Climate Change

[Rodzilla]

For anyone who doesn't care about the climate, there's other reasons to push for a transition away from fossil fuels.

In a meeting a few days ago, OPEC member nations (the countries that control most of the oil in the world) all agreed to drastically reduce oil production in order to force up the price of oil, which is going to drastically increase the price of petrol for all of us.

Explainer: Why is OPEC slashing oil production?

The aggressive move to raise crude prices puts Saudi Arabia on a collision course with the US, but also brings it closer to Russia.

www.afr.com

conspiracy theory

 

[Rodzilla]

why would all the countries that control oil want to limit their supply and make more money, it doesn't make sense

 

[belmore_utd]

Has anyone heard from Tim Flannery lately for any bold predictions?

I think we've gone full circle back to ice alarmism

 

[Powerslide]

I have a family member that is within the Fossil Fuel Industry, and I have no doubt that his company/industry provides 'information' to its members, around why Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) doesn't exist. Trying to have a conversation with him, and I could see the three strategies being deployed to remove responsibility. He has referred to meetings and information he has been provided.

1) No their is no climate change or global warming because we are still having record cold temperatures sea ice maximums blah blah blah.
2) Ok so even if the climate is changing it has changed in the past and it is part of normal cycles, not anything that humans have done.
3) Even if something that humans did increases the temperature a few degrees everyone carry's on like its the end of the world, some things grow better with a slightly elevated temperature.

Discussing further with him it became clear, that it was a wasted effort because of Confirmation Bias. He had decided the industry that he was a part of for his whole working life could not be responsible for anything negative, so any reports he saw just further confirmed his own belief. He ignored anything that could not be construed to help his belief, (created by those with an Agenda) and doubled down on anything else that he could somehow think supported his belief.

I liken the whole thing to what occurred during the 1950's, and after by the then Tobacco Companies to discredit any reports coming out, that smoking cigarettes had negative impacts on health.

They paid huge amounts of money to studies to come up with findings, to debunk the valid findings coming out from scientists and medical professionals. Many people believed those findings, and ignored the real studies because they didn't want to think they were working for a company that could do that, and 2) smokers were addicted and it gave them the excuse to not believe and continue on doing what they had been doing without guilt.

I think there are seven different groups of people around Climate Change, in no particular order.

1. Industry Funded groups and companies providing confusing conflicting 'information'.
2. Climate Deniers that believe the information put out by Group 1.
3. Unsure but want to believe that ACC isn't real.
4. Scientists that are providing the studies and science to prove that ACC is real.
5. Those that believe that ACC is real.
6. Climate Activists and campaigners that want the world to do more.
7. Climate Alarmists that take joy in the panic of people thinking the world is going to end tomorrow or next year.

Groups 1 & 7 are the ones doing the most damage to the world being able to accept ACC and move onto a phase of doing something about it. If you were a believer in crazy conspiracy theories, you might think that group 1 is funding and behind group 7.

I admit I find it hard to understand how the number of people in group 2 is still so high, but then I also find it hard to understand how some people still believe we are on a flat earth.

 

[Aristidiz]

Time to wake up, is it about the Climate Catastrophe that will end the world in less than 500 years, or is it about control.

Think for yourself. I thought Covid lockdowns in Australia would wake some people up to alarmism and overeaction. They literally stole months away from your life and then said 'my bad, continue on'.

 

[Disposable Hero]

Time to wake up, is it about the Climate Catastrophe that will end the world in less than 500 years, or is it about control.

Think for yourself. I thought Covid lockdowns in Australia would wake some people up to alarmism and overeaction. They literally stole months away from your life and then said 'my bad, continue on'.

500 years from now? Thank fuck for that someone else can worry about it 400 yeats from now

 

[Natboy]

I hope the Chris Bowen voters enjoy paying an extra 35% for your power next year
Over-ambitious renewable energy targets without the infrastructure built? What could go wrong?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Time to wake up, is it about the Climate Catastrophe that will end the world in less than 500 years, or is it about control.

Think for yourself. I thought Covid lockdowns in Australia would wake some people up to alarmism and overeaction. They literally stole months away from your life and then said 'my bad, continue on'.

When it comes to things like this, I generally only have one response. If you really think that the vast majority of experts are lying to you, then study the subject, prove them wrong, and win a noble prize. Otherwise you're just basically saying, "I don't like this so I'm going to ignore it"

 

[MoNkEy]

Chris Bowen

How on earth does that bumbling fool keep getting a gig?

Has he actually succeeded in any portfolio handed to him?

Has he ever had a proper job?

He certainly has the faecal touch.

 

[The DoggFather]

How on earth does that bumbling fool keep getting a gig?

Has he actually succeeded in any portfolio handed to him?

Has he ever had a proper job?

He certainly has the faecal touch.

He takes his knee pads and lipstick in his purse everywhere he goes.

 

[Natboy]

How on earth does that bumbling fool keep getting a gig?

Has he actually succeeded in any portfolio handed to him?

Has he ever had a proper job?

He certainly has the faecal touch.

