Climate Change Rally - Melbourne [Archive] - AusPhotography:: Australia's Premier Photography Forum::

bobt

21-09-2019, 2:28pm

Coincidentally, i have just been watching something on the telly that was a bit of an eye opener. You may have heard of the Koch brothers in America?

Apparently when George Bush was president (the first George Bush), he was advocating action on global climate change policies. At that point the government could see the impact that civilisation was having on our planet, and Bush was suggesting that it was time to do something about it. However, the Koch brothers have multi billion dollar investments and businesses which would be adversely impacted by climate protection policies, so they devised a strategy to discredit the whole climate change agenda, replacing it with policies that were more in tune with their commercial interests. There was no science involved - it was strictly a matter of promoting policies which would continue to make them more money. In order to achieve this, they spent $120,000,000 on funding some 92 anti-climate change organisations to introduce the sorts of propaganda that people have been sucked into today. It's just another example of where vested interests have manipulated the political agenda for monetary gain. Knowing what underpins these groups is valuable to know.

Bear Dale

21-09-2019, 5:05pm

Great to see the masses getting together to show our politicians what they collectively think!

Isn't that what elections are for?

bobt

21-09-2019, 5:50pm

Isn't that what elections are for?

Elections measure the collective view of a party's overall performance at a particular point in time. A rally demonstrates the strength of community feeling on a specific issue. There is a huge difference.

merlin1

21-09-2019, 8:35pm

I hope they all walked to the rally, and none of them charged their phones overnight, or took any plastic water bottles.

Ross.

Geoff79

21-09-2019, 9:38pm

I hope they all walked to the rally, and none of them charged their phones overnight, or took any plastic water bottles.

Ross.

Haha. It's one of those discussions where you kind of wait and see if anyone's with you, lol. It's not worth creating tension on a photography forum over it, but I agree with you entirely. Everyone's worried about Morrisson's inaction, but what of their own?

Like you say, I hope everyone there has parted ways with their car, don't use public transport and live on the land eating what the land provides.

bobt

21-09-2019, 9:50pm

Haha. It's one of those discussions where you kind of wait and see if anyone's with you, lol. It's not worth creating tension on a photography forum over it

I agree. I have occasionally met people who are both climate change deniers and supporters of Donald Trump. Experience demonstrates the futility of engaging or trying to educate. As the the saying goes "you can't have a battle of wits with an unarmed man". Enough said.

Mark L

21-09-2019, 10:23pm

I hope they all walked to the rally, and none of them charged their phones overnight, or took any plastic water bottles.

Ross.

If only it was so simple as this. At least they are trying to influence change and I'd gamble there wasn't to many plastic water bottles because we've all moved on from them.

John King

22-09-2019, 9:02am

The oldest member of our plastic water bottle collection is date stamped "18 Nov 04". It came with bottled water in it. Most of ours are reused cordial bottles. They're far stronger, and get used in the cars, and reused ...

Shame that some of our 680,000 unemployed can't be employed hand sorting the recyclable waste our councils and other infrastructure have supposedly been recycling ...

Bear Dale

22-09-2019, 9:09am

This is widely circulating since the 'strike' and I must wonder how many of the school kids would have turned up if the 'strike' had been in the school holidays. These kids use more power per child than 10 of us ever used growing up.

To all the school kids going on "strike" for Climate Change.

You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
Your buses are air conditioned, you have Netflix, YouTube and Instagram.

More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy.

Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.

The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school.
Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little have it alls, inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a "noble cause" while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life that no other generation has ever had.”

Lets flick the off switch on all the coal fired power stations for a week & see how everyone copes.

bobt

22-09-2019, 9:27am

Singling out children as the culprits achieves little - after all, who created the environment they find themselves in ?

Neither does it achieve a lot to compare today's standard of living with yesterday's - that's simply a reflection of societal evolution. Using this type of analysis one could equally say that our parent's generation used far fewer resources than we, their children, use today. So none of those examples are relevant to the question of climate change. What is relevant is what we do about it as a community - a global community.

We are collectively living on a planet that is showing the effects of historical abuse, and this is the only planet our children have known. Those children can see what the future holds unless changes are made, and they can see the Government's reluctance to make those changes. They cannot vote, and they have no power, so what else can they do but exactly what they are doing - creating an awareness of the issues.

The demonstration on Friday wasn't just children - it was adults from all walks of life as well. They all could have been doing something else, but they chose to make a positive statement rather than maintaining the status quo. If you're concerned that they wasted a day, are you equally concerned that we will shortly be having a day off simply to worship a football match? Which of those stoppages is the most worthwhile?

Protecting our planet and the future is indeed a "noble cause", and one we should all be promoting.

Bear Dale

22-09-2019, 10:55am

Singling out children as the culprits achieves little - after all, who created the environment they find themselves in ?

Another one doing the rounds -

Checking out at the store, the young cashier suggested to the much older lady that she should bring her own grocery bags, because plastic bags are not good for the environment,.
The woman apologized to the young girl and explained, "We didn't have this 'green thing' back in my earlier days."
The young clerk responded, "That's our problem today. Your generation did not care enough to save our environment for future generations."
The older lady said that she was right our generation didn't have the "green thing" in its day. The older lady went on to explain: Back then, we returned milk bottles, soda bottles and beer bottles to the store. The store sent them back to the plant to be washed and sterilized and refilled, so it could use the same bottles over and over. So they really were recycled.

But we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day. Grocery stores bagged our groceries in brown paper bags that we reused for numerous things. Most memorable besides household garbage bags was the use of brown paper bags as book covers for our school books. This was to ensure that public property (the books provided for our use by the school) was not defaced by our scribblings. Then we were able to personalize our books on the brown paper bags.
But, too bad we didn't do the "green thing" back then. We walked up stairs because we didn't have an escalator in every store and office building. We walked to the grocery store and didn't climb into a 300-horsepower machine every time we had to go two blocks. But she was right. We didn't have the "green thing" in our day.
Back then we washed the baby's diapers because we didn't have the throw away kind. We dried clothes on a line, not in an energy-gobbling machine burning up 220 volts. Wind and solar power really did dry our clothes back in our early days.
Kids got hand-me-down clothes from their brothers or sisters, not always brand-new clothing. But that young lady is right; we didn't have the "green thing" back in our day.
Back then we had one TV, or radio, in the house -- not a TV in every room. And the TV had a small screen the size of a handkerchief (remember them?), not a screen the size of the state of Montana.

In the kitchen we blended and stirred by hand because we didn't have electric machines to do everything for us.
When we packaged a fragile item to send in the mail, we used wadded up old newspapers to cushion it, not Styrofoam or plastic bubble wrap.
Back then, we didn't fire up an engine and burn gasoline just to cut the lawn. We used a push mower that ran on human power.
We exercised by working so we didn't need to go to a health club to run on treadmills that operate on electricity. But she's right; we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
We drank from a fountain when we were thirsty instead of using a cup or a plastic bottle every time we had a drink of water. We refilled writing pens with ink instead of buying a new pen, and we replaced the razor blade in a razor instead of throwing away the whole razor just because the blade got dull. But we didn't have the "green thing" back then.
Back then, people took the streetcar or a bus and kids rode their bikes to school or walked instead of turning their moms into a 24-hour taxi service in the family's $45,000 SUV or van, which cost what a whole house did before the "green thing."

We had one electrical outlet in a room, not an entire bank of sockets to power a dozen appliances. And we didn't need a computerized gadget to receive a signal beamed from satellites 23,000 miles out in space in order to find the nearest burger joint.
But isn't it sad the current generation laments how wasteful we old folks were just because we didn't have the "green thing" back then?

PhotoLady

22-09-2019, 11:01am

Anyone ever been with a large group of Gen Z's and the power goes out? Not a pleasant experience.

The generation that has so much, yet appreciates so little, takes so much for granted and has never made a sacrifice.

bobt

22-09-2019, 11:22am

The generation that has so much, yet appreciates so little, takes so much for granted and has never made a sacrifice.

None of these stories are relevant to where we are in the here and now. The "blame game" doesn't restore our planet, and neither does inter generational feuding. Each generation lives within its own experience and for each generation that experience is different. As children, we made our own mistakes and as adults we hopefully grow and learn from those mistakes. Teenagers today are not so far removed from the teens of yesterday. Some of the rules have changed - some for better, some for worse. No generation holds the moral high ground and none of us are perfect.

What we do have in common is an increasing awareness of the impact we collectively have upon our world, and we do have limited time in which to reverse or slow the damage done to it. Does it achieve anything to blame each other for where we are? Does reminiscing over the past or remonstrating with each other resolve anything? Society is nothing more than a collection of humans who as they age should learn from their mistakes, just as adults are supposed to learn from their childhood mistakes. That means changing the things that are harmful and replacing them with things that are less so. It means finding and using renewable, non polluting energy sources. It means learning to live in harmony, and it means recognising what we have done poorly and devising better ways to live.

It's not rocket science ..... it's just common sense.

John King

22-09-2019, 11:31am

This is widely circulating since the 'strike' and I must wonder how many of the school kids would have turned up if the 'strike' had been in the school holidays. These kids use more power per child than 10 of us ever used growing up.

. . .Lets flick the off switch on all the coal fired power stations for a week & see how everyone copes.

Exactly, BD.

What's really frightening is human population growth. When I was around 10 y.o., the population was around 2 Bn. 62 years on, and it's around 7.6 Bn ...

Check out this web site: https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Births outnumber deaths today by around 2.4:1 - bloody scary ...

WE are the problem, self included - Just far too many humans.

ameerat42

22-09-2019, 11:50am

None of these stories are relevant to where we are in the here and now. The "blame game" doesn't restore our planet, and neither does inter generational feuding. Each generation lives within its own experience and for each generation that experience is different... ... it's just common sense.

Basically seminal points!:nod:

Bear Dale

22-09-2019, 12:00pm

Rank City Country Population 1 Shanghai China 24,153,000 2 Beijing China 18,590,000 3 Karachi Pakistan 18,000,000 4 Istanbul Turkey 14,657,000 5 Dhaka Bangladesh 14,543,000 6 Tokyo Japan 13,617,000 7 Moscow Russia 13,197,596 8 Manila Philippines 12,877,000 9 Tianjin China 12,784,000 10 Mumbai India 12,400,000
Compared to the world, Australia's population is a blip on the radar, above are just the 10 largest populated cities, not countries.

Our green house gas emissions are incomparably small to the main producers of the world.

China in the next 10 years are supposedly going to build between 300 to 500 new coal power plants, does Australia stop selling coal overseas? Are we all willing for Australia's standard of living ranking in the world to fall (We are second in the world, just behind Norway who holds first place).

Also lets not forget that a single large volcanic eruption can make any carbon emission's reduced in a decade null and void in 24 hours.

Have a look at this world map to see how insignificant Australia's coal plants are to world green house emissions -

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

Electric cars? Have a good read up on just how not so green these really are for the environment, same as end of life for solar panels.

- - - Updated - - -

What's really frightening is human population growth.

