PDA

View Full Version : Man-Made Climate Change: Issues and debates



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 [24] 25 26

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2020, 09:22 PM
Climate change denialists (either the "it's not happening" or the "humans aren't doing it" types) can start maturity-flaming Greta et al when their own thought process moves past "this is politically inconvenient for me therefore it can't be happening".

In case they hadn't noticed, it's even more politically inconvenient for the mainstream left.

MichaelBaron
01-01-2020, 09:37 PM
Climate change denialists (either the "it's not happening" or the "humans aren't doing it" types) can start maturity-flaming Greta et al when their own thought process moves past "this is politically inconvenient for me therefore it can't be happening".

In case they hadn't noticed, it's even more politically inconvenient for the mainstream left.

Irrespective of ''political convenience'': kids are kids. Laws to establish legal age of adulthood have been introduced for a reason. Now there is apparently some ''climate leader'' who is even younger: 10 or 11...

Kevin Bonham
01-01-2020, 09:46 PM
Irrespective of ''political convenience'': kids are kids. Laws to establish legal age of adulthood have been introduced for a reason. Now there is apparently some ''climate leader'' who is even younger: 10 or 11...

Those laws don't always apply at "adulthood", they apply at a range of ages. More importantly, if those who introduced such laws knew what they were doing, then they also knew what they were doing when they didn't extend such laws to speaking out about public issues (even though they do apply to voting), at which point your argument collapses.

MichaelBaron
02-01-2020, 01:29 AM
Those laws don't always apply at "adulthood", they apply at a range of ages. More importantly, if those who introduced such laws knew what they were doing, then they also knew what they were doing when they didn't extend such laws to speaking out about public issues (even though they do apply to voting), at which point your argument collapses.

So shall we listen to every 11yo or selectively? :)

antichrist
02-01-2020, 01:39 AM
So shall we listen to every 11yo or selectively? :)

Well probably the most popular person in history began preaching when just 12 years old so after a few thousand years 11 is the new 12.

I would listen to a 11 year old talking science about the world's creation before listening to Capa Fan who is highly qualified in science.

Capablanca-Fan
02-01-2020, 03:55 AM
It also doesn't follow that doing nothing is warranted, or that nations individually saying they will do nothing because their individual contribution is so small is warranted.
It doesn't follow that we should make gestures that make no measurable difference, such as banning incandescent lightbulbs. It would follow that if AGW really is a problem, then we should go after the worst CO₂ producers like China, but no, the likes of Greta go after the West. And of course, those who preach loudest about AGW should not fly everywhere on private jets and build new seafront property, but actually set an example.

Kevin Bonham
02-01-2020, 09:59 AM
It doesn't follow that we should make gestures that make no measurable difference, such as banning incandescent lightbulbs. It would follow that if AGW really is a problem, then we should go after the worst CO₂ producers like China, but no, the likes of Greta go after the West. And of course, those who preach loudest about AGW should not fly everywhere on private jets and build new seafront property, but actually set an example.

The first thing that does follow is that denialism from serious public figures needs to stop. I definitely don't agree with using force to stop it - I consider that one of the most appalling political responses - but it needs to be made clear that it is unacceptable. It needs to be aimed at those with influence who choose to dishonestly avoid the facts, not those in the community at large whose ability to comprehend the evidence may be more limited.

Here's what temperature increase looks like in Hobart, since we were mentioning it:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENO6ICdUYAA5ApJ?format=png&name=large

(source https://twitter.com/DeformedEarth - UTAS geographer)

Patrick Byrom
02-01-2020, 01:42 PM
It doesn't follow that we should make gestures that make no measurable difference, such as banning incandescent lightbulbs. It would follow that if AGW really is a problem, then we should go after the worst CO₂ producers like China, but no, the likes of Greta go after the West. And of course, those who preach loudest about AGW should not fly everywhere on private jets and build new seafront property, but actually set an example.The first, and most important thing, we need to do is to incorporate global heating into our planning for the future. That's been a serious failure by the Morrison government - it's so hamstrung by the deniers that it can barely acknowledge that global heating is going to make the bushfires and droughts much worse in Australia, let alone take any sort of effective action to deal with the problem.