I know! He’s pathetic and looks like he’s a bit special too. Maybe they feel sorry for him

 

[The DoggFather]

I know! He’s pathetic and looks like he’s a bit special too. Maybe they feel sorry for him

He is a corrupt **** who used to lick Tripodis arsehole.

I knew that **** back in his Fairfield council days.

 

[Doogie]

I have a family member that is within the Fossil Fuel Industry, and I have no doubt that his company/industry provides 'information' to its members, around why Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) doesn't exist. Trying to have a conversation with him, and I could see the three strategies being deployed to remove responsibility. He has referred to meetings and information he has been provided.

1) No their is no climate change or global warming because we are still having record cold temperatures sea ice maximums blah blah blah.
2) Ok so even if the climate is changing it has changed in the past and it is part of normal cycles, not anything that humans have done.
3) Even if something that humans did increases the temperature a few degrees everyone carry's on like its the end of the world, some things grow better with a slightly elevated temperature.

Discussing further with him it became clear, that it was a wasted effort because of Confirmation Bias. He had decided the industry that he was a part of for his whole working life could not be responsible for anything negative, so any reports he saw just further confirmed his own belief. He ignored anything that could not be construed to help his belief, (created by those with an Agenda) and doubled down on anything else that he could somehow think supported his belief.

I liken the whole thing to what occurred during the 1950's, and after by the then Tobacco Companies to discredit any reports coming out, that smoking cigarettes had negative impacts on health.

They paid huge amounts of money to studies to come up with findings, to debunk the valid findings coming out from scientists and medical professionals. Many people believed those findings, and ignored the real studies because they didn't want to think they were working for a company that could do that, and 2) smokers were addicted and it gave them the excuse to not believe and continue on doing what they had been doing without guilt.

I think there are seven different groups of people around Climate Change, in no particular order.

1. Industry Funded groups and companies providing confusing conflicting 'information'.
2. Climate Deniers that believe the information put out by Group 1.
3. Unsure but want to believe that ACC isn't real.
4. Scientists that are providing the studies and science to prove that ACC is real.
5. Those that believe that ACC is real.
6. Climate Activists and campaigners that want the world to do more.
7. Climate Alarmists that take joy in the panic of people thinking the world is going to end tomorrow or next year.

Groups 1 & 7 are the ones doing the most damage to the world being able to accept ACC and move onto a phase of doing something about it. If you were a believer in crazy conspiracy theories, you might think that group 1 is funding and behind group 7.

I admit I find it hard to understand how the number of people in group 2 is still so high, but then I also find it hard to understand how some people still believe we are on a flat earth.

Nice post. Have to admit though the scientific community didn't do itself any favours on this. Firstly some of the science in the initial IPCC reports was dubious at best. Then throwing CC into a request for funding was a great way to get any rubbish funded and rubbish questions get rubbish answers. So more fuel for the anti-CC crew. Been part of some CC funded projects myself and we turned 5 year projects into 12 month projects, take the money and throw up another "CC" related project for more money. We can blame the change for Unis from tenurement to externally funded projects for academics but still, we should have done better work.

And like with all good science, good comms of the results is critical. yet that was lacking as well.

Too little. Too late.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Nice post. Have to admit though the scientific community didn't do itself any favours on this. Firstly some of the science in the initial IPCC reports was dubious at best. Then throwing CC into a request for funding was a great way to get any rubbish funded and rubbish questions get rubbish answers. So more fuel for the anti-CC crew. Been part of some CC funded projects myself and we turned 5 year projects into 12 month projects, take the money and throw up another "CC" related project for more money. We can blame the change for Unis from tenurement to externally funded projects for academics but still, we should have done better work.

And like with all good science, good comms of the results is critical. yet that was lacking as well.

Too little. Too late.

I feel sorry for the IPCC. Their whole job is to analyse 3rd party research on climate change and compile it into reports for governments to read and either act on the report, or ignore it.

Then you have climate deniers saying, "debate me in front of my fans", and IPCC ignoring them just enhancers their belief that they are right.

Some science journals like Nature built sites to educate the general public on climate change, but they were met with people who either did not care, or accused them of propaganda.

 

[Doogie]

I feel sorry for the IPCC. Their whole job is to analyse 3rd party research on climate change and compile it into reports for governments to read and either act on the report, or ignore it.

Then you have climate deniers saying, "debate me in front of my fans", and IPCC ignoring them just enhancers their belief that they are right.

Some science journals like Nature built sites to educate the general public on climate change, but they were met with people who either did not care, or accused them of propaganda.

I don't. There was a good chunk of academics on those panels and like most, they didn't follow the big claims require big evidence paradigm. Did they guide research focus areas into specific functional areas that offered the biggest informative value? No. Did they pack up garbage research so they could fill the 'theme' box. Yes.

Probably the most important research program in the worlds history and was done in a half arse way. And it was Deepwater research money - more research funding than you could ever need.

Shame - could have been transformational - but maybe a good lesson to the scientific community.

 

[Natboy]

He is a corrupt **** who used to lick Tripodis arsehole.

