1. Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

The Climate Change Thread

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Scotty, Mar 21, 2011.

  1. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Cyclo,

    I guess you didn't read the rules when entering the politics forum - 'thou shalt not agree with Scotty'? :)
    Langthorne likes this.
  2. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,097
    I was reading an article in Wired this morning about Israel looking into trying to go 90% renewable. The comment thread linked to the following article about the possibility of Australia pursuing a largely renewable energy target:

    http://bravenewclimate.com/2010/09/09/trainer-zca-2020-critique/

    The author gave some fairly comprehensive analysis and concluded that it would be nigh on impossible at current technology levels.

    I've stated before that I'm a mild skeptic, in that I don't believe the catastrophic predictions of a sub set of commentators on this subject. A lot of these people are running around saying in effect "WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!!". Now I always treat that kind of carry on with a healthy amount of disdain, as we've had nearly every kind of environmental and moral panic foisted upon us since the Industrial Revolution and plainly we are all still here.

    It's interesting that when I talk to people in the actual scientific community about this, most of them are reasonably conservative on the consequences, but all agree on the need for cleaner energy sources. I can go with that, but unless we start looking at more hydro and nukes, we won't reach any kind of target absent a couple of fairly substantial technology breakthroughs.

    Tim Flannery has next to no credibility in my eyes. He's made all sorts of outlandish claims and mostly been proven wrong. He is one of the hysterical ranting brigade I was referring to earlier.
    Karl likes this.
  3. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,097
  4. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    14,645
    This place has rules? I thought we were a semi-autonomous collective?
  5. The_Brown_Hornet Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    5,097
    You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship. A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--
  6. Ash Michael Lynagh (62)

    Likes Received:
    3,444
    This talk is doubleplusungood.
  7. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Waiting for a response Cutter - you seem to either like ignoring anything I write that you can't attack, or you are just ignoring the post because you agree with me.
  8. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/04/07/climate-models-go-cold/

    It is still very difficult to know who to believe.

  9. liquor box Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    1,740
    I have always wondered who we think we are as humans to decide what is the ideal temperature, Evolution moved a lot faster when the earth was warmer millions of years ago.

    As people in the first world and in a warm climate it is very easy for us to want to staop warming, but imagine the millions of people who live in colder climates, surely they are better off with a warmer environment, they would be able to grow crops faster and also might be able to get 2 crops in a year due to the lack of frost/ice. They would also need less fuel for warming which will reduce their CO2 outoput. Instead of 1st world scientists deciding todays temp is the best, why not ask a homeless person or the millions of thrid world people without a nice house?

    Humans are trying to control an environment that is far more powerful than we will ever be, the world has had far higher concentrations on CO2 in the past and remedied itself, and it will do so in the future.

    Barely a week goes by where we dont hear of a new animal that is threatened by the changes in the environment but the articles never talk of the possibility of a natural solution called evolution where a new or better species could take over the same environment and be succuessful.

    Planning for a -3degree temp would have probably been completed about 30 years ago when we were told by climate scientists that we going into an ice age.

    If the world warms and ice melts it will certainly make countries like Australia lose farming land, but it will open up a lot of frozen tundra to farming and as a global proposition this is a lot better, areas like northern canada, alaska, siberia, lap land, greenland etc will now become food producing areas. For every negative that scientists come up with there are positives in other areas of the world
  10. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    This might possibly be a tad simplistic.
  11. liquor box Ken Catchpole (46)

    Likes Received:
    1,740
    and if the scientists and economists tried to simplify things into terms the average person understands then they might be listened to.
    Inside Shoulder likes this.
  12. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    Simplistic, but not necessarily incorrect. 'Scientists' like Flannery lose a huge amount of respect with their doom and gloom predictions that never come true.

    I think one of them was 'Britain will never see snow again'. As soon as they had a big snow dump the 'scientist' changed their rhetoric to call it climate change, not simply warming, and now the latest tack is to blame any extreme weather event on humans causing climate change.

