Climate change

Nexus

Super Duper Ultimate Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
10,744
Reaction score
4,520
Do you want to be rich and unable to breathe the air?

Or do you want a job yet no one can produce any food due to weather conditions?
Lol talk about taking it to the nth degree.

Any solution needs to have the economic impact looked at as well.

people are not going to agree to a “fix at all costs” scenario if it’s going to leave them living in poverty. That’s the reality.
 

Nexus

Super Duper Ultimate Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Apr 18, 2006
Messages
10,744
Reaction score
4,520
This is what I never got about the whole climate change debate. A large majority of the right think that climate change isn't a problem, while the large majority of the left think that the economic system doesn't matter. Both will result in the deaths of millions and possibly billions. Just have to figure out a way to reduce the casualty rate. Fix the climate problem without destroying the economy. Completely possible but not while people pretend that it isn't a problem.
and also not possible while people think the economy doesn’t matter.
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,538
Reaction score
29,145
Lol talk about taking it to the nth degree.

Any solution needs to have the economic impact looked at as well.

people are not going to agree to a “fix at all costs” scenario if it’s going to leave them living in poverty. That’s the reality.
Agree. Hacky has some good arguments. Then there's the ol chestnut...

What cost NOT doing anything.

There must be a sensible scientific way forward.

Much more likely that a solution will be found to climate change via scientific methods, rather than leaving it to Trump/Head Sharkie or Gordon Gecko :grinning:
 

wendog33

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Ladder Champion
Joined
Aug 6, 2016
Messages
25,538
Reaction score
29,145
and also not possible while people think the economy doesn’t matter.
They primarily think that way because of the divisive them against us political lightweights we have atm and the corrupt media run by Murdoch.

If there was co-operation and leadership, and vested interests put firmly back in their place, then Australians would be just as progressive as say Germany in supporting sensible environmental measures.

The take up of solar energy by Australians is world class and proves if sensible policies are encouraged by our pollies then co-operative outcomes are possible.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
I find that claim also really hard to believe (personally). I mean - I do agree that the climate changes. The world is a variable place and of late, it seems like we've had some warmer temperatures. That's a pretty reasonable statement I think most of Australia would agree with.

But from there you have to ask:

- What's causing the changes
- Are the changes leading to negative or positive outcomes

I have an open mind on the first question and I Do accept climate change due to human impact is possible (but I haven't concluded that way).

On the second question it would seem that many measurable indicators of propserity have actually been positive over the same period that climate change has supposedly been about to kill the whole world. For example - grain crops have reached record highs. The old fears that humans would run out of food because of over population was proven very very wrong. Poverty around the world has been reduced by record amounts (particularly in Africa and China). Average life expectancy in most countries has increased and not decreased.

If climate change is as bad as these self indulgent 16 year olds from Sweden say it is, then surely you would expect to see some negative impacts on human life expectancy or food production or natural disasters. But I don't think you see any of those (arguably).
There's a few things to unpack here.

First is the warmer temperatures. There's a few things to note there:

- As I mentioned, there is natural climate cycles. We're just altering those natural climate cycles. While climate change creates an overall higher average temperature, it doesn't mean we'll have the hottest year on record every year. It's over a time average

- Warmer temperatures is a localised effect. Unfortunately it's not as simple as saying "climate change" when talking about localised effects as you have to take many variables into account. For example, climate change caused higher heating in the north pole which has resulted in an instability in the northern polar vortex which has resulted in freak cold snaps in the USA and parts of Europe that actually already killed thousands of people

In regard to what causes the changes. People will always debate that. Safest bet is to look to the experts on the subject. If they say it's humans then there's a decent chance it's humans.

On whether the changes are negative or positive. Mainly negative from everything I've read. There are some positives though. Changes in weather patterns and higher CO2 leads to more plant growth and certain regions becoming fertile which were previously not fertile. But these are only small bonuses as the weather shift also leads to greater drought in certain areas (like Australia), the higher CO2 leads to less oxygen in the oceans, warmer oceans (which means higher sea levels due to expansion) and more ocean acidification which we have already confirmed has killed off a large number of the things in the ocean that produce over 60% of our Oxygen (side note, trees aren't our primary source of Oxygen). Then there's many other bad effects as well. So it won't be all bad, just mainly bad.

I do agree that the Extinction Rebellion way oversell it. I read the IPCC reports and other research and none of it says that we are going to go extinct. It does list it as a possibility but we're talking a 0.00001% possibility. More likely that it'll just result in the deaths of billions.