That....is the problem John.

bobt

22-09-2019, 12:35pm

https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants[/URL]

A somewhat distorted world view actually. Out of 184 countries, Australia's greenhouse gases are number 2 on the list of highest producers of greenhouse gases per capita. Instead of looking at our overall contribution, you should be looking at what we produce per head of population, and that figure is nothing to be proud of at all! Most of the world's people produce far fewer greenhouse emissions per head of population.

141554

Would I accept a lowering of our collective living standards if it meant a less polluted planet? What you are effectively saying is that "I'm OK, so bugger the rest of the world!" I don't exactly subscribe to that philosophy.

As for the argument that a natural disaster might come along and ruin everything, I must admit that I haven't heard of a sillier argument in my years of discussing climate change! One might as well say that we shouldn't try and stay healthy because we might get run over by a truck! :eek:

Geoff79

22-09-2019, 12:47pm

The "blame game" doesn't restore our planet
Unless, of course, the blame is directed at the Australian government, obviously. That’s entirely logical. ;)

Bear Dale

22-09-2019, 12:49pm

Bob, you have every right to worry yourself about anything you want. I have the right to enjoy every day that I have left on this planet as worry free as I care to be.

Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned.

Same as most likely those kids will do when they get out of their leftist university years and have 20-30 years of being in the highest tax bracket there is in Australia.

bobt

22-09-2019, 1:03pm

Unless, of course, the blame is directed at the Australian government, obviously. That’s entirely logical. ;)

There are two distinct types of "blame". Blaming others for creating a problem achieves very little given that the past has proven to be very hard to change. Blaming Governments for not acting to rectify a problem is entirely different.

- - - Updated - - -

Bob, you have every right to worry yourself about anything you want. I have the right to enjoy every day that I have left on this planet as worry free as I care to be.

Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned.

Same as most likely those kids will do when they get out of their leftist university years and have 20-30 years of being in the highest tax bracket there is in Australia.

Bear, no suprises there - in fact I'll continue to do a lot of those things myself. I'm not planning on going without many things along my way to the the end. However, I will also advocate policies which allow me to do all that and clean up the planet at the same time. Power from solar energy and wind farms makes all our electric gadgetry run just the same, but without the pollution. The best of both worlds! Doing without plastics which stuff up our wildlife and get into the eco system won't disrupt my lifestyle either. The key message here is not about deprivation at all. It's about making sensible changes. A win/win situation.

nardes

22-09-2019, 2:42pm

As a young lad, a Policeman caught me smoking cigarettes behind a derilict house and advised me on the perils of smoking. Even though the Policeman admitted to smoking himself, his advice stuck with me, so I never took up the habit.

It does seem hypocritcal for a smoker to tell a young lad not to smoke, but I am forever grateful to that Policeman for his intervention in preventing me from going down that path of addicition.

In my example, it payed me to listen to the message and not judge the messenger's habits.:)

Cheers

Dennis

bobt

22-09-2019, 3:04pm

In my example, it payed me to listen to the message and not judge the messenger's habits.:)

I've learned that I can learn something from most people - even my kids! Too many people have closed their minds to too many ideas. They've just stopped listening. It's a shame.

You did well not taking up smoking. I was a 50 a day smoker, and it was the hardest thing ever to kick that habit. :eek:

Mark L

22-09-2019, 8:17pm

nardes

23-09-2019, 6:33am

bobt

23-09-2019, 8:55am

If these school children are willing to advocate for Planet Earth, good on them, as it seems Planet Earth is poorly represented on the world stage.:confused013

For decades we have had well-established, peer reviewed studies and investigations that have documented the ever-increasing pollution of our land, sea and air; deforestation, loss of species, melting of glaciers, ice caps, etc. If I were Mother Nature, I would be very pleased that school children were showing some interest in my health and well-being.:)

Cheers

Dennis

I have 7 grand children, and have been to various open days and displays they have put on at their schools. The amount of knowledge they have compared to the average man in the street is amazing. They have studied the environment, experimented and thoroughly examined their futures and the future of the planet. They've discovered an interesting thing about sand in particular - many adults have their heads buried in it !!!! :confused013

Bear Dale

23-09-2019, 9:52am

These debates just go in circles.

Most here will have more real life experiences than the school children holding up placards saying "Ban Coal" who are still wet behind the ears and don't know all that much about the economics to run a continent the size of Australia with a population of 25m even though they may believe that they do. So lets drop the rainbows and unicorns.

Australia will export 67 billion+ Australian dollars worth of coal and around 20 billion in natural gas 2019. The coal and natural gas industries support around 200,000 jobs.

Ban coal? Are you prepared for the Health budget to be slashed and for hospital beds to close? For Social Security and Pensions to dry up? Ready to pay more taxes? A lowering in education standards? Hospital waiting lists to be much longer? Unemployment to be at never seen before rates? Higher power bills? Cut backs in Defence spending whilst our neighbours increase theirs? A decline in public housing? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Australia has avoided recessions that other countries have endured for nearly 30 years, the world's longest record. A lot of people seem to take their current lifestyle that they grew up with and are accustomed to here in Australia for granted, they think its trendy and Green to believe that they could 'go without' because they don't have an understanding of what that really means because they have never gone without and they have never traveled and just seen how we are still the lucky country compared to how most of the rest of the world lives.

What political party of any colour or flavour will last if they cut back the above? None, because the silent majority will have their say at the election booth.

bobt

23-09-2019, 10:20am

These debates just go in circles.

At last, we have a point of agreement! :nod:

However, when faced with choices I prefer to go down the ethical road rather than that of short-term self interest. You are of course free to take the other path. That's democracy.

Interesting though, the UN has just released a report which indicates that Australia is among the worst nations in terms of acting to protect our environment. Not something to be proud of.

John King

23-09-2019, 10:56am

Bob, the UN has become a joke, mostly run by "democracies" that most of us would call "dictatorships". Like the League of Nations before it, it is well past its use by date, sadly.

Check out how many nations actually pay their dues. Australia does ...

bobt

23-09-2019, 11:28am

Bob, the UN has become a joke, mostly run by "democracies" that most of us would call "dictatorships".

I'd agree that the UN has become ineffective in many ways - however, in this case it is simply the conduit through which information is passed - so its competency is irrelevant. The information remains valid and is obtained from scientific agencies around the world.

I think the simple take-away here is that there are those who believe the science and those that don't. Clearly, in this group we have some who don't, and the reality is those views are unlikely to change no matter how strong the evidence. Whatever the reasons that cause some people to dismiss scientific findings, those views appear to be set in concrete. I have learned that there is little point in trying to change that mind-set despite such a huge armoury of evidence, so there's probably not much point in my producing any of that evidence here - it will be ignored regardless. However, if you can find reliable, factual evidence to bolster your views then by all means do so - I would be intrigued to see it.

Thus far all we have seen is gut feelings and a belief that our economy depends on polluting the globe, none of which have any basis in fact.

John King

23-09-2019, 12:53pm

Bob, I have formal qualifications at university level in science and politics, among other things. Somewhat beyond primary/secondary school levels.

I have used this training to study many claims and aspects of the UNIPCC reports since the mid 1990s. I am only impressed by how completely wrong they seem to be, when compared with raw data and analysis coming from research stations world wide.

The 1997 UNIPCC report predicted a metre rise in mean sea level and 56 million environmental refugees by 2010. Still waiting ...

The UNIPCC is a political body above all else - not a scientific body ... United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Just this morning, the New Daily (socialist workers daily?) announced that sea levels had risen by about 60 mms over the last 22 years.

1) From my knowledge of coastal survey and mapping, this degree of accuracy is not possible (3.04mm/yr ...), and

2) We have only been able to measure mean sea level relatively accurately since about 2005 ...

bobt

23-09-2019, 2:21pm

John, I'm not suggesting that you are academically challenged - far from it. However, one educated amateur compared with a legion of specialist scientists from around the globe does not, to my mind, represent a fair contest!

As I mentioned previously, hard line climate change deniers (and I take you to be of that ilk) are unlikely to change their spots as a result of anything I say or do. I could, of course, return with pages and pages of verified facts in support of the climate change issue, but what would be the point? We both know that would never be enough.

My position is simply that (a) the climate is irrefutably changing (b) those changes are a combination of factors both within and out of our control (c) those things which we could do we should do, if only to make our planet a more habitable place.

You only have to look around you at the pollution and the environmental damage world wide to realise that we can do better. If we can ... then why not? Other countries are making changes to a cleaner, more sustainable world. We can do that too if we stop being so selfish and inward looking.

John King

23-09-2019, 3:17pm

John, I'm not suggesting that you are academically challenged - far from it. However, one educated amateur compared with a legion of specialist scientists from around the globe does not, to my mind, represent a fair contest!

Bob, to quote just one of these poor misguided souls (climate scientist, Monash University - doctorate ... ) who keeps quoting Moorabbin weather station data from back in the 1950s. During that time, that weather station has moved 5 or 6 times, from Beaumaris to Moorabbin airport. These data sets are presented as one contiguous data set. This is statistically invalid. Each location has its own unique microclimate, for starters. Moving it some five kilometres from a suburban area to an open field (albeit with aeroplane exhaust fumes ... ) makes the data sets utterly separate. No indication of the state of the Stevenson Screen, or the immediate environment (needs to be grass that kept mown at no longer than 1" high, etc, etc). Had I presented such data in even first year as being indicative of anything, I would have failed that subject (statistics and research methods).

Now, multiply these failings by the number of ground based weather stations on which almost all of this data is based ... Hmmm.

As I mentioned previously, hard line climate change deniers (and I take you to be of that ilk)

The Earth's climate changes. That is a given. The solar climate model explains those changes. The humanocentric climate model does not.
How can anthropogenic climate models fail to take into account the exponential growth of the human population. It's beyond laughable, or risible - it's patently ridiculous

are unlikely to change their spots as a result of anything I say or do. I could, of course, return with pages and pages of verified facts in support of the climate change issue, but what would be the point? We both know that would never be enough.

Bob, I have literally thousands of links to primary data providers (research stations and the like). I am certainly very interested in the whole shebang, particularly the primary cause - too many humans consuming, polluting and breeding. I just will not sign up to what amounts to a religious belief, with little real world data that supports it.

Now, am I an active advocate for living cleaner, less polluting lives? Yes. I have been on two community consultative panels regarding sewerage disposal - a big problem in Australia, an environmental disaster in much of the world! I drive cars that have a cheap whole of life (cradle to grave) environmental cost. All plastics in them are marked with recycling information. Both are PZEV (Partially Zero Emissions Vehicle), that is, the air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than what goes into the engine, and the fuel systems are totally sealed (one of the biggest pollution agents is fuel escaping into the atmosphere from the fuel system ... ). I have always been highly critical of what I term 'domestic diesels' (passenger vehicles with diesel engines). The VW and Mercedes scandals give proof positive to what I have always said about their particulate pollution levels. Commercial diesels are often (but not always) cleaner.