I thought the refusal of the government to even meet with fire experts was disgraceful. If the government had listened to them, we would have been much better prepared for the horrific problems we're still facing.

MichaelBaron
02-01-2020, 09:18 PM
It's rather unlikely that such decisions wold be informed by science

So with kids....we need to ''assess what they say'' then decided if they can speak up or not?

Capablanca-Fan
03-01-2020, 02:51 AM
I find it fascinating that you refuse to even discuss the laws of physics with people who understand the science, but instead spend your time attacking a teenage girl.

Do you think this teenage girl understands the physics? I doubt that Al Gore or Kevin Rudd understand the physics. If you were consistent in your argumentation about the shape of the earth, chiding the medieval scientists (and everyone else up until Newton) for not knowing why the earth is round, it would not be enough to say that CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation; you would need to know why, down to the quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator approximation and changing dipole moment.

Ian Murray
03-01-2020, 08:25 AM
So with kids....we need to ''assess what they say'' then decided if they can speak up or not?

Anyone can speak up. If what they say starts a global movement, we should be listening

Ian Murray
03-01-2020, 08:30 AM
Do you think this teenage girl understands the physics? I doubt that Al Gore or Kevin Rudd understand the physics. If you were consistent in your argumentation about the shape of the earth, chiding the medieval scientists (and everyone else up until Newton) for not knowing why the earth is round, it would not be enough to say that CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation; you would need to know why, down to the quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator approximation and changing dipole moment.

There are levels of understanding. A layman (layperson) can understand the basic causes and effects without a grasp of the molecular dynamics. Understanding isn't restricted to science PhDs.

4016

Patrick Byrom
03-01-2020, 11:39 AM
Do you think this teenage girl understands the physics? I doubt that Al Gore or Kevin Rudd understand the physics. If you were consistent in your argumentation about the shape of the earth, chiding the medieval scientists (and everyone else up until Newton) for not knowing why the earth is round, it would not be enough to say that CO₂ absorbs infrared radiation; you would need to know why, down to the quantum mechanical harmonic oscillator approximation and changing dipole moment.I was referring to myself and Ian, of course - I don't share the obsession you and Michael have with Greta :)

I wasn't "chiding" anyone, just pointing out that modern students had a more complete understanding of this issue than Medieval scholars. But the people you mentioned are clearly aware that they don't have a complete understanding, which is why they defer to actual experts. Michael doesn't understand the physics at all, but believes he knows more than the experts :(

MichaelBaron
03-01-2020, 01:26 PM
There are levels of understanding. A layman (layperson) can understand the basic causes and effects without a grasp of the molecular dynamics. Understanding isn't restricted to science PhDs.

4016

It is actually most worrying when ''layman'' think they understand all...

MichaelBaron
03-01-2020, 01:30 PM
There are levels of understanding. A layman (layperson) can understand the basic causes and effects without a grasp of the molecular dynamics. Understanding isn't restricted to science PhDs.

4016

By the way, personally I find your post to be quite ''complex''. Cheers to ''layman'' who finds it simple :).

antichrist
03-01-2020, 03:42 PM
It is very simple, fossil fuels took billions of years to form and we are stirring them up making a toxic thick shake. No more science than that is necessary except if you want to fog up the debate. Only an ounce of common sense and another ounce of being a decent and responsible citizen are necessary.

Ian Murray
03-01-2020, 04:32 PM
By the way, personally I find your post to be quite ''complex''. Cheers to ''layman'' who finds it simple :).

It is a tertiary science learning grid - basic grounding as a pre-requisite is assumed. Without that grounding, naturally you would find it complex.

