2024. Smaller companies with a turnover of $200m would start in 2026 and those with $50m in 2027.

Asset owners with more than $5bn under management will be required to begin reporting from July 1, 2026.

Trouble is, what does this actually achieve?

Taking climate science as 100% accurate for the sake of the argument, how does this measure actually fix anything?

It looks far more like something a lawyer or accountant would be involved with than something an engineer or tradies would be doing. It's words when what's required to fix this or any problem is action.

 

[Sean K]

Trouble is, what does this actually achieve?

Taking climate science as 100% accurate for the sake of the argument, how does this measure actually fix anything?

It looks far more like something a lawyer or accountant would be involved with than something an engineer or tradies would be doing. It's words when what's required to fix this or any problem is action.

I think what they want is to be able to punish companies for their emissions in some way. Maybe fines, higher tax, removal of directors, that sort of thing.

 

[frugal.rock]

 

[Sean K]

I would have thought that coffee plantations would absorb a lot of CO2 (if they didn't knock down a rainforest to develop it).