Snow should be white. Look carefully at the shots of Greenland, and you will notice that they have a grey coating. This lowers the albedo dramatically, causes the ice sheet to absorb much more infrared radiation from the sun (and UV and ... ). The grey colour is from particulates in the atmosphere. Almost none of these come from power stations, as they are tightly regulated, even horrible old clunkers like Hazelwood. Any relatively modern black coal power station emits almost no particulates, or CO2, SO, SO2, SO3. The photos showing great clouds being emitted from cooling towers are very misleading. Those clouds are water droplets (steam) from the cooling tower. The exhaust of the furnaces is elsewhere ... Deliberate lying? I suspect so.

My position is simply that (a) the climate is irrefutably changing (b) those changes are a combination of factors both within and out of our control (c) those things which we could do we should do, if only to make our planet a more habitable place.

Yes. climate is changing. It has since the planet's formation. Vulcanism and plate tectonics play a huge part in this. Look at what happened to the world's climate when the Atlantic Ocean came into being at the end of the Triassic. Ditto with the formation of the number of giant super continents that have formed and broken up over the aeons. When Yellowstone blew last time (it's about 30 to 50,000 years overdue for another eruption ... ), the earth took around 30,000 years to recover from it.

You only have to look around you at the pollution and the environmental damage world wide to realise that we can do better. If we can ... then why not? Other countries are making changes to a cleaner, more sustainable world. We can do that too if we stop being so selfish and inward looking.

The great mass of humanity causes the planet to suffer, Bob. I am very aware of that. We have to control our birth rate and overall population. This site scares me witless:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Note that births today outnumber deaths roughly 2.4:1 ...

I am dreadfully saddened by what we are doing to this beautiful planet, but religious mania will do nothing to limit the root cause - us.

Dear little girls travelling around the world in $50 million dollar yachts built using modern materials and technology does nothing to convince me of the wisdom of the young ...

The sadness about youth is that it's wasted on the young; the sadness of wisdom is that it's wasted on the old.

I'm not the "denier" that you are making me out to be!
Interesting that the only other context that the word 'denier' is routinely used is "Holocaust denier". Interesting from a marketing and psychological point of view.

I could go into hugely more detail, but this is a photography forum ...

I hope that you see my points.

ameerat42

23-09-2019, 3:34pm

^Don't worry about it being a photography forum, as this thread is in OOF :crzy: (for bleary eyes).

bobt

23-09-2019, 6:12pm

John. I am convinced ...... that you will remain unconvinced. No doubt you mean well, and I am sure that the occasional observations from some weather stations are indeed incorrect - humans are fallible. I also agree that the increasing weight of humanity severely challenges the ability of this planet to house and feed us, although stopping people reproducing may pose a slight challenge.

I am not, however, so dismissive of our young. Having had a lot of exposure to them over my life I am more optimistic. Once we lose our faith in their ability to continue our collective progress through life, then we might as well all crawl into holes and await the apocalypse! In any event, if they are as hopeless as you make out, then who can we blame but ourselves? After all .... we taught them!

One of the primary tools used by those who refute the science, is the selective quoting of isolated and generally spurious alternate examples. Sure, some adults (and some children) do waste a disproportionate amount of resources and live lives which are not in the planet's best interests. Even in this limited forum we have seen examples of that - people who perhaps value short term indulgence over longer term communal benefit. However, there are exceptions to every rule, as you well know. However, exceptions do not negate the rule. Your claims of grey snow are not born out by my experiences, having recently been to Iceland Switzerland and Norway where the snow was pure white (creating exposure problems for my camera).

Neither your observations nor mine are relevant. They are simply the observations of two individuals rather than the thousands who have collected and analysed data around the globe. I prefer the statistical likelihood that they know considerable more than either of us.

So ..... rather than blame the children or the rapidly reproducing humans we should look at the science. We should ask ourselves what that science tells us and what those humans should be doing to rectify the situation. Your only solution as far as I can see is to hand out condoms and stop children from expressing informed opinions. Children are our future, and rather than shutting them up and condemning them we should be encouraging them to seek solutions to problems we have created.

John King

23-09-2019, 6:38pm

Bob, I really do not understand how you could misinterpret what I wrote in the manner you have.

BTW, an independent audit of the weather stations on the continental USA found that only about 5% were accurate within +/- 2°C when compared against a laboratory calibrated instrument. Irrelevant for local consumption, but extremely relevant if you want to use these as part of a global set.

I have great respect for the young, they are the future of our species. Age will cure their lack of knowledge, experience and (for some) provide the insight required for wisdom.

I also have great respect for the scientific method. While science is not always right, in the long term it is self correcting.

Even Professor Brian Cox is starting to realize that the big bang theory has some big holes in it - something I worked out around 30+ years ago.

In the interim, I will concentrate on doing my bit for a better environment, and avoid the religious mania like the plague. The latter contributes nothing, and turns people's attention away from the real problems of population explosion and environmental pollution.

Mark L

23-09-2019, 7:43pm

I also have great respect for the scientific method. While science is not always right, in the long term it is self correcting.

My unscientific observations seem to show this is true.
Most climate scientist now seem to be saying that the modeled rate of climate change has underestimated the rate of change.
I don't much care if the burning of fossil fuels is the major generator of climate change. I do think it makes more sense to be generating our energy needs via renewable energy eventually.
Up my way they want to dip up the Bylong Valley for 25 years of coal supply. This is one beautiful part of the world. Surely there's a better way.

John King

23-09-2019, 8:12pm

My unscientific observations seem to show this is true.
Most climate scientist now seem to be saying that the modeled rate of climate change has underestimated the rate of change.
I don't much care if the burning of fossil fuels is the major generator of climate change. I do think it makes more sense to be generating our energy needs via renewable energy eventually.
Up my way they want to dip up the Bylong Valley for 25 years of coal supply. This is one beautiful part of the world. Surely there's a better way.

Mark, back in 1997, the UNIPCC models said there would be a 1 metre rise in sea levels and 56 million environmental refugees by 2010. Now they are telling us in 2019, that the rise has been about 70 millimetres since 1997. That kind of discrepancy from their predictions I find rather harder than they do to explain away ...

Our beautiful property, Kianga, in the Dawson Valley in central Queensland has been an open cut coal mine for about 40 years.

Like you, I preferred it like this (late 1960s):

https://canopuscomputing.com.au/zen2/albums/digitised/KMSE-Kianga_Test0001_IGR.jpg

Unfortunately, we cannot get the electricity back and turn it back into the above ...

bobt

23-09-2019, 11:05pm

Bob, I really do not understand how you could misinterpret what I wrote in the manner you have.

I'm not sure I have misinterpreted you, but if I have then that's unfortunate. Your comments about our young have been largely disparaging, and similarly you are clearly sceptical about the global scientific assessment of climate change. It makes little difference to me whether an estimated change has proven to be inaccurate, only if it is proven to be wrong - which is not the case. Today's news makes it clear that the rate of global warming is increasing rather than decreasing, so the estimates have been underestimates rather than over estimates.

It is not a religious mania, but an increasing sense of concern based on so little action from politicians. Politicians are clearly more focused on the electoral repercussions than on the health of the planet, and that means that no significant action is in the pipeline to reduce the impact and speed of global warming.

Despite your scepticism about the legitimacy of scientific evidence, the evidence of our eyes is more than sufficient when you look at the shrinking glaciers and other visual and obvious results. It is interesting that there is currently a trend in various academic journals to ignore those who continue to deny these changes because the evidence is now so overwhelming. It is becoming about as sensible to deny the science as it is for the "Flat Earth Society" to believe that the world is indeed flat!

So although you are perhaps "doing your bit" for the environment, it would perhaps be more useful to promote the reality of climate change than to argue against what is now a self-evident fact. Environmental pollution is actually a part of the problem rather than a separate issue, and as for population control I'm not quite sure what your strategy is. The Chinese tried that one with absolutely dreadful results!

Gazza

24-09-2019, 6:56am

An interesting thread/discussion, Bob. You have a wonderful way to get so many good points across with a few words. Thanks.

I'm not sure I have misinterpreted you, but if I have then that's unfortunate. Your comments about our young have been largely disparaging, and similarly you are clearly sceptical about the global scientific assessment of climate change. It makes little difference to me whether an estimated change has proven to be inaccurate, only if it is proven to be wrong - which is not the case. Today's news makes it clear that the rate of global warming is increasing rather than decreasing, so the estimates have been underestimates rather than over estimates.

It is not a religious mania, but an increasing sense of concern based on so little action from politicians. Politicians are clearly more focused on the electoral repercussions than on the health of the planet, and that means that no significant action is in the pipeline to reduce the impact and speed of global warming.

Despite your scepticism about the legitimacy of scientific evidence, the evidence of our eyes is more than sufficient when you look at the shrinking glaciers and other visual and obvious results. It is interesting that there is currently a trend in various academic journals to ignore those who continue to deny these changes because the evidence is now so overwhelming. It is becoming about as sensible to deny the science as it is for the "Flat Earth Society" to believe that the world is indeed flat!

So although you are perhaps "doing your bit" for the environment, it would perhaps be more useful to promote the reality of climate change than to argue against what is now a self-evident fact. Environmental pollution is actually a part of the problem rather than a separate issue, and as for population control I'm not quite sure what your strategy is. The Chinese tried that one with absolutely dreadful results!
Slightly off topic?; hopefully the side effect from the trending same sex marriage/relationships should start having an impact in the near future?

bobt

24-09-2019, 7:37am

An interesting thread/discussion, Bob. You have a wonderful way to get so many good points across with a few words. Thanks.

John Clarke (AKA Fred Dagg) had a theory that we are all born with only a set number of words, and when we use them all up we die. I don't want to risk it! :)

Slightly off topic?; hopefully the side effect from the trending same sex marriage/relationships should start having an impact in the near future?

It's interesting actually, there seems to be a decline in the West's desire to have kids and as John points out we do have too many people as it is. However, developing countries still manage to reproduce like rabbits, which the world could do without. However, I can't see the increasing numbers of same sex marriages impacting that any time soon. If they want kids they still get them one way or another, and they are still statistically only a blip on the radar.

Our two biggest threats in my view is (a) a shortage of world leaders who are prepared to make the hard decisions which are necessary if we are to overcome the more pressing issues facing us all, and (b) a willingness of the electorate to accept those decisions without focusing on short term selfishness. There is a bigger picture.

Bear Dale

24-09-2019, 7:42am

Sure, some adults (and some children) do waste a disproportionate amount of resources and live lives which are not in the planet's best interests. Even in this limited forum we have seen examples of that - people who perhaps value short term indulgence over longer term communal benefit. However, there are exceptions to every rule, as you well know. However, exceptions do not negate the rule. Your claims of grey snow are not born out by my experiences, having recently been to Iceland Switzerland and Norway

Indulgent traveling to another country? Luckily you live in a first world country and were able to indulge your want to travel. Imagine if all the 7+ billion people on earth wanted to be so indulgent and wanted to fly to another country?
A December 2015 report finds that aircraft could generate 43gt of carbon pollution through to 2050, and because people want to travel by air, like yourself, airlines are building more and bigger airplanes to handle the burgeoning growth in air travel.

