Climate change

As Libs said - the ozone "thing" was very real and did cause a major change in the way we did things ... scientists found alternatives for CFC's and these were used instead, so you probably didn't notice the change as it was a smooth transition. Same with the whale oil argument - things dramatically changed

As for $$$ - no idea what you're talking about. Would love to see some data or facts. The only factor of $$$ that I've seen is the push by fossil fuel producers to deny any links

As for 10 rivers - and China/India - does this mean the rest of us don't need to bother doing anything? Nope. The only segment you can really influence is your own - so clean up your own backyard and lead by example. If everyone did this, the onflow would be fantastic

 

This is a major concern as the permafrost holds significant volume of methane gas - from decaying matter that was captured during the last ice age - and methane is 30x more potent at trapping "greenhouse" heat

Melt ponds open in Arctic as permafrost melts at levels not expected until 2090

A more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, methane emissions will leap as Earth warms (Nature)

 

Hey guys - I don't care to argue for or against these things.

Someone was interested to hear the 'other' side. I had previously spent the time to look at their main points and summarised them for you as I understand them.

 

That's cool - I too read the posts (and links) of those against too. I just happen to disagree with a lot of what they claim - and their stance of "why should I do anything .... "

 

This rubbish is common on anti-science conspiracy websites and "news", and people who believe it don´t seem to understand the difference between global warming and climate change, doesn't matter how much you explain it to them.

And we have definitely now reached an emergency / extinction situation, but again, science deniers would rather watch conspiracy stuff that suits their own ignorance than to process real evidence in their heads.

Not talking about you since you just quoted / summarised it.. but too many people think like this.

 

My main concern is that there are too many social and commercial leaders that think this

 

this is quite an interesting issue, we covered it in my Primary Ethics class.

Did you know there were proposals to hold a plebiscite to decide if they should ban CFCs? In the end, the politicians decided it was too important an issue to put to an opinion poll, and made the decision in parliament....

Cheers,
Inertia.

 

and too many people saying everyone's "opinion" is equal...

Cheers,
Inertia.

 

We could all go back to living in caves & it still wouldn't fix the problem.... we are the problem, not just what we do.

What do you think the population growth is predicted in the 50 years from 2000 to 2050?

Medium projections estimate 60% growth globally!!!!
That means, we'll increase more in 50 years than we did over 10,000+ yrs!!!!

Reuseable shopping bags & LED lights might make us feel better about our carbon footprints but it's the shear volume of footprints that's the real problem. 1st world smugness has eroded our intellectual capacity to discuss the real issue.... we are suffocating this planet with insane & unsustainable population growth. Act on that.

 

I agree, you put it into whole world's perspective, I had to look it up as I didn't really know the facts!
We tend to centralize this issue and discuss just our position and our lifestyle, yet if we think in the overall context of the whole world population, it seems there are still around Billion ($940M in 2016) people without electricity!
Number of people in the world without electricity falls below one billion
AND....
India has made significant strides in electrification since 2000. Electricity reached 82% of the population in 2016, up from 43% at the turn of century, according to the International Energy Agency.
Still, of the one-quarter of the world's population without electricity that year, about 239 million people are in India.Aug 29, 2018
Although no easy or nice solution to sustain population growth....?

 

By the way since climate change is continually being discussed and often only presented with one point of view let's be open minded and hear all points of view:
Alan Jones hits back at Q&A climate change attack

 

Interesting Labor lost election I believe on this issue...

 

I think it was a combination of too many issues too quick, most people are tolerant until pushed too far!
Sometimes when you just want to work, pay and live a decent life and cannot do that as different 'minor agendas' or 'other factions' are constantly bombarding you as 'major concerns' in the news.... you just switch off and you have enough... until you get only heard in your vote at election time (No one to debate, judge, tell you otherwise, your are free... just your thoughts are at play.)
I suppose that is what is wonderful about democratic country, we give respect to whoever is voted in, see the results, and then we vote again, either vote them in or out.
But not one person should be divided or compared or deemed less of just because of what they have achieved or where they live or their status, IMO.

 

Oh my aching sides, I needed a laugh today.

Nils-Axel Mörner is Wrong About Sea Level Rise

 

Interesting that what you believe is wrong.

Lowy Institute Poll shows Australians' support for climate action at its highest level in a decade

 

In 10 years time it will be a no-brainer in politics to support action against global warming. Those that don't will be in the loony fringes.

But it's tragic the human response will be too.slow. Unlike animals, humans will in general weather the change in climate (in most but not all countries), but it will be the sea level rise that causes the most devastation. Say goodbye to large parts of sprawling Australian coastal cities.

 

I choose to listen to a scientific facts that were presented especially on what you mentioned, the sea level rises (there are none - did you listen to it?) as in the 2nd video in the link:
Alan Jones hits back at Q&A climate change attack
As stated previously we can agree to disagree but I prefer to listen to those who have true scientific qualifications who just disproved others' theories (50 years so far he researches it and studies it and was a chief scientist on UN climate change panel, and so on...).
So how do you debate this scientist, just by posting links to opposing views published by those he wishes to debate, does not make it the truth.
If you really understand the science you would realize we are actually approaching closer to the ice age than global warming, hence why the activists keep changing the name to get it right, from 'global warming, to 'climate change', now to 'climate emergency' I believe.
I hope we can revisit this site in 10 years and discuss again the sea levels, and if it doesn't rise what then, and if they do who can prove how it was caused?
You see I am not against climate change, it has been happening for many years but we need a proper discussion and understanding whether human activity has really contributed before we go changing ourselves the whole world.
I want a better earth for ALL the people in the world, I contribute where I can, it doesn't mean it has to be one way for all, I am sure most people want that too, but let's be fair let's look at all possible solutions not just renewables.

 

hahahahhaaha - Alan Jones! Almost as hilarious as someone quoting Peta Credin at me the other day. Personally I'd rather listen to David Attenborough

As for the election. I think it was moreover lost on franking credits and CGT/NG, so rather off topic

 

Yes - I kinda think top climate scientists should have more weight than Bob from down the plumbing shop who saw something on A Current Affair ...

 

Beg to differ, and outcome confirms this

Climate Hysteria Costs Labor Australian Elections - The Global Warming Policy Forum (GWPF)