Ian Murray
03-01-2020, 04:38 PM
It is actually most worrying when ''layman'' think they understand all...

Pot/kettle ...

Ian Murray
05-01-2020, 09:48 PM
Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/australia-fires-climate-change.html?fbclid=IwAR1vsBMkQEMAjHg8lpEgycWcKYix5 M1HZdJK0e0oCRg7JxofR3orGVov3ec)
New York Times
3.1.20

Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen. ...

The fires have already burned about 14.5 million acres — an area almost as large as West Virginia, more than triple the area destroyed by the 2018 fires in California and six times the size of the 2019 fires in Amazonia. Canberra’s air on New Year’s Day was the most polluted in the world partly because of a plume of fire smoke as wide as Europe. ...

All this, and peak fire season is only just beginning.

As I write, a state of emergency has been declared in New South Wales and a state of disaster in Victoria, mass evacuations are taking place, a humanitarian catastrophe is feared, and towns up and down the east coast are surrounded by fires, all transport and most communication links cut, their fate unknown. ...

The bookstore in the fire-ravaged village of Cobargo, New South Wales, has a new sign outside: “Post-Apocalyptic Fiction has been moved to Current Affairs.”

And yet, incredibly, the response of Australia’s leaders to this unprecedented national crisis has been not to defend their country but to defend the fossil fuel industry, a big donor to both major parties — as if they were willing the country to its doom. While the fires were exploding in mid-December, the leader of the opposition Labor Party went on a tour of coal mining communities expressing his unequivocal support for coal exports. The prime minister, the conservative Scott Morrison, went on vacation to Hawaii. ...

MichaelBaron
06-01-2020, 01:27 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/green-agenda-exacerbating-australias-wildfire-problem/

antichrist
06-01-2020, 06:06 AM
Australia Is Committing Climate Suicide (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/opinion/australia-fires-climate-change.html?fbclid=IwAR1vsBMkQEMAjHg8lpEgycWcKYix5 M1HZdJK0e0oCRg7JxofR3orGVov3ec)
New York Times
3.1.20

Australia today is ground zero for the climate catastrophe. Its glorious Great Barrier Reef is dying, its world-heritage rain forests are burning, its giant kelp forests have largely vanished, numerous towns have run out of water or are about to, and now the vast continent is burning on a scale never before seen. ...

The fires have already burned about 14.5 million acres — an area almost as large as West Virginia, more than triple the area destroyed by the 2018 fires in California and six times the size of the 2019 fires in Amazonia. Canberra’s air on New Year’s Day was the most polluted in the world partly because of a plume of fire smoke as wide as Europe. ...

All this, and peak fire season is only just beginning.

As I write, a state of emergency has been declared in New South Wales and a state of disaster in Victoria, mass evacuations are taking place, a humanitarian catastrophe is feared, and towns up and down the east coast are surrounded by fires, all transport and most communication links cut, their fate unknown. ...

The bookstore in the fire-ravaged village of Cobargo, New South Wales, has a new sign outside: “Post-Apocalyptic Fiction has been moved to Current Affairs.”

And yet, incredibly, the response of Australia’s leaders to this unprecedented national crisis has been not to defend their country but to defend the fossil fuel industry, a big donor to both major parties — as if they were willing the country to its doom. While the fires were exploding in mid-December, the leader of the opposition Labor Party went on a tour of coal mining communities expressing his unequivocal support for coal exports. The prime minister, the conservative Scott Morrison, went on vacation to Hawaii. ...

That is what happens to OZ when there is no Gough Whitlam, Jim Cairns, Lionel Murphy and Jack Mundy. Probably atheists the lot of them God bless their souls

I loved the quip re current affair books

Ian Murray
06-01-2020, 07:48 AM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/green-agenda-exacerbating-australias-wildfire-problem/

Bushfires, Hazard Reduction and Backburning (https://greens.org.au/bushfires)


The Australian Greens support hazard reduction burns and backburning to reduce the impact of wildfire when guided by the best scientific, ecological and emergency service expertise.