Theenvironmental impact of aviation, a comprehensive research shows that despite anticipated efficiency innovations to airframes, engines, aerodynamics and flight operations, there is no end in sight, even many decades out, to rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel and air freight, due to projected continual growth in air travel. This is because international aviation emissions have escaped international regulation up to the ICAO triennial conference in October 2016 agreed on the CORSIA offset scheme. In addition, due to low or non-existent taxes on aviation fuel, air travel enjoys a competitive advantage over other transportation modes due to lower fares.

ameerat42

24-09-2019, 7:58am

The above contains some assumed motivations for actions taken, and the consequences of which are then generalised
to unrealistic proportions to illustrate dire consequences. It is questionable as an argument.

Note that I haven't read (kept up with) the whole thread, so can't comment on statements made by others.

bobt

24-09-2019, 8:12am

Indulgent traveling to another country? Luckily you live in a first world country and were able to indulge your want to travel. Imagine if all the 7+ billion people on earth wanted to be so indulgent and wanted to fly to another country?

Interesting. It seems to me that you are essentially anti-progress. You seem to be saying that we should no longer travel overseas, that we should abandon planes and go back to horse and carts? I'm not exactly sure what it is you are advocating here? Should we limit flights to the transporting of essentials only? Should we make driving a car for pleasure illegal? One of my basic precepts in life is that if someone doesn't like an idea then they need to come up with a better idea. Until they do so, then original idea remains the best option. I don't see your plan "B" here at all. What would you have us do ?

Your concerns about the environmental cost of flying seem at odds with your earlier statement "Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned."

Bear Dale

24-09-2019, 8:53am

Interesting. It seems to me that you are essentially anti-progress. You seem to be saying that we should no longer travel overseas, that we should abandon planes and go back to horse and carts? I'm not exactly sure what it is you are advocating here? Should we limit flights to the transporting of essentials only? Should we make driving a car for pleasure illegal? One of my basic precepts in life is that if someone doesn't like an idea then they need to come up with a better idea. Until they do so, then original idea remains the best option. I don't see your plan "B" here at all. What would you have us do ?

Your concerns about the environmental cost of flying seem at odds with your earlier statement "Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned."

I have no problem with my indulgence and consumerism, I'm surprised at your indulgence.
Comes across a bit like talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

Geoff79

24-09-2019, 9:04am

One of my basic precepts in life is that if someone doesn't like an idea then they need to come up with a better idea.

And this is the thing I’d love most to learn from this thread. Genuinely.

You become prime minister of Australia tomorrow. The floor is all yours. What realistic measures do you take immediately to stop climate change?

You said before that John “doing his bit” is no good, so the practical, hands on option is out the door. You indicated that blocking streets with rallies so that young children can’t get to chemotherapy appointments and glueing your hands to street crossings is the way to end climate change? So you’d send boats and planes of Australian protesters to block up the streets of countries around the world that do actually have some impact on “climate change?” Spread the word?

Obviously I’d taken a bit of artistic license there, but this is a forum of the arts so I hope that’s okay. But genuinely curious what your solution is.

bobt

24-09-2019, 9:41am

And this is the thing I’d love most to learn from this thread. Genuinely.
You become prime minister of Australia tomorrow. The floor is all yours. What realistic measures do you take immediately to stop climate change?

That's an easy one. The first step in resolving a problem is to recognise that there IS a problem. This, I suspect, is where we differ.

So my first step would be to throw away that Morrison lump of coal, admit that global warming is an issue, and resolve to do whatever we can to lessen its impact. Far too much time is wasted with denial rather than acceptance, and that denial is based on political expediency rather than on any factual basis.

Having got over that huge stumbling block we would thus dispense with circular and unproductive arguments about what degree of climate change is man-made and what is natural and agree that whatever the situation it just makes sense to alter the way in which we operate. Renewable energy is the way of the future, and common sense dictates that non-polluting, renewable energy sources will give us a better world and a more sustainable world. Burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution and mines like Adani are humongously damaging to our land and wildlife. So I would stop Adani cold in its tracks. One only has to look at Adani's track record to realise that it is an amoral and untrustworthy organisation with a track record of leaving a trail of destruction wherever it goes.

I would also examine each and every alternative such as solar power, wind power etc etc with a view to encouraging these new industries to grow, replacing the coal mines and maintaining employment. It has been demosntrated that these policies work elsewhere in the world, and the only stumbling block here is a lack of government support and promotion.

That's my first day in office dealt with ......... :D:nod:

- - - Updated - - -

I have no problem with my indulgence and consumerism, I'm surprised at your indulgence.
Comes across a bit like talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

There is a huge gulf between taking us back to the 19th century and modifying the way we live today. We are never going to go backwards, so we need to accommodate the present and adapt to the future. That doesn't mean we stop flying - it means we develop better planes. We don't stop using electricity, we find better ways of generating it. We don't stop innovating and learning, we just apply what we know to better ways of living. Again, it's not rocket science or even radical - it's plain common sense. Your wouldn't trash your living room, so why trash your planet?

ameerat42

24-09-2019, 9:49am

Funny how research can be (well, potentially) stymied by a PM who thought wind-generators* "ugly".

* Seeking new term, as they do not generate wind (ie, not full of beans:p) but energy. Not even
"wind-power generators" would do. It would have to be wind-powered generators, or something.
This is a really vexed question. :umm:

John King

24-09-2019, 10:23am

Bob, I'm an atheist.

That doesn't mean that I want to offend or prohibit the practices of those billions around the world who believe in some kind of god.

What I object to is when the atheist conference advertising for the conference held in Melbourne was successfully banned ("removed from") buses in this city.

I am forced daily to conform to laws that might seem reasonable to someone who has Judeo/Christian beliefs. I do not share those beliefs, even though I was confirmed as a Christian just before I became an agnostic (a couple of weeks later), then later an atheist (about a year later, at around 16 y.o.). I mention this to demonstrate the problems associated with the indoctrination of children prior to their reasonable intellectual ability to assess what is being told to them. I have successfully explained Einstein's Theory of Relativity to one of my (then) 6 y.o. nieces. Explaining complex ethical and world wide problems to such a child would be inappropriate, to say the least. The Jesuits adhere to that approach ... But that's really OT.

However, I am compelled to conform to those predominantly Judeo/Christian laws. Compulsion means a return to the dark ages and the death of rational thought.

Roughly 40-50% of Australians list themselves as having "No religion" as at the last census, so I'm hardly alone - not that that would bother me in the slightest.

I do not force my views on them, but I have had a poor experience with the religious respecting my views.

For me, a view of the Universe that's unobstructed by having god in the way is far more awesome, beautiful and wonderful than believing in a god with the manners and morals of a spoiled five year old.

AND, nowhere, not once, have I disparaged children. FCOL, Psychology, including developmental psychology, was one of my chosen fields of study. I just hate to see their young, trusting and enquiring minds polluted with BS at an age when they cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood. Advertising is the same. According to the research papers I have read children cannot rell the difference between news and advertising until about the age of 10 y.o. The standard deviation for this age will be moderately large. Possibly as large as 12-18 months, I cannot recall. The fact remains.

Every photograph I have seen of the Greenland ice sheets shows a grey coating. Very close to 18% neutral grey, in fact.

BTW, the length of a glacier is not a measure of its "health". Its mass is. Leaving that to one side, we know very little hard information about around 10-20% of the earth's glaciers, and next to nothing about the other 80-90%. Making sweeping statements based on this (lack of) knowledge is questionable at best.

Sorry, but I cannot keep up this rant any longer. I have a completely open mind, and have spent more than 6 months devoted to studying these phenomena 8-10 hours a day ... ). My conclusions remain the same - stop polluting the planet with humans and our garbage. Anthropogenic climate change is a distraction to keep the masses occupied while continuing to overpopulate and keep on polluting to their hearts' content.

- - - Updated - - -

Funny how research can be (well, potentially) stymied by a PM who thought wind-generators* "ugly".

* Seeking new term, as they do not generate wind (ie, not full of beans:p) but energy. Not even
"wind-power generators" would do. It would have to be wind-powered generators, or something.
This is a really vexed question. :umm:

Am, as every farmer can tell you, windmills are great for pumping water. Every study of wind turbines shows that they are great at generating electricity when it's not needed - e.g. 0200H ...

The solution is pumped hydro, as used at Dinorwig (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinorwig_Power_Station) power station (different implementation, but same principle). Australia already has much of that infrastructure in place in the Snowy Mountains scheme.

Most of the rainfall that this country receives presently dilutes the Torres Strait, Timor Sea, etc. Except for Lake Argyle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lake_Argyle), which holds some 23 Sydharbs of fresh water. It is also about 90m above every capital city in Australia. Similar schemes could easily be built on the northern side of e.g. the Selwyn Ranges.

The problem with dogma is that irt almost always refuses to even contemplate alternative solutions. If Gaddafi could build the Great Man Made River (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Man-Made_River) project in Libya, what's stopping us?

- - - Updated - - -

Some more sobering data for those who appear to think that anthropogenic climate change is not related to population, for some strange reason!

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/world-population-by-year/

nardes

24-09-2019, 11:05am

>snip

My conclusions remain the same - stop polluting the planet with humans and our garbage.

>snip

I suspect that this statement would resonate with most folks who have contributed to or read this post.:th3:

It certainly does for me; after all, when you love something (our planet, our life support system, humanity) why would you continue to harm, or even destroy it, once your mind has been awakened to how that process is currently working. :)

Cheers

Dennis

John King

24-09-2019, 11:39am

I suspect that this statement would resonate with most folks who have contributed to or read this post.:th3:

It certainly does for me; after all, when you love something (our planet, our life support system, humanity) why would you continue to harm, or even destroy it, once your mind has been awakened to how that process is currently working. :)

Cheers

Dennis

Exactly, Dennis.

I've been a non-conformist environmentalist since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of what we are doing, at around age 18 y.o. - over 50 years ago!

However, I refuse to drink the 'chicken little' Kool Aid. It's based on BS, and will not actually solve the problems that we as a species should be facing up to, but aren't ... Another religious belief will not achieve anything. After all, which religion said that man had dominion over all the Earth? Where, in that statement was the unavoidable concomitant statement that we should exercise that dominion with responsibility? Uh Oh ... :eek:.

Every right has an attendant duty. Shame that they don't teach ethics in school, only religion ...

Bob obviously doesn't see it, but I am not actually disagreeing with his fundamental tenets.

Unlikely as it might appear (according to the Drake equation) that we are the only sentient life in the Universe, until we know this for absolutely certain, we have a sacred duty to conserve what we have developed. Instead, we sell 21st century weaponry to people who are living in about 800 AD. Really great stuff ...

bobt

24-09-2019, 2:54pm

Funny how research can be (well, potentially) stymied by a PM who thought wind-generators* "ugly".

Pity that the voters didn't reject him on the same basis!:nod:

- - - Updated - - -

Bob, I'm an atheist. That doesn't mean that I want to offend or prohibit the practices of those billions around the world who believe in some kind of god.