We have advanced drastically in every aspect. Better health care, better distribution systems. It's likely by 2030 that we will peak at a global population of 10 billion and even then we'll have enough food to feed everyone. Food isn't the problem. Distribution is. Well, there is the impact of animal agriculture on the environment that has to be taken care of but that's a more complex issue.

I honestly believe that we will come up with a decent solution for climate change in the next 50-100 years. It just depends how many lives we're willing to lose between now and then.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
Side note, one of my climate denial friends posted this today and it made me laugh

 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
There's a few things to unpack here.

First is the warmer temperatures. There's a few things to note there:

- As I mentioned, there is natural climate cycles. We're just altering those natural climate cycles. While climate change creates an overall higher average temperature, it doesn't mean we'll have the hottest year on record every year. It's over a time average

- Warmer temperatures is a localised effect. Unfortunately it's not as simple as saying "climate change" when talking about localised effects as you have to take many variables into account. For example, climate change caused higher heating in the north pole which has resulted in an instability in the northern polar vortex which has resulted in freak cold snaps in the USA and parts of Europe that actually already killed thousands of people

In regard to what causes the changes. People will always debate that. Safest bet is to look to the experts on the subject. If they say it's humans then there's a decent chance it's humans.

On whether the changes are negative or positive. Mainly negative from everything I've read. There are some positives though. Changes in weather patterns and higher CO2 leads to more plant growth and certain regions becoming fertile which were previously not fertile. But these are only small bonuses as the weather shift also leads to greater drought in certain areas (like Australia), the higher CO2 leads to less oxygen in the oceans, warmer oceans (which means higher sea levels due to expansion) and more ocean acidification which we have already confirmed has killed off a large number of the things in the ocean that produce over 60% of our Oxygen (side note, trees aren't our primary source of Oxygen). Then there's many other bad effects as well. So it won't be all bad, just mainly bad.

I do agree that the Extinction Rebellion way oversell it. I read the IPCC reports and other research and none of it says that we are going to go extinct. It does list it as a possibility but we're talking a 0.00001% possibility. More likely that it'll just result in the deaths of billions.

We have advanced drastically in every aspect. Better health care, better distribution systems. It's likely by 2030 that we will peak at a global population of 10 billion and even then we'll have enough food to feed everyone. Food isn't the problem. Distribution is. Well, there is the impact of animal agriculture on the environment that has to be taken care of but that's a more complex issue.

I honestly believe that we will come up with a decent solution for climate change in the next 50-100 years. It just depends how many lives we're willing to lose between now and then.
On the topic of drought, it wasn't that many years ago that we had so much rain in Sydney that Warragamba dam had to open the flood gates to release water.

Yes we're in drought now, but a few years ago we were at the opposite end of the spectrum and my bet is that in a few years from now we will have significant amounts of rain again.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
I also remember being told in the mid / early 2000's that we were about to run out of oil and everyone needed to panic because the world economy was about to collapse and also being told (around the same time) that Australia was running out of water and we were all screwed.

Neither prediction was true.

My personal preference would be for government to invest in water infrastructure to try and 'drought proof' as much of the population as possible.

There hasn't been a dam built in Sydney for many decades. I've heard they want to increase the size of Warragamba but even that draws protests because greenies claim that higher water levels in the dam will destroy some plants / animals etc.

Couldn't we be innovative and find a way to harvest excess storm water (particularly from Northern NSW and Queensland where they cop huge amounts of rainfall ever year)?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
On the topic of drought, it wasn't that many years ago that we had so much rain in Sydney that Warragamba dam had to open the flood gates to release water.

Yes we're in drought now, but a few years ago we were at the opposite end of the spectrum and my bet is that in a few years from now we will have significant amounts of rain again.
Yep. That's the El Nino/La Nina cycles. They're natural and the primary drivers of rainfall and drought. Climate change just makes the drought worse.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
I also remember being told in the mid / early 2000's that we were about to run out of oil and everyone needed to panic because the world economy was about to collapse and also being told (around the same time) that Australia was running out of water and we were all screwed.

Neither prediction was true.
Who told you that?

We're not sure how much oil reserves we have left but it's predicted to be a minimum of 70 years worth. We could be wrong though. There may be some supplies we haven't found yet.


My personal preference would be for government to invest in water infrastructure to try and 'drought proof' as much of the population as possible.

There hasn't been a dam built in Sydney for many decades. I've heard they want to increase the size of Warragamba but even that draws protests because greenies claim that higher water levels in the dam will destroy some plants / animals etc.