Attempts by right-wing pundits and politicians to place the blame on the Greens represent the worst kind of dishonest politics. The Coalition has spent six years in office ignoring the chief cause – severe climate change,

Climate change means that bushfire season is starting earlier, that forests and grasslands are drier, igniting more easily and burn more readily, and that there are more and more days of very high, severe, extreme and catastrophic fire risk. The major cause of climate change is the mining, burning and exporting of coal, oil and gas.

Leading emergency service organisations aren't just talking about fuel reduction or backburning anymore, they're talking about climate change:

Climate change is making fires and droughts worse, with the windows for standard hazard reduction measures during winter months becoming increasingly sparse.
– Greg Mullins, former NSW Fire & Rescue commissioner

Ian Murray
06-01-2020, 08:03 AM
The world is watching Australia, the textbook example of the effects of climate change

Australia fires: British expat’s terrifying view from inside the inferno (https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/world/firefighters-view-from-inside-the-australian-inferno-668f3ttq5)
The Sunday Times, London
5.1.20

Even people who have been battling fires for 50 years say they’ve never seen blazes like this. It’s the sheer size of it. Sometimes you wonder what you’re doing there — when it’s very hot and you’re very uncomfortable, blinded by smoke. But there’s a great sense of camaraderie and respect for each other.

In our brigade there are 40 of us, all sorts: plumbers, software engineers, people who fix horses’ teeth. We do a shift here, a shift there; we have understanding employers and families. It’s not about being heroes. The idea is to support your community.

When the pager goes off, you just go and do it. from 7am till 7pm and then overnight. It's challenging ...

Ian Murray
06-01-2020, 08:46 AM
Some insight on fire hazard reduction

Hazard reduction debate simply frustrating (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/6522654/hazard-reduction-debate-simply-frustrating/)

During my time as head of NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service (NPWS) from 1998 to 2003, I laboured repeatedly to explain the complexities of fire management and the limitations of hazard reduction.

Today, I worry that the ill-informed commentary that passes for debate is rolling around again 20 years on.

A few recollections and observations might explain my personal frustration: ...

MichaelBaron
06-01-2020, 12:43 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

That is from the year 2018...

Ian Murray
06-01-2020, 12:49 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-13/is-the-prescribed-burn-window-closing-in-australia/10236048

That is from the year 2018...

Which contradicts the message in your post #5770. What are you driving at?

Patrick Byrom
06-01-2020, 12:58 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/green-agenda-exacerbating-australias-wildfire-problem/You do realise that's a writer from the UK Telegraph? People keep making this claim, but they never produce any actual examples where "Greens" have prevented prescribed burning.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2020, 02:04 PM
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/01/04/green-agenda-exacerbating-australias-wildfire-problem/

That article provides no evidence whatsoever concerning Australia's bushfire problem and its causes. It says "many are blaming the greens for exacerbating the fires by meddling in the time- honoured practice of burning off excess vegetation to mitigate wildfires." but provides no evidence that (i) "the greens" are meddling in this way, effectively or otherwise (ii) the practice mentioned would have mitigated these fires (iii) the practice mentioned is even practical in many of the forest types burnt. It just makes empty assertions then goes on to talk about areas of northern hemisphere moorland with totally different ecologies.

Ian Murray
06-01-2020, 06:51 PM
And a word from the firies on the ground

Fire and Rescue NSW Station 428 Queanbeyan
Canberra Notice Board Group (https://www.facebook.com/groups/951618864874073/permalink/2735127049856570/?__tn__=kC-y.g)

🔥 HAZARD REDUCTION OR BACKBURN? 🔥

K so we’re not going to wade in to politics, it isn’t our job. So maybe leave that out of this.

What it is though, is to establish some facts about hazard reduction burning and backburns which are two VERY different things.