At last! Something on which we can agree! :D I have all sorts of objections about having religion thrust upon me, whether it be in politics or everyday life. There is far too much religion inserted into everyday life, when it should be practiced by those who need it privately and not used as a lobbying mechanism or a divisive distraction from dealing with facts.

AND, nowhere, not once, have I disparaged children.

I'm not sure that "Dear little girls travelling around the world in $50 million dollar yachts built using modern materials and technology does nothing to convince me of the wisdom of the young ..." and " The sadness about youth is that it's wasted on the young;" is necessarily flattering, but I concede I may have attributed one of the other poster's comments to you in error.

Every photograph I have seen of the Greenland ice sheets shows a grey coating. Very close to 18% neutral grey, in fact. It doesn't take much to make white snow look grey in a photograph. You may rest assured that as of two months ago it was still brilliantly white! That's first hand rather than second hand information.

BTW, the length of a glacier is not a measure of its "health". Its mass is. Leaving that to one side, we know very little hard information about around 10-20% of the earth's glaciers, and next to nothing about the other 80-90%. Making sweeping statements based on this (lack of) knowledge is questionable at best.

There have been two funeral held for dead glaciers this year. Glaciers who demise was directly attributable to climate change.

My conclusions remain the same - stop polluting the planet with humans and our garbage. Anthropogenic climate change is a distraction to keep the masses occupied while continuing to overpopulate and keep on polluting to their hearts' content.

There is an assumption here that we must only choose one of life's ills to address at any given time. Why not address both climate change, pollution and population simultaneously? Those actions are not mutually exclusive but part of a package.

Am, as every farmer can tell you, windmills are great for pumping water. Every study of wind turbines shows that they are great at generating electricity when it's not needed

Which flies in the face of the thousands of wind turbines to be seen all around the globe. One of the things that has struck me when flying into other countries (and I have flown into quite a few), is the sight of hundreds of turbines to be seen off the coast. They are there becuase they work, and more and more are being built every day. Australia is better placed than most with heaps of sunshine and miles of windy coast. We need to harness that energy as other countries are doing right now.

The solution is pumped hydro

Indeed ..... but not the only solution, so why not harness all of these options?

Some more sobering data for those who appear to think that anthropogenic climate change is not related to population, for some strange reason!

I don't recall anyone saying that it isn't related to population? Everything is inter-related. Why keep focusing on only one thing at a time? Why not attack the problems from many angles? Again, they are not mutually exclusive.

nardes

24-09-2019, 3:08pm

It seems that AP folks are not the only ones discussing this multi-faceted topic.

None other than the great man himself, Sir David Attenborough on the ABC website:

https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/sir-david-attenborough-slams-scott-morrison-on-climate-record/11533566
(https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/sir-david-attenborough-slams-scott-morrison-on-climate-record/11533566)
And this amazing, bright and passionate youngster at the UN:

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-24/greta-thunberg-speech-climate-change-un-summit-how-dare-you/11541300

Lets hope that there is some hope left.:)

Cheers

Dennis

bobt

24-09-2019, 3:22pm

John King; Bob obviously doesn't see it, but I am not actually disagreeing with his fundamental tenets.

We are talking at cross purposes to a limited extent. Where we disagree is perhaps the most appropriate plan of attack. I believe in a holistic approach whereby we don't just focus on one aspect but all aspects. They are all inter related.

I'm not sure that religion in schools is all that relevant as it is far less now than it once was. Personally I'd ditch it - there's enough religious indoctrination in society anyway, but that's perhaps another issue. Like you, I am a rabid Atheist!

We do need more education, but it is the general public who need educating. The simply fact that we have leaders such as Trump, Morrison, Netanyahu, Johnson and Putin illustrates quite effectively the need for the world's population to stop electing or tolerating leaders of this ilk. They are the major impediment to a better world, and yet they remain.

Leaving aside Putin, the rest are elected by voters who clearly haven't got a clue - and so educating those voters is a key part of the puzzle. Of course that gets back to where we started which is politics and lobbying. The environmental marches are simply a form of lobbying.

- - - Updated - - -

It seems that AP folks are not the only ones discussing this multi-faceted topic.

Those are brilliant links Dennis, if only we could make the world's politicians act upon that advice.

nardes

24-09-2019, 3:27pm

>snip
Those are brilliant links Dennis, if only we could make the world's politicians act upon that advice.

I suspect that those news articles are getting some headline space because of the recent marches, so I hope those that participated can feel good about having some impact for their efforts.:)

Cheers

Dennis

John King

24-09-2019, 3:31pm

Bob, I would expect the colour grading in video footage to be correct. Specially aerial shots. All the other white bits were white ...

Can you really not see that HCC (now given the more officious sounding name 'anthropogenic CC' ... ) is a religious belief structure?

I'm all for science, but will not stand for BS masquerading as science.

Glaciers grow and shrink all the time.

There are roughly 160,000 glaciers on Earth (https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/GLIMS), but this number varies between 100,000 and 200,000, depending on who you believe ... demonstrates just how little we actually know about our planet ...

Mourning the 'death' of 2 out of ~160,000 seems a little bit of an exaggeration of sentiment to me ...

Bear Dale

24-09-2019, 4:18pm

Pity that the voters didn't reject him (Morrison) on the same basis!:nod:

Bob, you belong to a vocal minority, Morrison got in by a large margin, voted in by the silent majority, that's democracy.

If you think Labor, if or when, they get into power will be one iota different....you're dreaming.

And if you think the leftist Greens ( or sometimes referred to as the Avocado Party, green on the outside and nuts on the inside) will ever be the dominant party in Australia........that's dreaming whilst inebriated.

bobt

24-09-2019, 4:29pm

Bob, I would expect the colour grading in video footage to be correct. Specially aerial shots. All the other white bits were white ...

There are various reasons some snow can look grey, but as an illustration of anything useful here ??? Perhaps not. I went to three countries a couple of months ago where I saw lots of lovely pure white snow. That evidence is sufficient for me! :D

Can you really not see that HCC (now given the more officious sounding name 'anthropogenic CC' ... ) is a religious belief structure?

Anything that people become heavily invested in can be viewed that way. It doesn't make it irrational or ill based - it just means that it's an issue someone is passionate about. Some might get passionate about overpopulation, but it doesn't make it a religion. I'm with you in terms of the prevalence of God(s) in our society, but there are many things one might casually consider a religion. Ask any Richmond supporters next Saturday!!

I'm all for science, but will not stand for BS masquerading as science.

I agree .... Scientology comes to mind - but not climate change.

Glaciers grow and shrink all the time.

Not to the extent they are currently. I'd go and find some stats, but we both know that you wouldn't accept them.

I think we should agree about the value of Atheism and agree to disagree on the rest! :nod:

ameerat42

24-09-2019, 5:10pm

Reminder: Please keep the discussion polite. It is potentially wide-ranging, but please try not to stray.

Since the concept of democracy comes up occasionally, it is not helpful to criticise the stated or just
perceived political leanings of members, equally less so to prognosticate on the likely actions of future
governments. One can cite relevant, demonstrable facts, such as: "When Party X was in power they cut
funds to project Y...", etc, but lambasting members or unnecessarily lampooning political movements is
useless.

John King

24-09-2019, 5:32pm

Bob, if snow is fresh it will always be pure white. When it has sat around with no new falls, then you will see particulate 'fallout' on it. Mainly from diesel engines, particularly those made by the VW group of companies and the Mercedes group of companies.

It appears you are not reading most of what I have written, so I will not continue to bore you.

Mark L

24-09-2019, 8:59pm

Can you really not see that HCC (now given the more officious sounding name 'anthropogenic CC' ... ) is a religious belief structure?

Seems to me denying HCC has also become a religious belief.:confused013

bobt

24-09-2019, 9:14pm

It appears you are not reading most of what I have written, so I will not continue to bore you.

Oh I'm reading it ..... I'm just not agreeing with a lot of it. :D I'm not bored though.

I'm still with you on the Atheism bit ......

Snow? Not so much.

Geoff79

25-09-2019, 12:28am

That's an easy one. The first step in resolving a problem is to recognise that there IS a problem. This, I suspect, is where we differ.

So my first step would be to throw away that Morrison lump of coal, admit that global warming is an issue, and resolve to do whatever we can to lessen its impact. Far too much time is wasted with denial rather than acceptance, and that denial is based on political expediency rather than on any factual basis.

Having got over that huge stumbling block we would thus dispense with circular and unproductive arguments about what degree of climate change is man-made and what is natural and agree that whatever the situation it just makes sense to alter the way in which we operate. Renewable energy is the way of the future, and common sense dictates that non-polluting, renewable energy sources will give us a better world and a more sustainable world. Burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution and mines like Adani are humongously damaging to our land and wildlife. So I would stop Adani cold in its tracks. One only has to look at Adani's track record to realise that it is an amoral and untrustworthy organisation with a track record of leaving a trail of destruction wherever it goes.

I would also examine each and every alternative such as solar power, wind power etc etc with a view to encouraging these new industries to grow, replacing the coal mines and maintaining employment. It has been demosntrated that these policies work elsewhere in the world, and the only stumbling block here is a lack of government support and promotion.

That's my first day in office dealt with ......... :D:nod:

I did just want to add that this wasn't a drop mic moment where I suddenly realised the error of my ways. I've been trying to tap out of this thread for days and hoped this was my opportunity. A few tins in for the evening and I'm ready to sign out.

In light of what's followed since, I think it was you yourself, Bob, that made a valid point, in that we're probably all roughly on the same page - the difference is just how we go about what happens next. I think the climate change hysteria is ridiculous, but I also don't mind the fact that it actually helps shine a light on what cretins (generally speaking) the human race is. And that hopefully the outcome of it all will be that we as a people do make a conscious effort to stop destroying this place so viciously.

I guess the main thing for me, as someone who enjoys common sense is;

So you get all these wind farms and solar power facilities going, get rid of all the mines and then you've solved the problem in Australia. Australia is no longer adding to climate change. You've fixed it and there's no more pollution. And then what? The climate stops changing? Evolution stops? The climate stays the same for the next 1000-2000 years because we have wind farms and solar panels in Australia? Where do you turn next when there is a change in the climate in 500 years time?

Or once the blip on the radar that is Australia has everything in order, what do you do about the rest of the planet? It's realistic to think that the entire world as we know it just stops, and we do a blanket world-wide change of everything and we all stop the climate changing?

I regret if that sounds pessimistic or cynical, but as Bear indicated somewhere above, there's two sides to this equation. There's the can-do optimists dancing in a world of rainbows and unicorns, and then there's realists. Good, bad or ugly... people that can look at things logically and with common sense, even if it isn't the fairytale.

I dunno, as brought up in this thread, it is kind of like religion. You have the devout religious folk, certain they'll ascend to the clouds and live with a man with a beard and enjoy eternity in heaven while the rest of us burn in hell because we never went to church. And then you have sensible people. ;)

Anyway, who knows? This post might not make it because it's 2019 and I don't think we're allowed to say anything unkind about religion, but there is a definite parallel. It's not always happy, but I like to think I look at the world and the state of it in terms that are realistic and logical. This whole climate change hysteria, to me, is certainly not that.

