Climate Change Debate Thread

Starting this thread because every other thread with climate change strays off-topic with debate on whether it's real or not (NSW fires, Climate Change Performance Indicator, Climate Change Effect on Property etc). This is one issue that ain't going away so might as well post it here.

If you want to discuss or debate the science of climate change then spare those threads and post it here.

Contrary to what Newscorp would have you believe, Peter Ridd was not sacked because of his scientific views. Straight from the judges' mouth-

'
Judge Salvatore Vasta ruled on Tuesday the 17 findings made by the university, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure, the final censure and the termination of Ridd’s employment were all unlawful.

“Some have thought that this trial was about freedom of speech and intellectual freedom. Media reports have considered that this trial was about silencing persons with controversial or unpopular views,” Vasta said in his judgement.

“Rather, this trial was purely and simply about the proper construction of a clause in an enterprise agreement.”

The judgement noted Ridd had been in trouble with university management for contacting a News Corp journalist and making media appearances on Sky News after dark claiming he had breached a code of conduct.'

James Cook University professor Peter Ridd's sacking ruled unlawful

 

This report, just out now. Anyway we are off topic but worth a read. Will try to upload if Ok to do so. The article is called, "Ex judge to investigate marine research". The article is not about Peter Reed (Although the link is there) but its about the honesty of the research itself.

 

Caltech provides issues for some thinking. The modelling project looks interesting.

 

I enjoy these threads in a sadistic kind of way, there's some people on the forum that are very interesting to listen to and extremely knowledgeable with regard to the science.

There's also the "car crash TV" aspect of the "other side" of the (can it even be called an argument now?), but lets face it, the thread won't get passed page 2 as climate threads tend to get closed very quickly.

I'm surprised the other thread has kept going as long as it has to be honest.

With that said, I'm going to try and not get sucked into this one and hopefully keep my blood pressure under control as seemingly intelligent people begin to post ridiculous unfounded opinion pieces to counter the 97% of actual scientists that are telling us what is actually happening.

 

That's the point though, hopefully this thread will stop the threads on other aspects of climate change from being derailed and then closed. Australia will continue to warm and this topic will become inescapable, so best we try to keep it all in one place.

Haha, it's going to take every inch of self control for you not to.

 

WHY do you think this thread will be any different?? Title literally says 'climate change debate'

 

Well obviously that's the expressed purpose of this thread. The NSW Fires thread was supposed to be about the fires but then got sidetracked into a climate debate (I'm a guilty party to that). Similarly the climate change performance indicator thread should be about Australian private and government actions on climate change, but that's being sidetracked into the same thing. Same goes for climate change property related threads, which from memory largely stayed on topic but there's always the possibility they'll devolve into a climate debate.

Which means absolutely nothing, zero, nada. He's a psychologist and not a climatologist. The debate might be politicised but the actual science itself isn't and again, for the umpteenth time, it's only what the science says that matters.

Below is a list of climate scientists and the disciplines they work in. What they say on the topic is the most relevant information you can get from an individual but there's something even better and more accurate than that- their peer reviewed papers because they aren't right 100% of the time, and if their results don't accord with reality then they're likely discarded while numerous other experts sift through their findings with a fine comb (and the teeth of this comb are reinforced by millions of hours of scientific research and decades of technological improvement).

List of climate scientists - Wikipedia

 

I don't understand the logic behind this at all - Start a climate change debate thread because all other threads get shut down due to descending into a debate about climate change AND expect this thread not to be shut down? Huh?
How about just not discussing here at all???
After all, it's a property forum, there are plenty of other places you can go to discuss/debtate/refute climate change, PC shouldn't be one of them IMO - everyone's free to disagree with me on that but how long until this devolves into a back and forth between believers and non-believers? Watch this space

 

Then simply ignore the thread. And yes, it may very well be shut down, but if it spares sidetracking the other threads from this incessant debate, which other PC probably users don't appreciate, then it may not be a bad thing if it doesn't. It's up to the admins to decide.