I knew that **** back in his Fairfield council days.

I’m not surprised mate. He’s not where he is based on his brains or skills that’s for sure because he has none of each

 

[DinkumDog]

This could be interesting - has nuclear fusion finally been achieved vs nuclear fission?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This could be interesting - has nuclear fusion finally been achieved vs nuclear fission?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/12/politics/nuclear-fusion-energy-us-scientists-climate/index.html

I thought this would happen soon. There has been a lot of talk about it recently and the discussion was if it would be the US's target chamber or UK's Tokamak. It's a step forward but the report makes it sound a lot more exciting than it is.

There's many hurdles when it comes to nuclear fusion. This is one hurdle, but the other main hurdle is size. Fusion happens in stars because of gravity. The star's gravity is so strong that it forces the atoms together, which gives off heat that helps with further fusion. The only way we can replicate that on earth is with immense heat (much hotter than the sun) and explosive pressure or particle collision. In each case it requires a massive amount of space to produce any energy at all.

In both the case of the NIF Target Chamber (US) and the Tokamak (UK) the amount of energy they can produce from the size of a building is bugger all. As the report states it, it's enough to boil 10 kettles.

From every discussion I heard coming up to this, the experts said that even when they reach that first hurdle, it won't be viable to power a city for at least another 30-50 years. Helpful for the future, but too late to mitigate the damage of climate change.

 

[DinkumDog]

I thought this would happen soon. There has been a lot of talk about it recently and the discussion was if it would be the US's target chamber or UK's Tokamak. It's a step forward but the report makes it sound a lot more exciting than it is.

There's many hurdles when it comes to nuclear fusion. This is one hurdle, but the other main hurdle is size. Fusion happens in stars because of gravity. The star's gravity is so strong that it forces the atoms together, which gives off heat that helps with further fusion. The only way we can replicate that on earth is with immense heat (much hotter than the sun) and explosive pressure or particle collision. In each case it requires a massive amount of space to produce any energy at all.

In both the case of the NIF Target Chamber (US) and the Tokamak (UK) the amount of energy they can produce from the size of a building is bugger all. As the report states it, it's enough to boil 10 kettles.

From every discussion I heard coming up to this, the experts said that even when they reach that first hurdle, it won't be viable to power a city for at least another 30-50 years. Helpful for the future, but too late to mitigate the damage of climate change.

Yeah, many other examples of ‘breakthroughs’ with lots of remaining questions like Sustainable Aviation Fuel (SAF) where there’s excitement about emissions reduction but the sustainable part (ingredients in sufficient volume and cost) remain in question, not to mention how much bottom line benefit to the environment and operating cost they bring. Small steps forward are likely good, but they are just that.

 

[Buster007]

I have a family member that is within the Fossil Fuel Industry, and I have no doubt that his company/industry provides 'information' to its members, around why Anthropogenic Climate Change (ACC) doesn't exist. Trying to have a conversation with him, and I could see the three strategies being deployed to remove responsibility. He has referred to meetings and information he has been provided.

1) No their is no climate change or global warming because we are still having record cold temperatures sea ice maximums blah blah blah.
2) Ok so even if the climate is changing it has changed in the past and it is part of normal cycles, not anything that humans have done.
3) Even if something that humans did increases the temperature a few degrees everyone carry's on like its the end of the world, some things grow better with a slightly elevated temperature.

Discussing further with him it became clear, that it was a wasted effort because of Confirmation Bias. He had decided the industry that he was a part of for his whole working life could not be responsible for anything negative, so any reports he saw just further confirmed his own belief. He ignored anything that could not be construed to help his belief, (created by those with an Agenda) and doubled down on anything else that he could somehow think supported his belief.

I liken the whole thing to what occurred during the 1950's, and after by the then Tobacco Companies to discredit any reports coming out, that smoking cigarettes had negative impacts on health.

They paid huge amounts of money to studies to come up with findings, to debunk the valid findings coming out from scientists and medical professionals. Many people believed those findings, and ignored the real studies because they didn't want to think they were working for a company that could do that, and 2) smokers were addicted and it gave them the excuse to not believe and continue on doing what they had been doing without guilt.

I think there are seven different groups of people around Climate Change, in no particular order.

1. Industry Funded groups and companies providing confusing conflicting 'information'.
2. Climate Deniers that believe the information put out by Group 1.
3. Unsure but want to believe that ACC isn't real.
4. Scientists that are providing the studies and science to prove that ACC is real.
5. Those that believe that ACC is real.
6. Climate Activists and campaigners that want the world to do more.
7. Climate Alarmists that take joy in the panic of people thinking the world is going to end tomorrow or next year.

Groups 1 & 7 are the ones doing the most damage to the world being able to accept ACC and move onto a phase of doing something about it. If you were a believer in crazy conspiracy theories, you might think that group 1 is funding and behind group 7.

I admit I find it hard to understand how the number of people in group 2 is still so high, but then I also find it hard to understand how some people still believe we are on a flat earth.

Honestly you should listen to him he has some good points