2019 Federal Election Discussion

[Moody]

Well, it used to be called Global Warming and they got that wrong then changed it to climate change. Which begs the question, given The Science got that wrong, what else is there.

Pushka - are you serious or just trolling? The reason it was called global warming was that the link between CO2 emissions and rising temperatures was first theorised in the early 19th century, and the term "Greenhouse effect" was coined around the start of the 20th century (yes - that long ago).

Consensus that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were demonstrably causing an increase in global temperatures was formed in the 1960's and that is when the lies started. It doesn't suit some to wind back CO2 emissions so the cherry picking of data started. (To be fair both sides have been guilty of this but the IPCC weeds the extremists out on their side, whereas nothing is done to moderate the loony-tunes scientists on the right).

Part of the cherry picking was to widely publicise ANY global measurements that didn't show a completely linear increase in temperatures, and so the more accurate term of climate change was adopted.

This does not alter the fact that the AVERAGE increase in global temperatures due to human activity is 0.85 degrees Celsius over the last 50 years and 1 degree since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

I struggle to see why ANYONE would have a problem with this information, let alone the ludicrous situation that people on the right ignore the scientists and worship the shock jocks. The only debate to be had is the future impact this will have and the sad fact is that the "alarmists" are being proven to be right.

 

[RooFlyer]

This does not alter the fact that the AVERAGE increase in global temperatures due to human activity is 0.85 degrees Celsius over the last 50 years and 1 degree since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

Don't you feel silly quoting to 1/100th of a degree for 'global temperatures'? And don't you mean 'modelled temperatures'? Or is there a bloody big thermometer stuck into the crust somewhere.

And I see the shock jocks have been wheeled out again. Oh, where would your arguments be without them?

 

[tgh]

why ANYONE would have a problem with this information

I certainly don't.. it so irrelevant to species survival that it is not worth discussing.
The earliest time frame survival challenges are likely biological as rapid species proliferation weakens the structural integrity.

As noted in a previous post , humans have a small environmental envelope in which to thrive.
Like the 'roos in the back paddock in a good year.. we have done well in perfect conditions.
A very small environmental change may see humans greatly depleted or even on the verge of extinction in a relatively short time frame
A relatively minor home town issue like a big volcano eruption set off by a sharp tectonic move could stop the current proliferation in its tracks and effectively give humans some redemption as the species balance reset.

The importance of climate change , anthropogenic or otherwise ( in the context of the current chattering class debate ) , can be seen as the difference between setting your car air con at 20 or 22…

 

[Toad]

Well, it used to be called Global Warming and they got that wrong then changed it to climate change. Which begs the question, given The Science got that wrong, what else is there.

Now they want to change it to “climate emergency” perhaps we should dial 000

 

[Quickstatus]

0.85?. It’s modelled by a computer.

But let’s say that’s correct. But it isn’t the full story. Measurements need a second part - the error.

As in 0.85 +/- xx_

What’s the xx_.
If it is +/-1.0 or more or +/- 0.5 then throw the whole thing out the window and start again

If it is +/-0.05 or less then also throw it out the window because no official thermometer measures to that degree of accuracy especially when averaging the temperatures over time. You actually need thermometers with an accuracy of at least +/- 0.005 perhaps even +/-0.0005 to make the 0.85 accurate. Don’t forget when averaging data and/or incorporating data from multiple sources the coughulative error is an augment of the error that comes with each measurement.

 

[love_the_life]

Well, it used to be called Global Warming and they got that wrong then changed it to climate change. Which begs the question, given The Science got that wrong, what else is there.

I don't think it's a matter of science getting it wrong. The term global warming refers to the increase in temperature but climate change includes all those other effects of changes in the atmosphere like changes to rain and weather patterns, the change in the pressure belt movements over a relatively short time and so on. You only have to see many of the glaciers to see there has been an increase in the rate of melting over a few years. Photos of the winter ice sheets show they are decreasing.
The climate is always changing and there have been rises and falls in average temperatures but the argument comes down to how much is caused by humans and what we can do.

 

[Quickstatus]

Correct. And the voting said let’s take the cautious approach without resorting to religious like fevour

Last night Media Watch ABC accuses the commercial media of Bias.

 

[RooFlyer]

The climate is always changing and there have been rises and falls in average temperatures but the argument comes down to how much is caused by humans and what we can do.

Nailed it. I would only add at the end

... which makes any difference.

Which puts into perspective the motion raised last might by a Green on the Hobart City Council that the Council declare 'a climate emergency' . I guess it made him feel good.

It didn't attract a quorum.

 

[juddles]

Seeing others have taken this thread way off topic, I will indulge too

Forget the whole "climate change" thing. It is a ridiculous focus on a trivial issue.