 

I find it interesting that approx 1/2 the fires were started by (nature) lightning (the other 1/2 by idiot humans or well intentioned back-burning operations gone wrong).....and then (nature) the rain and hail put out many of the fires. There seems to be a case (possibly???) where what Sam Newman (I'm no fan) said maybe right?? That fire fighting efforts in cases like this do little to affect the outcome - and we should back off and let them burn themselves out.
Controversial ex-Footy Show host Sam Newman says we SHOULDN'T fight bushfires - and just 'get out of their way' and let them burn themselves out

 

Sam Newman isn't an expert. His opinion is irrelevant imo, it's the fire chiefs who are best qualified to know what's going on.

As for arson, News Corp have done their best to try and overplay it being a factor by lying that 200 arsonists were caught when it was actually only 24. They've done this because they've got a vested interest in trying to downplay the influence of climate change in these fires.

Peter Hadfield is an ex-geologist and science journalist who refer all his content back to peer reviewed science. He's just done an excellent video on all these factors and cut out all the myths surrounding the Australian bushfires.

 

Ok I'll bite.

There is no doubt that our climate is changing.
Our planet's climate has changed often throughout it's existence - fact.
In my opinion it is not currently possible for us to categorically say whether or not the current climate change is entirely a result of humans.
HOWEVER, I strongly believe that regardless of climate change, there is no doubt in my mind that pumping crap into the atmosphere and filling our oceans with plastic is causing harm to the rock we call home. I have held this opinion since I was a child, long before "global warming" and "climate change" were in the media.
As a young boy I once told a trucky at the traffic lights that his truck was broken and spewing black soot into the air

The one thing that has struck me about the public's reaction to the bushfires is the hysteria about Australia's part in causing them. I've tried to be as objective as possible in my thinking but just cannot find a way to understand how the bushfires were directly caused by policies put in place by any Australian Government over the past decades, let along the Scott Morrison government's actions or inactions.

1.
Australia's emissions as of 2017 were 1.1% of global emissions.

Say we had been forward thinking and reduced our emissions by 20% (Paris agreement) a decade ago. That would have reduced global emissions by 0.22% per year. That is ZERO point TWO percent.

If anyone can point out how this would have avoided a longer and larger bushfire season in 2019/20 please tell me. No hysterics please, just sensible rebuttal.

2.
Selling coal to other countries.
Yes, we do. But the cold hard fact is that if we don't. Another country will. You can argue that there would be less supply, but a lack of supply just results in higher prices which leads to miners finding new supply. India and China are not going to close their coal fired power plants just because little old Australia closes it's coal mines.
Plus we have some of the cleanest coal in the global market so you could argue it would have a negative impact on global emissions.

3.
Australia has high per capita emissions.
Yes we do. And we absolutely should be looking to reduce this.
We should be world leading in solar due to our climate. We also have a strong economy with a safe investment environment to attract overseas investment in this area. We should also be looking at nuclear in a geologically safe area (non earthquake or tsunami zone please)
There are no excuses.
This however does not counter point 1.

To sum up, I strongly agree with cleaning up our planet and reducing emissions in a timely fashion. However I do not agree with the mass hysteria which has some how found it's way into our lives through modern and social media (not just climate related).
This hysteria around the fires will likely result in knee jerk policy that neither achieves the required goal or continues to underpin our prosperity.

I look forward to a, hopefully, constructive discussion.

 

The problem with not reducing our emission by 20% is that Australia then has no credibility to lecture other countries about emissions.

China and India will just point out "see, Australia is doing SFA, so we'll do nothing either".

You want other countries to follow your lead? Then bloody well do some leading.

 

Setting an example; a strong definition of leadership; is the number one reason we should be doing more. We are a global top 20 economy and have been for decades.

We are getting lambasted in the media worldwide over our approach to climate change. It's time to wake up and smell the beans. We ourselves could get sanctions or extra trade taxes enforced upon us, starting with the EU and maybe others. It is a matter of time.

