Has Climate Change "reporting" reached "End Game'?

[get me outta here]

At last, a less bullying realistic article about the charities:

 

[Moody]

Parroting everything put in front of one , doesn’t make one a journalist.

OK - I'll try to explain what hysteria really looks like. I googled "SBS news hottest day ever" and could only find this :-

It's official: Tuesday was 'Australia's hottest day on record'

Preliminary results show Tuesday was Australia's hottest day on record.

www.sbs.com.au

and

Australia breaks hottest day record – just a day after the previous record

The average maximum temperature of 41.9C across the nation on Wednesday was one degree hotter than Tuesday's record.

www.sbs.com.au

I could not find any reference to the claim that they described it as the hottest day EVER. As we are technically in an Ice Age right now it seems unlikely that it has NEVER been warmer, but as that has been going for a couple of million years now it pre-dates human life.

But instead of expressing concern that we are breaking temperature records regularly these days, the deniers fixate on the term "EVER" and pretend like that is the issue. It is quite pathetic, isn't it?

 

[Moody]

I have not met one person who has denied that climate change exists. Ergo, I have not met any deniers.

Oh but you have, Pushka. They are some of your buddies on AFF, who have over the years said :-

• Global Warming is a myth - the world is actually cooling
• The polar ice-caps are not shrinking - they are getting bigger
• The pacific islands under threat of sea rises are rising themselves so nothing to see there
• Yada Yada

When one claim is shown to be a nonsense they just move on to another, or focus on the fringe elements and more alarming claims as if that somehow invalidates the whole debate.

For those who have considered other causes to climate change other than what Mother Nature provides, and which include the impacts of man, the current rush to do everything carbon related and not look to other causes as well is extremely frustrating and will not produce any result.

So humour me - what is the major cause of the current climate change if not primarily the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?

And until I see extreme groups and even less extreme groups who actually modify their lifestyle according to their own principles - no mobile, no air conditioning, no flights, no computers, and so on, well, I don’t listen anymore to those who are just angry shouty people whatever their flavour.

Seriously, a climate change conference in Davos that required helicopters to bring people in?

Seriously - from the forum that promotes and gleefully reports on status runs.

I do modify my behaviour, but no one is saying we all have to live in a cave. It is incumbent on all of us to take a part in reducing the world's carbon footprint, whether you care to is your own choice.

 

[Deleted member]

OK - I'll try to explain what hysteria really looks like. I googled "SBS news hottest day ever" and could only find this :-

It's official: Tuesday was 'Australia's hottest day on record'

Preliminary results show Tuesday was Australia's hottest day on record.

www.sbs.com.au

and

Australia breaks hottest day record – just a day after the previous record

The average maximum temperature of 41.9C across the nation on Wednesday was one degree hotter than Tuesday's record.

www.sbs.com.au

I could not find any reference to the claim that they described it as the hottest day EVER. As we are technically in an Ice Age right now it seems unlikely that it has NEVER been warmer, but as that has been going for a couple of million years now it pre-dates human life.

But instead of expressing concern that we are breaking temperature records regularly these days, the deniers fixate on the term "EVER" and pretend like that is the issue. It is quite pathetic, isn't it?

yes it is.

 

[Deleted member]

Oh but you have, Pushka. They are some of your buddies on AFF, who have over the years said :-

• Global Warming is a myth - the world is actually cooling
• The polar ice-caps are not shrinking - they are getting bigger
• The pacific islands under threat of sea rises are rising themselves so nothing to see there
• Yada Yada

When one claim is shown to be a nonsense they just move on to another, or focus on the fringe elements and more alarming claims as if that somehow invalidates the whole debate.



So humour me - what is the major cause of the current climate change if not primarily the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?




Seriously - from the forum that promotes and gleefully reports on status runs.

I do modify my behavior, but no one is saying we all have to live in a cave. It is incumbent on all of us to take a part in reducing the world's carbon footprint, whether you care to is your own choice.

Climate change Or Global warming? . the term Global warming has been changed to climate change because there is evidence that the planet warms and cools.
My brother lives in the pacific (Solomon Islands, he is in town for a cancer check up) we had a BBQ at my sisters place the other day and he was telling me about how everyone who doesn't live in the pacific says seal levels are rising. his personal experience is contrary to that. in his region (the Western Province) something like 6 new Islands have appeared (vs an atoll which isn't designated as a island unless it sustains vegetation / trees) complete with trees and the like over the last few years. the earthquake lifted some islands, and lowered others . the cherry picking of the (sea level) data in these places doesn't constitute "science". My brother hosts a Volcanologist at his isolated spot near Gizo who has been making regular visits for years as part of his research (ocean temperature is critical to his research) and has found that the so called increase in ocean temperatures is at best inaccurate, when he tries to contradict the climate warriors he is shouted down as a denier. the problem here isn't that climate change is or isn't happening, it is the mass hysteria around it.
I watched a very interesting interview with Dr Valentina Zharkova from Northumbria university, she makes some very interesting observations.