Couldn't we be innovative and find a way to harvest excess storm water (particularly from Northern NSW and Queensland where they cop huge amounts of rainfall ever year)?
Don't get me started on the government's poor management of water. They've completely screwed up the Murray Darling Basin system.
 

Dawgfather

Banned
Joined
Nov 28, 2003
Messages
8,835
Reaction score
1,900
Who told you that?

We're not sure how much oil reserves we have left but it's predicted to be a minimum of 70 years worth. We could be wrong though. There may be some supplies we haven't found yet.




Don't get me started on the government's poor management of water. They've completely screwed up the Murray Darling Basin system.
I remember there being quite a few TV specials on free to air TV about the predictions of crisis due to lack of water and also one on oil running out.

And also the general conversation in papers and news media etc.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
I remember there being quite a few TV specials on free to air TV about the predictions of crisis due to lack of water and also one on oil running out.

And also the general conversation in papers and news media etc.
Always best to avoid the media. The media is just there to sensationalise everything. A scientist at a restaurant probably looked at a half empty bottle of water and said "we're running out water" and a reporter overheard it.

It's one of the things climate deniers do quite often. They post all these quotes with grim predictions that didn't come true, therefore climate change isn't real. Problem is the quotes are always from the media or celebrities. Not from actual climate scientists.
 

Howard Moon

Kennel Addict
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
3,445
Always best to avoid the media. The media is just there to sensationalise everything. A scientist at a restaurant probably looked at a half empty bottle of water and said "we're running out water" and a reporter overheard it.

It's one of the things climate deniers do quite often. They post all these quotes with grim predictions that didn't come true, therefore climate change isn't real. Problem is the quotes are always from the media or celebrities. Not from actual climate scientists.
I agree on the first bit, but uh... depends which media you consume... if you're a TV zombie, you're probably one of those types of people that you mentioned above... where as if you're a Social Media zombie, chances are you're planning to glue yourself to a road
 

Bob dog

Hectik defence
Premium Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
19,405
Reaction score
3,622
There you have it, the Government mismanaged our country and the planet may as well crack in half and float off.
 

Realist90

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 30, 2014
Messages
13,949
Reaction score
3,262
Greta wins times man of the year for wagging school. meanwhile honkingians fighting for their actual freedom from a authoritarian communist regime aren’t as important. Lol but there is no bias in msm at all. In fact, Folau winning against rugby Australia proves msm is conservative albeit msm pushing opposite agendas lol.
But who are we kidding orange man bad of bad and has stripped rights of everyone except white straight Christian men, notice any blacks in positions of power? Or gays? Or whamans? Nope none to be seen. Oh and he has the audacity to call out illegal immigrants breaking the law to get into his country. Long live Greta
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,180
Reaction score
29,722
I agree on the first bit, but uh... depends which media you consume... if you're a TV zombie, you're probably one of those types of people that you mentioned above... where as if you're a Social Media zombie, chances are you're planning to glue yourself to a road
I'm the type that reads the scientific research. Always trust the experts over the media and the social media.
 

Howard Moon

Kennel Addict
2 x Gilded
Premium Member
Joined
Apr 24, 2018
Messages
6,568
Reaction score
3,445
I'm the type that reads the scientific research. Always trust the experts over the media and the social media.

Good to hear.... people need to think for themselves rather than have Rupert Murdoch do the thinking for them
 

south of heaven

Kennel Immortal
Premium Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
29,255
Reaction score
25,713
I also remember being told in the mid / early 2000's that we were about to run out of oil and everyone needed to panic because the world economy was about to collapse and also being told (around the same time) that Australia was running out of water and we were all screwed.

Neither prediction was true.

My personal preference would be for government to invest in water infrastructure to try and 'drought proof' as much of the population as possible.

There hasn't been a dam built in Sydney for many decades. I've heard they want to increase the size of Warragamba but even that draws protests because greenies claim that higher water levels in the dam will destroy some plants / animals etc.

Couldn't we be innovative and find a way to harvest excess storm water (particularly from Northern NSW and Queensland where they cop huge amounts of rainfall ever year)?
I know the cost would be huge but they done the snowy mountain scheme why wasn't something putin place years ago dam the top end pipe it to guts of Australia teraforn the fuck out of it build new cities ,forests wherever saying that though we don't even have a high speed rail network.out near copper pedy they are sitting on trillions worth of oil ,for a country so rich in resources we are behind big time
 
Top