    The bar moves and suddenly they move with it.
    Langthorne likes this.
  13. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    Scotty you started this thread, not to suggest that Government policies could be improved, which we all know (and, incidentally, I don't disagree with your suggestions), but to reignite a discredited scandal about what you titled "Climategate". You're most recent link above is another which attempts to throw doubt on the concept of climate change. So, we're not arguing about Gillard's policies or the Mad Monk's (I'm not seeking credibility on the topic from posting here so I'll call him what I choose), we're arguing about whether, in fact, climate change is happening and is being contributed to by humans. I say it is a fact that there is no serious peer reviewed paper which disputes the theory. It is not a question of "belief" or "disbelief". There is no believing. Either you accept the science or you demonstrate that it's incorrect. There is no other option.

    If you ignore the science (which you are) and seek counterpoints, you'll find them. But I suspect I could find a view on most things on the internet. The more people have to lose from a particular view the more likely, irrespective of the evidence, that I'll find strong views to the contrary. Strong, but not necessarily credible.

    If you want to couch it in terms of "belief", who do you believe: Tony Abbott or the CSIRO? Tony Abbott or the BOM? Or, if the Australian scientists are all in bed with Bob Brown, what about Tony Abbott or NASA? And before you say Tony Abbott does accept the science, we both know he thinks climate change is "crap". He's the biggest policy flip flopper since Kevin Rudd.

    Although it is clearly an attempt to distract from the main thrust of this discussion, to answer your question directly, will the carbon tax reduce carbon emissions? I hope so and in the long term I think it will. I know it is more likely to reduce them than the coalition's proposals. If you do nothing, you do nothing.

    To seek to discredit climate change by suggesting Tim Flannery is not a credible commentator is like saying rugby is a joke because Grumbles has no credibility.
  14. Cutter Nicholas Shehadie (39)

    Likes Received:
    539
    What about if they just said: "Listen to me, I'm an expert, I know what I'm talking about, we need to do something about this."? Do you really need to understand why something is happening to believe it? Do you ask your doctor why, as you age, your hair greys? Or do you just believe it because you can see it and because even if he explained, we don't have time to try to understand everything that happens to us and around us? Why are climate scientists any different? They've demonstrated the earth is warming, so we can see the changes. What more do you want?
  15. cyclopath Phil Waugh (73)

    Likes Received:
    14,645
    It is a dangerous premise to accept as gospel the opinions of experts just because one may not understand the underlying reasons for something, if that's what you are saying. You give doctors as an example - from my experience, there is as much self interest, bias and vested interest in medicine as anywhere else, and I do not believe climate scientists are any purer of principle than anyone else. I am always concerned when patients say they'll do whatever I tell them, rather than show some interest in their condition and in making an informed decision. I'm happy if they ask (sensible) questions about why this treatment is better / worse / the same as that. Of course, in this day and age, there is access to a wealth of "information", which has its own problems.
  16. sevenpointdropgoal Larry Dwyer (12)

    Likes Received:
    72
    Absolutely. There is a massive body of evidence, but any predictive science is going to continually evolve. There will always be inconsistencies for skeptics to use as political wedges.
    Ruggo likes this.
  17. matty_k Peter Johnson (47)

    Likes Received:
    1,037
    According to this Prof Muller has done his own study on the data.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/07/3184554.htm
    Now it is important to note that this is preliminary findings and they haven't been peer reviewed yet but still it is interesting.
  18. Ruggo Mark Ella (57)

    Likes Received:
    4,694
    So the quest for knowledge is good for some but not for others? Call me cynical but it is unwise to follow blindly as every man has his self interest.
  19. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    If we aren't talking about policy, then why are you asking my opinion on it?

  20. Scotty David Codey (61)

    Likes Received:
    3,119
    The politics is wedging both ways. Clearly scientists from both sides are having fun with 'facts'. Doesn't it concern you that this is occurring?

Share This Page