 

[Pushka]

Oh but you have, Pushka. They are some of your buddies on AFF, who have over the years said :-

• Global Warming is a myth - the world is actually cooling
• The polar ice-caps are not shrinking - they are getting bigger
• The pacific islands under threat of sea rises are rising themselves so nothing to see there
• Yada Yada

When one claim is shown to be a nonsense they just move on to another, or focus on the fringe elements and more alarming claims as if that somehow invalidates the whole debate.



So humour me - what is the major cause of the current climate change if not primarily the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere?




Seriously - from the forum that promotes and gleefully reports on status runs.

I do modify my behaviour, but no one is saying we all have to live in a cave. It is incumbent on all of us to take a part in reducing the world's carbon footprint, whether you care to is your own choice.

I have always said climate change.

As you rightly reported this Forum is about flying. And status runs. I have always maintained that climate change is a complex issue that will not be addressed by the complete focus by some on carbon. Hence I show no hypocrisy should I fly. Those however who blame carbon for everything climate change should not fly. That is hypocrisy.

Do you fly?

 

[Moody]

I have always said climate change.

As you rightly reported this Forum is about flying. And status runs. I have always maintained that climate change is a complex issue that will not be addressed by the complete focus by some on carbon. Hence I show no hypocrisy should I fly. Those however who blame carbon for everything climate change should not fly. That is hypocrisy.

Do you fly?

Yes I fly. Your point is ......????

Oh - I see. So because breathing turns oxygen into CO2 I also shouldn't breathe?

Simplistic arguments are always the most problematic, aren't they?

I ask AGAIN - if CO2 in the atmosphere isn't the most significant contributor to climate change, then please tell me what is.

 

[Pushka]

Yes I fly. Your point is ......????

Oh - I see. So because breathing turns oxygen into CO2 I also shouldn't breathe?

Simplistic arguments are always the most problematic, aren't they?

Yes. Which is why I’m not onboard with the simplistic carbon model and climate change.

We have to breathe. (Although I think many zealots would like to see the extermination of anything that breathes).

We choose to fly.

 

[Moody]

Yes. Which is why I’m not onboard with the simplistic carbon model and climate change.

But you are not willing to provide an alternative explanation - just your belief that something else is causing it?

 

[Pushka]

But you are not willing to provide an alternative explanation - just your belief that something else is causing it?

And you are not willing to stop flying even though in your mind you believe it is one of the major contributors to climate change.

 

[RooFlyer]

My concern is cost and time when we have the renewable answers now. We are blessed with space to harvest enough solar and wind to power the world, let alone Australia

Nah, not so much. Still haven't figured out how to stop wind turbines chopping up the eagles (amongst other things), nor how to properly dispose of the solar panel waste and its toxic heavy metals (especially the cheapie Chinese made ones). In NW Tas, multiple wind projects are being stopped in their tracks by environmentalists (some who also oppose hydro power) and those who don't want new HV transmission corridors marching across the countryside over their properties. Neither wind nor solar are baseload, and batteries are great until you use them and then can't recharge them enough. If you put solar farms 'out there' in the space, there is the issue of transmission losses. Non insurmountable, but we are far from 'there' yet.

However ... if you want renewable, carbon-free, baseload energy, go geothermal. Australia has vast geothermal energy resources, some quite close to populations. Too expensive at the moment unfortunately, so not there either. I was in the geothermal (renewable!) energy business for years.

 

[tgh]

Hm.. so is it the case that renewables (wind/solar) cannot practically provide stable base load and the equation is simply to continue with coal or start building nuclear.
Seems a no brainer.. but what would I know...

 

[Quickstatus]

overwhelming consensus

Then you don't understand science.
Science is perpetually skeptical
Science is not necessarily based on a consensus, in fact almost never without caveats.
Science never asks people to believe, it asks people to disprove any and all theories.

Even in 2024, reputable scientists are looking at Einstein's General Theory of Relativity trying to disprove it or in lay terms find holes in it even when there is overwhelming consensus that it is correct. Scientists who try to do this are not labelled pariahs or relativity deniers - they are respected.