And that's about it. If we needed any more proof of how silly it's all become, I think we look no further than Bob's Iceberg funerals. I just didn't know whether to laugh or cry, so I blended the two. It's just too silly to comprehend.

End of the day - I hope we all get our way and people are more sensible about how what they do impacts on the environment. I would love to take a photograph of a waterfall without spending 10 minutes removing rubbish from the water before I take the shot. Or I'd love to walk on a beach in South East Asia and have my foot touch sand rather than six inches of garbage. As we're dealing with the human race, that won't happen. So you can either glue yourself to the street about it or you can live each day with those you love for what it is.

Gazza

25-09-2019, 6:34am

bobt

25-09-2019, 7:30am

John, I remain puzzled as to what you would do about all of this. On the one hand you agree that there is a problem, but on the other you seem to resent those who are actively trying to galvanise the world into action.

Sure, it is unlikely that we will entirely solve these problems. It may well be that it only defers our demise. However it's a little like the introduction of compulsory seat-belts. That initiative has not stopped people dying and being maimed, but it has saved countless thousands of lives. If we had taken your view on that and simply accepted the number of road deaths, then all of those people would indeed have died. It is so disparaging to call activists people who "dance in a world of rainbows" and I find that quite offensive. These are people genuinely trying to introduce change and to force our politicians to do something constructive. To dismiss those aims out of hand is disingenuous and insulting.

All of these activities, such as the iceberg funerals, are designed to highlight the issue and to ask humanity to change direction. That's a whole lot better than sitting around saying that it's all too hard.

You see it as silly - I see it as very, very serious. I think that's a major difference in our perspectives.

- - - Updated - - -

This was easy to listen to...

Another very compelling and succinct analysis - thanks for that. I could listen to him all day - he makes a lot of sense. No rainbows or unicorns there!

Geoff79

25-09-2019, 8:23am

John, I remain puzzled as to what you would do about all of this. On the one hand you agree that there is a problem, but on the other you seem to resent those who are actively trying to galvanise the world into action.

Sure, it is unlikely that we will entirely solve these problems. It may well be that it only defers our demise. However it's a little like the introduction of compulsory seat-belts. That initiative has not stopped people dying and being maimed, but it has saved countless thousands of lives. If we had taken your view on that and simply accepted the number of road deaths, then all of those people would indeed have died. It is so disparaging to call activists people who "dance in a world of rainbows" and I find that quite offensive. These are people genuinely trying to introduce change and to force our politicians to do something constructive. To dismiss those aims out of hand is disingenuous and insulting.

All of these activities, such as the iceberg funerals, are designed to highlight the issue and to ask humanity to change direction. That's a whole lot better than sitting around saying that it's all too hard.

You see it as silly - I see it as very, very serious. I think that's a major difference in our perspectives.

Sorry Bob, absolutely no intention to offend but it’s 2019 and I’m as politically correct as a male and female toilet cubicle. So I didn’t mean to offend, but it seems far easier to do that than not these days. :(

For the record, I actually think the future looks good for the activist types amongst us. The educational system seems so left/green these days that I cannot see any way that any and almost all advancements (and there will be plenty) in the way we live into the future will not be made with majority consideration for it’s impact on the environment.

bobt

25-09-2019, 8:45am

For the record, I actually think the future looks good for the activist types amongst us. The educational system seems so left/green these days that I cannot see any way that any and almost all advancements (and there will be plenty) in the way we live into the future will not be made with majority consideration for it’s impact on the environment.

I'm of the opposite view actually (no surprise there, perhaps). I see a world-wide drift to the right which is increasingly dangerous. I think that the rise of extremist governments, draconian limitations on human rights and civil liberties and an increasing tendency towards oppressive and harsh regimes is a major worry. Democracy is being challenged and everywhere there are limitations on the way humans interact. The treatment of women is appalling and the stifling of journalism is rife - even in Australia. It's not going to be a rosy future unless we move the world back to a more balanced and inclusive way of living our lives.

Geoff79

25-09-2019, 9:04am

I'm of the opposite view actually (no surprise there, perhaps). I see a world-wide drift to the right which is increasingly dangerous. I think that the rise of extremist governments, draconian limitations on human rights and civil liberties and an increasing tendency towards oppressive and harsh regimes is a major worry. Democracy is being challenged and everywhere there are limitations on the way humans interact. The treatment of women is appalling and the stifling of journalism is rife - even in Australia. It's not going to be a rosy future unless we move the world back to a more balanced and inclusive way of living our lives.

Oh dear. Okay, I guess that’s probably left for another day. Soon we’ll be talking about how horrendous it is that transgender and people from Uganda weren’t represented on the last series of the smash hit reality tv show, Love Island. :(

John King

25-09-2019, 9:50am

This was easy to listen to...:url: (https://www.facebook.com/abcqanda/videos/335152233926388/UzpfSTYxNzg3NDAxMjoxMDE1NjU3NDE2NzkyOTAxMw/?__tn__=lC-R&eid=ARAJb7tZWaql3RHl1JuVujKSChgPStVruiHGcT594eG8Dic4XRJYBH4tMSGaGsAd4sABfcLNIwDMyjN_&hc_ref=ARS46DiXfbTt3Z44pdq_YQCP37jzXEXmVDCnNjsjIAWJ_DVvcWHhzp5IeNIKDW62ISs&__xts__[0]=68.ARBVGHVcr9nJYi3KDd7QBIRNqc-UZQs0WmvXHyNPE__L_whHRC1yI3nk9hCE5dZYwCBX3J6471WS3GsMQZ0-DtiX2n7LtGdQvhjvkyoH3cEo7m5pBVfqZFhanAQZDtCNql0N-xtRM7NHqYMDzs_Hezbmh9peNnQ1iPi5IyDNj77fsMW2Hz1aZ17FBbqzc24IJLz1_BO3dummI1qWuPPMdB1IEkUB15XVHFpThnZmjGxHrgGoqDvBwXAp1A7iaQsYqackTjTlPcZ4KFua-pq7bAJp2H6kivyeylcKNMQn-fHsZ9KwK_sFiAWUzt7RWjJCQH5cgA_o3_LSrldWHMcae3w5QxC9zGN5-PHZEpXZAudJaKxs4Egm4RNY)

C'mon Gaz. 'Red' Kerry on the most left wing, socialist program on 'our' ABC ... (unfortunately, it's 'their' ABC - the power of advertising ... ).

Ask yourself - Why have the ABC resisted the insertion of the words "fair and balanced" into their charter so vigorously? Personally, I'm amazed that they weren't there from inception.

bobt

25-09-2019, 11:09am

C'mon Gaz. 'Red' Kerry on the most left wing, socialist program on 'our' ABC ...

Well, if nothing else, this thread has certainly "outed" the left and right wings of our group!!! If Kerry and Sir David are driving this train I'll be first on board!!! :lol:

John King

25-09-2019, 11:56am

John, I remain puzzled as to what you would do about all of this.

[EDIT] Keep right on acting responsibly towards our planet, and urge those in authority whose paths I cross to do the same at a strategic level. Educate those with whom I come in contact. [end edit]

On the one hand you agree that there is a problem, but on the other you seem to resent those who are actively trying to galvanise the world into action.

[EDIT] I have a real problem with extremists, Bob. Of any/all persuasions. They will wreck the world far more surely than those who do nothing at all!! Look to the Inquisition, Pol Pot, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc. The history of our species is littered with the disasters caused by those who thought they were doing the right thing (in their minds ... ). The horrors they caused beggar the imagination, all while pursuing "all that is right and holy". Fear the extremists, Bob. Specially ones who appear to agree with you ... [end edit]

Sure, it is unlikely that we will entirely solve these problems. It may well be that it only defers our demise.

I think that you are confusing me with someone else, Bob.

However it's a little like the introduction of compulsory seat-belts. That initiative has not stopped people dying and being maimed, but it has saved countless thousands of lives. If we had taken your view on that and simply accepted the number of road deaths, then all of those people would indeed have died.

Please don't start me on my road safety credentials. I insisted that my parents have seat belts fitted to our cars when I first got my driver's licence. I feel naked without one on. You have now stooped so low as to accuse me of things about which you know nothing of my thoughts on the subject. It's called 'jumping to conclusions', and more formally, the argumentum ad hominem ...

May I ask what brand of car you drive? Chances are, I know a lot more about its primary and secondary safety characteristics than you do, but I'm just guessing here.

It is so disparaging to call activists people who "dance in a world of rainbows" and I find that quite offensive. These are people genuinely trying to introduce change and to force our politicians to do something constructive. To dismiss those aims out of hand is disingenuous and insulting.

I wrote nothing of the kind. However, most of the green movement is filled with lies. As a person with qualifications in political science and conflict, I see behind the front to an international socialism agenda. It woould be wonderful were we to act as one people, but try telling that to 7th century societies armed with 21st century weapons, and primitive, absolutist religious ideas. As for the greens: Remember the sinking of the old oil rig in the North Sea? I do. The greens initially claimed that there was 250 kgms of radioactive material on it. What actually eventually surfaced was that it had about 250 mgs or so in the fire alarm/smoke detectors ... Just like the ones most of us have in our homes!

All of these activities, such as the iceberg funerals, are designed to highlight the issue and to ask humanity to change direction.

They merely expose them for the ridiculous grandstanding that they are ...

That's a whole lot better than sitting around saying that it's all too hard.

I have yet to read one post here by anyone who thought that way. Everyone appears to be in heated agreement that the planet is going to hell in a bucket. Some of us are pointing to primary causes, rather than secondary causes.

Many of the suggested solutions (the all cars should be electric is one of the more insane ones - cradle to grave costs including initial build and full recycling are far higher for electric cars than for ordinary cars with proper emission controls ... ) are workable, some are crazy, so will never happen. Feel good, while doing nothing! The Victorian Government is holding some $500M of rate revenue etc in an enviromental fund, but released a miserable $10M of it to keep one of our major recycling facilities open ... I could go on, and on, and on ...

You see it as silly - I see it as very, very serious. I think that's a major difference in our perspectives.

I have not seen a single post here that says caring for our environment is silly. Gross exaggeration is silly, OTOH.

- - - Updated - - -

Another very compelling and succinct analysis - thanks for that. I could listen to him all day - he makes a lot of sense. No rainbows or unicorns there!

Kerry O'Brien is well known for his sanctimonious and extremely left wing views. Read John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor Mill's "Essay on Liberty". It might help you see these things far more clearly.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, if nothing else, this thread has certainly "outed" the left and right wings of our group!!! If Kerry and Sir David are driving this train I'll be first on board!!! :lol:

You are again quite mistaken, Bob.

I describe myself as "an old fashioned socialist". My political views are very much small "L" liberal, and very much centrist. I do not expect a left wing, modern socialist to even comprehend the difference between my political views and those of someone who is on the extreme right of politics. In psychology, extremes of left and right are seen as the tails of a circle i.e. adjacent to one another, not the opposite ends of a straight line.