Once Trump is gone, the tide in America will also turn and it will be the entire western world against Asia, India and China on this. Eventually too they will fall into line, and in fact they don't need much encouragement anyhow. They see fossil fuels as more of a necessity right now. China looks decades into the future, and they are already exploring renewables and electric cars, etc. They know what needs to be done, they know the science. They don't deny the science. It is just when they move...

 

Not exploring....Implementing

• Just check what proportion of the worlds solar panels are made in China (60%)
• Visit a major chinese city and see how many electric scooters and vehicles are around.

 

...And China generates more than 38% of their power from renewable sources compared to about 21% in Australia and they are the largest investor in renewables in the world. Daylight is second. Anyone who thinks the Chinese don't want to breathe cleaner air doesn't understand Chinese aspiration.

China's lead in the global solar race - at a glance


Clean Energy Report | Clean Energy Council
End of the year wrap-up: five figures show China's renewable energy growth in 2019 - Renewable Energy World

 

Prior to "the fires" - other countries don't really give two hoots what Australia does.
We are a global minnow who barely contribute to global emissions.
They may now take the opportunity to turn around and point the finger at us to take the spotlight off themselves. But don't think that anything Australia does will have a major impact on the climate policies of China, India, USA etc. They will do what they view as being in their own best interests.

As per my original post, I strongly agree that we should be taking action. That is not my point. My point is the baseless hysteria that is not conducive to a healthy debate and in turn policy-making on an important issue.
I am sure that ScoMo and his cronies are at this moment hatching knee-jerk-reaction policy announcements to show the country that "we got your message".
Is that what we want? Pick a policy out of the hat so we can flood social media with "ScoMo saves the world from worsening bush fire seasons with renewable energy promise"??

Why in this day and age, can't we have an honest debate. With real financial impact assessments. This goes for both sides of the debate and politics.

We clearly need to have a plan to expand renewable energy. But there is more to it than that.

Yes our successive governments are late to the party. But let's do it properly, not a half baked solution that doesn't achieve the goal and sends power prices through the roof for residential, but more importantly for industry.

 

Precisely, we are getting lambasted by the media of the countries that have polluted our planet. And now they are having a crack at Australia for lack of action...???

Please.

And you actually agree with this lambasting?

The USA is leading this lambasting charge, the USA, seriously? Talk about pot and kettle.

This is what I am talking about. It's utter rubbish. Australia could have had zero emissions since 1788 and it would have had almost no impact on the current climate.

Again, I am not saying don't make changes. Just stop the BS.

 

**reposting, in case you don't see it on the Climate Indicator thread.

Regardless of one's opinion on climate change - and regardless of how we view ourselves in regards to emissions (we're actually 4th in the world when exports are taken into consideration - after China, US and Saudi) - renewables are the way of the future so we either embrace and transition (jobs and energy) or we get left behind in a crunch-time economy with a major export product that no one wants

This is an article detailing the future of energy production in 2020 in the US - a country who's leaders are still pro-fossil - yet the private economy is moving rapidly towards renewables:

Renewable Energy Prices Hit Record Lows: How Can Utilities Benefit From Unstoppable Solar And Wind?

"EIA reports U.S. electricity generation from renewable energy exceeded coal for the first time in April 2019, and forecasts coal generation will decline 13% in 2020. EIA also projects natural gas generation will only grow 1.3% in 2020 – the slowest rate since 2017 – while non-hydropower renewable energy generation will grow 15% in 2020 – the fastest rate in four years."

"Utility-scale renewable energy prices are now significantly below those for coal and gas generation, and they're less than half the cost of nuclear. The latest numbers again confirm that building new clean energy generation is cheaper than running existing coal plants.

In other words, it is now cheaper to save the climate than to destroy it."

So - we either evolve or become irrelevant

 

I'll put it my own odd way. Do parents want their children coming to them at some day in the future with the question "Why did you allow this to happen to us? "