When the Higgs boson was discovered the required level of certainty was 5 Sigma - ie the probability that the data was just random fluctuation is 0.00006%. I have not read any climate related research with that level of certainty. What Sigma level of certainty does climate research use?. Consensus is not certainty

The general starting point in Science is the Null hypothesis. That is to say, the hypothesis that A does not cause B. Science always start with that and then try to check if that is correct. Science never starts with A causes B.

People who are non scientists should always be skeptical of scientists who are not perpetually skeptical of their own science.

Quote Richard Feynman - to paraphrase Seinfeld when he was interviewed by Larry king: "you know who I am?. Jewish guy, Brooklyn, famous quantum mechanics and atom bomb physicist"...:
"No government has the right to decide on the truth of scientific principles, nor to prescribe in any way the character of the questions investigated".

Exchange government with any other large entity who tries to demand compliance with a certain perspective.

When anything including science has a strong political flavour, you know there are always going to be several sides trying to assert they are right. Fortunately the truth does not take sides.

Take home message; Dont take sides and you will be closer to the truth.

 

[prozac]

I hope Australia never goes nuclear, costs/feasibility aside, there is no truly safe way to dispose of the radioactive waste (which is in significantly larger volumes than the nuclear medicine waste). Not to mention the risk of an accident/meltdown, a very unnecessary risk imo.

People have started moving back into the Chernobyl exclusion zone and even farming. Wildlife is flourishing withing this zone too.
There is no safe way to dispose of solar panels, nor turbine blades. Turbine blades cannot be recycled and the cost of disposal (burying in the ground) is expected to pass the US$50b mark by 2050.

Have always thought it was silly to build Lucas Heights in an area very prone to bushfires, really should have been someone a lot further away from major populations.

Problem is that every year more and more people kept moving closer to Lucas Heights facility. I guess that is not so unsafe after all.
Finland is promoting itself for storage / recycling of spent fuel rods.

 

[Quickstatus]

There is no safe way to dispose of solar panels, nor turbine blades. Turbine blades cannot be recycled and the cost of disposal (burying in the ground) is expected to pass the US$50b mark by 2050.

Does the CSIRO report account for that. Every solar farm, every wind farm will be replaced every 15-30 years by my estimation

 

[prozac]

Gosh. I think the little blue tick means it’s a genuine account?

I was going to quote the "We're all gunna die" attitude as an example of the climate change catastrophism I was drawn into talking about, but thought the straw man shouldn’t be brought out.

But yet, like Frankenstein, "It's alive! It's alive!"

According to the Doom Goblin we should all be dead in the ground for 12 months already.

 

[RooFlyer]

Then you don't understand science.
Science is perpetually skeptical
Science is not necessarily based on a consensus, in fact almost never without caveats.
Science never asks people to believe, it asks people to disprove any and all theories.

Thank you - especially the last bit. The phrase that makes me gag every time I hear it is "The science is settled" (as in "shut up").

Climate science zealots show many characteristic of old religion - you have to 'believe' unquestioningly, and those that don't display absolute fealty are cast out as heretics (de-platformed, unpublished, denigrated ...). Imprisonment as 'climate criminals' is often touted.

EDIT, additional thought. If you really want to show someone is a fool, or wrong in science, you let them have the microphone and let them babble on. Then everyone can see for themselves.

Final thought on this.

 

[tgh]

Fantastic post Qs I dips me lid.

 

[prozac]

Does the CSIRO report account for that. Every solar farm, every wind farm will be replaced every 15-30 years by my estimation

Turbine blades are sent to landfill and they are not environmentally benign. Not something that gets publicised.
The research indicates that there will be 43 million tonnes of blade waste worldwide by 2050 with China possessing 40% of the waste, Europe 25%, the United States 19% and the rest of the world 16%.
Cambridge university study by Liu and Barlow - https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/bi...8/Liu_and_Barlow-2017-Waste_Management-AM.pdf

 

[Lynda2475]

Turbine blades cannot be recycled

Most turbines are 69% steel so absolutely could be melted down and reused there is no reason a smart cookie cant design turbines with a higher recyclable content they just haven't been incentivized to do so. Remove the paint and steel can fully decompose in 50 years, spent fuel rods can remain dangerously radioactive for thousands of years.

Turbines should have a long life and not need to be pulled down and buried if properly maintained. There are e-waste recycling facilities for electrical components which are likley to fail earlier.

Problem is that every year more and more people kept moving closer to Lucas Heights facility. I guess that is not so unsafe after all

Well many people do dumb things, like build (or allow building) in a flood zone or next to a nuclear plant. Stupidity is quite common and rarely curable.

Finland is promoting itself for storage / recycling of spent fuel rods.

Risk of accidents (or theft for terrorism) increases when you have to ship radioactive waste halfway round the world.