In reality, what were the differences between the extreme left of Stalin and the extreme right of Hitler? None, for all practical purposes ... One caused the death of some 56M people, the other caused the death of some 60M people. What a great legacy each of them left behind! Extremists of any ilk is what we should all be very afraid of ...

Bear Dale

26-09-2019, 4:36pm

Interesting opinion piece by Amanda Vanstone -

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-greta-thunberg-circus-has-become-a-complete-farce-20190926-p52v38.html

John King

26-09-2019, 4:53pm

While no short essay can address all the vast complexities of this subject, Amanda Vanstone's views go straight to the heart of treating each other with dignity, courtesy, respect, honour and honesty. AND presuming that others are and will respond similarly until they prove otherwise.

Thanks for the reference, BD.

Mark L

26-09-2019, 9:45pm

Interesting opinion piece by Amanda Vanstone -

https://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/the-greta-thunberg-circus-has-become-a-complete-farce-20190926-p52v38.html

Some called Kerry O'Brien out as being left wing. He's more to the center than Amanda will ever be.

John King

26-09-2019, 10:34pm

Mark, only if one considers the extreme far left to be centre ...

John King

29-09-2019, 9:32am

For those interested in the planet's super volcanoes, take a look here:

https://www.ranker.com/list/the-world_s-6-known-supervolcanoes/analise.dubner

For a reasonably accurate description of how this can occur, see the BBC 'documentary' style film "Yellowstone". Only the ending is sanitised - chances are that such an eruption would lead to an extinction event (see commentary on Toba eruption some 74,000 years ago - I am very interested in this period of geological time, and know a bit about it).

Chances are that if any of the planet's six known active super volcanoes erupts, the kill rate for our species will probably be 95+%, if not total extinction ...

Last time Yellowstone erupted, about 630,000 years ago, it took around 30,000 years for the planet's climate to re-stabilise. Yellowstone is roughly 30-50,000 years 'overdue' for a major eruption. It has been very active since the 1980s. Food for thought!

Bear Dale

29-09-2019, 8:27pm

A million kids want to clean up the Earth......a million parents want them to start with their rooms.

John King

29-09-2019, 8:49pm

:lol:, Bear ...

Mark L

29-09-2019, 9:41pm

A million kids want to clean up the Earth......a million parents want them to start with their rooms.

Wonderful point to discuss, untidy rooms contribute to climate change. :D

These people have grand kids I'd think and don't have left or right leanings. I'm an active member in the N.S.W. R.F.S and what these people with knowledge say here is our experience. https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/statement/

Of cause discuss why the climate is changing but don't doubt it is. And it's changing faster than ever before without a volcano.;)

bobt

29-09-2019, 10:27pm

Wonderful point to discuss, untidy rooms contribute to climate change. :D

These people have grand kids I'd think and don't have left or right leanings. I'm an active member in the N.S.W. R.F.S and what these people with knowledge say here is our experience. https://emergencyleadersforclimateaction.org.au/statement/

Of cause discuss why the climate is changing but don't doubt it is. And it's changing faster than ever before without a volcano.;)

That earlier quote is simply a distortion of the banners the kids carried during the demonstration which read something like "Why should we clean our rooms when you won't clean the planet!". A pretty valid point when you consider that adults are supposed to show a good example to children.

There is of course no doubt that an element of climate change is natural. However, to deny that humans are significantly contributing to that change is no longer questioned by any reputable organisation or knowledgeable group. I noticed recently that such groups are now refusing to engage with climate change deniers simply because giving them oxygen achieves nothing and distracts us from the main objective. I'm largely adopting the same attitude.

John King

30-09-2019, 7:29pm

Rufasuve

30-09-2019, 9:38pm

Awesome to see people taking environmental issues seriously.

bobt

30-09-2019, 10:00pm

Bob, I will ask you once again - how can a human caused climate change model simply ignore the exponential population growth already referenced in this thread?

You continue to avoid this simple question. Does that make people who ignore population growth "deniers" ... ?

I think perhaps you misunderstand. I'm not avoiding it at all, and I don't think anyone else is either. I haven't specifically addressed it because it's not something that can be changed in the short term in the same way as other factors can be addressed. It's simply one of many factors to consider when tackling the overall link between human activity and climate change. We haven't really spoken of specific factors in this conversation, only the overall need to act upon the problem rather than deny it exists.

Let me clarify. Climate change is accelerated by human activity, and thus it follows that the more people you have, the more resources are required, and the more emissions produced (although one could say too many emissions was the source of that population growth in the first place!!) :D

Back to serious mode. Too many people is not something we can easily resolve, short of mass culling which might be unpopular. Applying the Chinese solution hasn't worked, and I have heard of no short term options to reduce the number of humans on the planet. We collectively only have so much time and energy to devote to the global warming problem, and so it makes sense to tackle those things which can reasonably be addressed in the short to medium term. That's not ignoring your point - it's simply prioritising the various solutions.

Mark L

30-09-2019, 10:10pm

Awesome to see people taking environmental issues seriously.

Don't be afraid to offer more opinion here then.:th3:

John King

01-10-2019, 7:39am

Bob, you misunderstand. It's not you failing to address the issue of exponential population growth, it is the HCC model's failure to address it. None of its vociferous proponents ever seem to mention it as a causative factor, nor birth control, nor associated topics.

Seems strange ...

bobt

01-10-2019, 8:43am

John King

01-10-2019, 2:33pm

At the very, very least MENTION IT !!

bobt

01-10-2019, 2:42pm

At the very, very least MENTION IT !!

Consider it mentioned. Not sure what that achieves though. :confused013

John King

01-10-2019, 4:40pm

Not you, Bob!! The idiots who mention just about everything from cows belching and the like.

Everything EXCEPT the fact that the world's population has nearly quadrupled in about 100 years. I wonder what might cause that ... ?

AND what effect that might have on our planet ... :confused013.

bobt

01-10-2019, 5:37pm

I'm not sure that there's a whole lot of point in focusing on that really. To me, it's just not something that we can factor into our response to climate change. The fact that we are calling it "human induced" illustrates that the human factor is already recognised as the core of the problem. Realistically there's not a whole lot we can do about burgeoning populations anyway.

It comes back to the KISS principle. Focus on the fundamental issues that we can actually do something about. Unless you have a plan to stop the bonk, what can you possibly gain by isolating this as an issue? It just becomes a rather pointless diversion.

John King

01-10-2019, 5:59pm

So.

Ignore the cause, then try to solve the problem ... :eek: :(.

bobt

01-10-2019, 6:28pm

So.

Ignore the cause, then try to solve the problem ... :eek: :(.

Still waiting for your solution. If the world is ignoring the cause, then what should it be doing? One might as well complain about gravity being inconveniently strong.

John King

01-10-2019, 6:40pm

Bob, re-read this thread. I have.

In order to solve any problem, one needs to functionally decompose it, then address each of its component parts.

Any other approach is doomed from the beginning. Just leads to religion like mantras and behaviours that achieve little, or nothing. In fact, just what's happening. Lots of pious noise, with little real analysis, or effective solutions ...

bobt

01-10-2019, 7:01pm

In order to solve any problem, one needs to functionally decompose it, then address each of its component parts.

So .... concentrating on just one component part - i.e too many people - what, in a nutshell do you propose we do about that right now ?

ameerat42

01-10-2019, 7:11pm

What can we do about it right now? - Abso-fa-lutely nuffing! (One shouldn't drop one's gees :p)

-- Oh, hang on... - we could suddenly become extinct :umm:

Anyway, the problem in Sydney is a tick outbreak. The authoritative Channel 7 News reports that
[these insects are dangerous] :rolleyes::rolleyes: Now doesn't that just add to Goofball Warnings? :rolleyes:

John King

01-10-2019, 7:11pm

You are the one postulating a problem, Bob ...

Where are YOUR solutions? A Nissan Leaf that needs a new filthy battery after only 89,000 kms, at a cost of $33,000 plus the environmental cost of disposing of the dead battery? $33,000 to make a $53,000 car functional, when it has a market value of maybe $10-12,000 - with the new battery! Throw away cars. How sensible is that ...

[Edit] Just watching Prince Harry saying EXACTLY what I have said throughout this thread "We are the problem", he stated about three times ... [end edit].

Mark L

01-10-2019, 7:33pm

You are the one postulating a problem, Bob ...

Where are YOUR solutions? A Nissan Leaf that needs a new filthy battery after only 89,000 kms, at a cost of $33,000 plus the environmental cost of disposing of the dead battery?

A very quick search turned this up and a small quote from it "The warranty on the new battery is the same as it is in a brand new LEAF — 8 years/100,000 miles" https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/04/nissan-leaf-replacement-battery-will-cost-5499/

Just show we can probably find something somewhere on the interweb to reinforce whatever we want.

John King

01-10-2019, 7:36pm

In Australia, the warranty was 7 years. No mileage ...

I think Karal Leach at Nissan is the person to talk to ...

https://youtu.be/L_zdtaJeYmw

Mark L

01-10-2019, 7:38pm

In Australia, the warranty was 7 years. No mileage ...

I think Karal Leach at Nissan is the person to talk to ...

So a link to what Karla says? I'm pretty sure she won't take a phone call from me to have a chat.

John King

01-10-2019, 7:51pm

Sorry, Karla, not Karal.

- - - Updated - - -

A very quick search turned this up and a small quote from it "The warranty on the new battery is the same as it is in a brand new LEAF — 8 years/100,000 miles" https://cleantechnica.com/2017/10/04/nissan-leaf-replacement-battery-will-cost-5499/

Just show we can probably find something somewhere on the interweb to reinforce whatever we want.

You appear to have missed this bit:

"The warranty on the new battery is the same as it is in a brand new LEAF — 8 years/100,000 miles against defects and 5 years/60,000 miles against capacity loss."

bobt

01-10-2019, 10:35pm

You are the one postulating a problem, Bob ... Where are YOUR solutions?

Good grief ..... I think I've met The Human Tangent !!

I was perhaps the one who initially highlighted the need for climate change action, and my solutions are pretty fundamental. Take heed of the science, urge our politicians to act upon that science, and let's collectively work to undo the damage we have created.

What you have done is to side-track the core issue by introducing population control as a substitute central precept, yet with no proposals to address that problem. So I repeat - given that I have clearly outlined what the core problem is and what we should do about it, do you have a solution to the population issue and if not what are we achieving by going round and round in circles over it ???

ameerat42

02-10-2019, 5:45am

Well, back in "the 80s" the message was that methane gas (CH4) is a "much worse"
greenhouse gas (GHG) than CO2! They did the arithmetic and found that:

CH4 / CO2 = 23 X "much worse" :eek::eek:

Now on the news they're saying to burn the methane that escapes [mostly from household waste] that just
goes to landfill and produce CO2 instead.

It's an interesting idea, but it illustrates that the problem is not 1-dimensional.

bobt

02-10-2019, 8:17am

It's an interesting idea, but it illustrates that the problem is not 1-dimensional.