Instead, find a way to stop using so much goddam plastic, or try to help the new generation adapt to a hideous world of internet perils and social media insanity.

 

[Moody]

Correct. And the voting said let’s take the cautious approach without resorting to religious like fevour

Last night Media Watch ABC accuses the commercial media of Bias.

Correct - self interest and greed are strong factors, which has both been the driver of good outcomes and bad.

Yes - Media Watch DID observe bias in the commercial media. On both sides. I think they are absolutely right, but you seem to infer that they weren’t. What led you to that conclusion?

 

[vetrade]

If coal-fired power stations are SO vital to the future of this country, why did governments sell them off? The current owners are making commercial decisions to close the old ones down: disingenuous of the current gov to complain about their closure (a bit like the Libs blaming the then government for the tragic deaths of pink batts workers - the employers should have been charged with manslaughter).

Well done - you managed to completely sidestep the fundamental requirement for base load power to keep the wheels turning! Windmills and solar cannot possibly provide that for the foreseeable future, if ever. The commercial decisions to close CFPSs you mentioned were based on little more than opportunism to force up the cost of power and make companies like AGL huge profits. Not only did AGL decide to not upgrade the Liddell power station, it actually refused to even sell it to someone else to keep it operating. They deliberately wanted to take some supply out of the system so they could foist big price increases on us all. It's rorts like this that confirm to economically rational people that much of the climate change industry is a money pit for opportunists.

 

[Quickstatus]

Correct - self interest and greed are strong factors, which has both been the driver of good outcomes and bad.

Yes - Media Watch DID observe bias in the commercial media. On both sides. I think they are absolutely right, but you seem to infer that they weren’t. What led you to that conclusion?

There is bias everywhere. Any media outlet which purports to have no bias is not being truthful. Its just that the ABC has a statutory obligation to be accurate impartial. Media Watch didnt accuse the ABC of any bias.

 

[Hvr]

Last night Media Watch ABC accuses the commercial media of Bias.

There is bias everywhere. Any media outlet which purports to have no bias is not being truthful. Its just that the ABC has a statutory obligation to be accurate impartial. Media Watch didnt accuse the ABC of any bias.

Media Watch used quantitative data to argue their case that bias had occurred.

They have previously accused the ABC of bias and inaccurate, or even totally wrong reporting.

 

[Pushka]

I’m very happy to change our methods of electricity production, but not in a manner and rate which puts people at risk because they simply cannot afford to pay for the cost of completely renewable energy. We should have embraced nuclear energy in the same manner in which we embraced renewables but we didn’t. We should tackle the elephants in the room, China, India, Indonesia and so on because until they become totally onboard then we are kidding ourselves that we will make a difference.

And we need to accept that even if we do the very best achievable to reduce our impact on climate change, then Nature will always have the last say.

Strangely I think it’s our arrogance that thinks we humans can stop climate change. We can’t. All we can do is reduce our impact on it. Adapt to it. But when all is said and done it’s probably just a fleck of dust.

And just to restate. I believe in climate change. Always have. It has been happening since year dot. Weirdly before humans set foot on this planet.

 

[vetrade]

Steady up, Pushka.....................you're being far too sensible.

 

[CaptJCool]

Well done - you managed to completely sidestep the fundamental requirement for base load power to keep the wheels turning! Windmills and solar cannot possibly provide that for the foreseeable future, if ever. The commercial decisions to close CFPSs you mentioned were based on little more than opportunism to force up the cost of power and make companies like AGL huge profits. Not only did AGL decide to not upgrade the Liddell power station, it actually refused to even sell it to someone else to keep it operating. They deliberately wanted to take some supply out of the system so they could foist big price increases on us all. It's rorts like this that confirm to economically rational people that much of the climate change industry is a money pit for opportunists.

And why, double impact....

Not only do you NOT pay out how many billions to build a new CFPS and millions on finding supplies of coal when the old mines run out...

You get to earn extra PROFIT.

Those shares are now worth so much more and now I’m a millionaire


Winner, winner chicken dinner

 

[CaptJCool]

What happens to all the pencils?

Donated to Mr Squiggle

 

[rock86]

I love the playground threads, who knew discussion on a FF board about the election could be so entertaining

 

[love_the_life]

Donated to Mr Squiggle

I hope they sharpen them then. When I voted the first booth had a broken pencil and in the next 2 they were missing altogether. Mr Squiggle would have real trouble if he was relying on these pencils.

 

[DC3]

That would mean almost perfect alignment with the Liberal Party (probably not the nats), who, by US standards are probably smack bang centre left -

.... or by GOP standards, looney left.