You're not wrong! Each year that passes uncovers problems that no-one had previously considered. The current focus on micro plastics is one that springs to mind. It is indeed a multi-dimensional issue, and the solutions are both behavioural and political.

One of the issues is trying to get short term governments to think with long term perspectives, and that includes people's attitudes generally. Self-interest is a very powerful force.

ameerat42

02-10-2019, 8:40am

:oh, in my missive above, I neglected to specify that the suggestion was not to just
:flame: -off CH4 willy-nilly, but to use it to produce other forms of energy.

Hawthy

02-10-2019, 8:48am

Wow. How have a missed this little gem of a thread? Electric cars sound fine (although I am not convinced that lithium batteries are that environmentally friendly) but what happens when everyone gets home at night and plugs their car in? More baseload energy is required. Solar can't provide baseload energy at night and wind power is flukey. I don't understand why people don't acknowledge that nuclear power should be included in the mix.

No CO2 emissions. Can provide base load power 24/7. Not likely to be affected by an earthquake or tsunami in Australia. Sure, it needs a lot of water but we could fix that up if people would agree on putting in some dams. Of course, we will have nuclear waste but it is reasonably low grade and we have plenty of sites where we could store it.

We could use the electricity to manufacture hydrogen for use in transport and for export. Nuclear base load power for the electricity grid and hydrogen powered transport domestically and a new export product. Sounds like a plan to me.

ameerat42

02-10-2019, 8:55am

What?! - Get away with yer... - That's way too sensible :nod:

- - - Updated - - -

We're too busy being :eek: of things like nuclear (mainly because the ideas about it are made unclear :rolleyes:)
and asbest:eek:s! It's the equivalent of witchcraft discussing these topics. Best just stick to playing
video games for mental exercise, and exercising our democratic right when we have to :rolleyes:

Mark L

02-10-2019, 8:39pm

I don't understand why people don't acknowledge that nuclear power should be included in the mix.
..... Sure, it needs a lot of water but we could fix that up if people would agree on putting in some dams. Of course, we will have nuclear waste but it is reasonably low grade and we have plenty of sites where we could store it.

Haven't we stuff nature around enough already?
Dams only work if there's rain. And the amount of water needed requires desalination and nuclear plants on the coast.
Developing technologies will deal with the base load problem eventually. Maybe even quicker then it would take to build a nuclear power plant.

ameerat42

03-10-2019, 5:34am

A stronger argument against nuclear power stations is that they will be built and operated by OS interests and their output
sold back to us at radiation-burn prices, to match what's happening already. :rolleyes: Ie, shame old, shame old :rolleyes:

junqbox

04-10-2019, 5:16pm

bobt

04-10-2019, 6:27pm

ameerat42

04-10-2019, 6:31pm

John King

04-10-2019, 7:12pm

It is extraordinary. As a general rule, I find that when I delve into that mindset there is a huge lack of informed knowledge underlying those beliefs. Generally, the "evidence" provided comes from websites which have been deliberately created to provide that ubiquitous "fake news" . I spoke with a very right wing denier recently who proudly directed me to such a site. She went very quiet when I pointed out the site's history and how it had been banned as a result of its past misleading performance.

That's one approach to ideas, facts and reasoning that don't support your own prejudices ...

How many glaciers are there on this planet? Valid question, no definitive answer. The answer appears to be between 100,000 and 200,000. In 2005, NASA estimated around 150,000.

Of whatever number of glaciers there actually are, how many do humans actually know anything about? Estimates I have read suggest that we know the mass, length and status of between 10 and 20%.

None of the above can possibly form a valid basis for the absolutist, religious views expressed by the proponents of HCC. Delusional views? Probably ...

bobt

04-10-2019, 7:32pm

Bob. It's bad enuff that people have got no branes :eek:

It's sadder that they've got no brains!

Up until this evening I was celebrating NOT living in the USA.
But tonight's news about our own leader made me despair :(:(

I've been despairing for years ..... over time, we always copy or import everything from the US. Looks like stupidity is a tariff free import ....

- - - Updated - - -

That's one approach to ideas, facts and reasoning that don't support your own prejudices ...

How many glaciers are there on this planet? Valid question, no definitive answer. The answer appears to be between 100,000 and 200,000. In 2005, NASA estimated around 150,000.

Of whatever number of glaciers there actually are, how many do humans actually know anything about? Estimates I have read suggest that we know the mass, length and status of between 10 and 20%.

None of the above can possibly form a valid basis for the absolutist, religious views expressed by the proponents of HCC. Delusional views? Probably ...

Unfortunately, cherry picking concepts or statistics, or selectively choosing information sources is the primary tool of misinformation. The first step should be to line up all of the reliable, proven sources of information. The second is to evaluate the overall consensus, and to see what informed views have concluded. Simply adopting an alternative view and then scouring the planet for any group that supports that view is not a reliable evaluative method. Religion simply has no bearing on ... well, anything.

Hawthy

04-10-2019, 7:37pm

Yep, gotta love the folks that get their 'facts' from ScoMo and Alan Jones. Maybe they should rename themselves the ostrich party.

Pissing on the parade of people who are actually trying to do something positive instead of sitting back and accelerating the process is hardly constructive.

Ok. So what is your solution?

We can't look to hydro because a dam will interrupt the Mary Valley lungfish (or other fish) breeding route. We can't look to wind because it will disrupt the Orange Bellied Parrot migration or knock a few Wedge Tailed Eagles to the ground. Solar only works half the day and battery technology is getting there but not viable yet.

Snowy 2.0 was briefly put on hold because environmentalists were concerned about redfin being pumped upstream where they would eat native fish. Ethanol from cane sugar is an option but cane farmers are supposedly destroying the Barrier reef with run off.

Geodynamics had a crack at thermal power from hot rocks but that was not viable. There are solar stations supported by small gas fired power stations that fire up when the sun goes down but well you know, coal seam gas isn't the flavour of the month.

The problem at present is that no one is ready to compromise and map a plan that might take 20 years to change over. People support Greta Thunberg saying, "How dare you!" but no one ever comes up with a clear plan or path to 100% renewables. (Don't start me on Greta - a privileged person growing up in a developed country whose wealth was built on timber, car manufacturing, iron and steel, etc. in effect telling people in India that they need to continue burning dung to cook their meals rather than transitioning to a developed economy).

Street marching makes people feel like they are doing something useful but it doesn't lay out a clear path to change. Plus, climate change is kind of a first world problem. I don't see people street marching to get action on malaria, which kills near enough to a half a million people each year. Or cholera or dysentery, which kill another half a million. Or diabetes, which kills another 1.5 million. Or demanding action against the innumerable dictatorships in third world countries where the people are subjugated and killed in their millions.

Sure, everybody needs to acknowledge that we need to make some changes. The reality is that it needs to be a incremental change with buy in from all sides. Catastrophising climate change only polarises opinions and doesn't bring any real change.

Happy to discuss. :)

John King

04-10-2019, 7:45pm

Bob, how is it that every fact presented by anyone is "cherry picking concepts or statistics, or selectively choosing information sources is the primary tool of misinformation."?

I could bombard you with hundreds, if not thousands, of similar facts and failures of explicit knowledge, spanning dozens of disciplines. You still would not acknowledge that there is a vast amount of information from highly respected sources and institutions of which you appear to be completely unaware.

Yet you speak of ignorance on the part of others ...

Gazza

04-10-2019, 8:41pm

And, on a lighter note...did someone mention politicians? :url: (https://www.facebook.com/SBSVICELAND/videos/1337041943124534/UzpfSTQwMjE0NTkxOTg4MDA0NDoyNDg2MDM5NTI0ODIzOTk2/) (sound on)

bobt

04-10-2019, 10:12pm

Ok. So what is your solution?

Some excellent issues and observations there ........ however, it misses the key element upon which this thread is based. Solutions to the problem are themselves problematic, BUT .... those who must evaluate all those possible solutions will not do so until they accept the basic premise - i.e. that there is a problem.

No single "solution" will cure that problem, and as you so rightly point out, each possibility has complications - both political and physical. Greta is simply using the only ammunition at her disposal to try and energise the world's leaders to take those steps that they are unwilling to take. It matters not whether she is privileged or not, and to suggest otherwise effectively disenfranchises all those among us who might be similarly privileged. Everyone has the right to be outraged, and her outrage is having a far greater impact than would be the case if you or I were to do the same.

You are also correct in saying that there are many other issues and deficiencies in our world which deserve our collective attention, but again, that does not invalidate climate action as a compelling issue.

Ours is a deeply flawed world run by deeply flawed people, but nothing will change that unless we collectively begin to change. Quiet lobbying and respectful negotiation has achieved nothing, so if there's a snowflake's hope in hell that more direct action can inspire change, then that's so much better than sitting back and allowing inaction to reduce us to a stagnating life form on a poisoned planet.

- - - Updated - - -

I could bombard you with hundreds, if not thousands, of similar facts and failures of explicit knowledge, spanning dozens of disciplines. You still would not acknowledge that there is a vast amount of information from highly respected sources and institutions of which you appear to be completely unaware.

Of course you could, and that's exactly my point. Your sources would not have the same level of authority, the same pedigrees and the same credibility. The fact that you can find *some* places that dispute human induced climate change is irrelevant. The global consensus has long since taken the collective view that HICC is a very real and serious issue. You won't find a similar number of globally respected scientific bodies who hold an opposite view, and that's simply because despite your claims, the weight of global opinion does not disagree with that basic premise. Sure, you can find examples of past failures, but that's really a red herring. Of course there have been failures, but the weight of evidence on this issue is simply overwhelming.

John King

05-10-2019, 9:05am

When all else has failed abysmally, shoot the messenger, or at least resort to the argumentum ad hominem.

How can you possibly refute any source or conclusion without any knowledge of them?

Short answer: it is impossible, and makes your 'argument' look even more ridiculous, as you automatically assume that all contrary sources and information are flawed or wrong. That looks like religious belief to me, not science.

BTW, you might like to look up the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority)...

ameerat42

05-10-2019, 9:12am

^^It's fallen upon frequently by a certain politician :rolleyes::rolleyes:

bobt

05-10-2019, 9:34am

How can you possibly refute any source or conclusion without any knowledge of them? Short answer: it is impossible, and makes your 'argument' look even more ridiculous, as you automatically assume that all contrary sources and information are flawed or wrong. That looks like religious belief to me, not science.

Firstly, I do not refute all alternative viewpoints as clearly I haven't seen them all. In life we accept countless propositions without forensically examining each and every alternative opinion. For example, I accept that Donald trump is an idiot simply because the overwhelming evidence suggests that the man is a dead set loony! Clearly a significant number of people disagree, but I remain satisfied that, on balance, my conclusions are adequately supported by the evidence I have seen.

In terms of climate change, there are of course those who dispute its origins - you are perhaps one such example. However, given that huge numbers of respected organisations have concluded that climate change deniers are wrong, I see no reason to accept alternative viewpoints unless they are supported by sufficient numbers of facts to outweigh the current consensus. Clearly the numbers are on my side of this argument.