To start, Hazard Reduction burns are exactly as the name suggests. They are specifically designed to minimise hazards (think: heavy ground fuel loading) around urban interface-bush areas. Usually small areas that are designed to lessen the intensity (not stop, that’s key) that a fire will impact that interface. Usually completed in the cooler months when fire behaviour is less intense and much more preferable in a strategic sense than.....

BACKBURNING. Backburning is a tactical option used AFTER a bushfire has started in attempt to burn the fire back on to itself, therefore creating the buffer zone of already burnt ground that can’t be reburnt, obviously. The problem with conducting a backburn is that they’re often done with little time to account for things like flame height, fuel loading, temperature and wind changes and can sometimes increase the size of the fire front. They are often a last resort tactic to again lessen the impact (again, not STOP) of a bushfire.

Political parties of any denomination do NOT influence the decisions of organisations like FRNSW, ACT Fire and Rescue, ACT and NSW Rural Fire Services and Parks and Wildlife Services when choosing when and how to do Hazard Reduction burns. It just doesn’t work like that. The main reason Hazard Reduction burns are cancelled or delayed is due to the predicted intensity of the burn exceeding the limits that would make it safe for firefighters, native flora and fauna and obviously you wonderful people.

Be safe and share the word around

Shane Guest Valuable info.

Also left out protests invading the prescribed burn area causing it to be cancelled. Which has happened in the past. Or public complaints leading to reduced burn sizes.

Fire and Rescue NSW Station 428 Queanbeyan Shane just as an aside, very rarely have we encountered public complaints to the fire services resulting in reduced prescribed burn sizes. We’re not saying it doesn’t happen but it’s mega rare.

Same with protestors. There might be some examples, but generally in my 13 years experience I’ve never seen a protestor at a prescribed burn. It’s usually people giving us a nice ham and cheese sanger instead 🙂

-FF James

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2020, 07:09 PM
Posts deleted

Post containing apparently off-topic link with no explanation of why it was on topic deleted.

If anyone wants to discuss this they may do so in the Help and Feedback section only.

antichrist
07-01-2020, 06:43 AM
The local redneck response is that the hazard reduction burns are a lot less frequent once a national park is declared so the fuel is about 20 ton an acre not one ton an acre (if I remember correctly ). So when there is a bushfire the intensity is a lot greater and uncontrollable. This also result in a greater burn so regrowth takes years longer. This slower regrowth appears to me but another mate thinks the same strip is growing okay??

Ian Murray
07-01-2020, 07:09 AM
The local redneck response is that the hazard reduction burns are a lot less frequent once a national park is declared so the fuel is about 20 ton an acre not one ton an acre (if I remember correctly ). So when there is a bushfire the intensity is a lot greater and uncontrollable. This also result in a greater burn so regrowth takes years longer. This slower regrowth appears to me but another mate thinks the same strip is growing okay??

See Post #5774 by a former National Parks chief

antichrist
07-01-2020, 07:39 AM
See Post #5774 by a former National Parks chief

Up here the rednecks consider Bob National Parks Carr the Antichrist, before that local graziers could take their cattle into undeclared forests during a drought. It is unanimous opinion that this drought is the worst by far in known history. They are hand feeding stock as close to the coast as Lismore. At Casino the ground was hard and barren until recent rains. They are shooting stock.

MichaelBaron
07-01-2020, 12:18 PM
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f?fbclid=IwAR2l0Md5 0ZG_kmJ4qAVEEoglVGyk8WQ1R9jUPqcPjh-6Gsx3wQeRq7vLgt8

Many are linking the bushfires to the climate change.
But as well as hazard reduction improvement (already discussed above) = how many of the fires would get started without the arsonists?

antichrist
07-01-2020, 12:21 PM
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f?fbclid=IwAR2l0Md5 0ZG_kmJ4qAVEEoglVGyk8WQ1R9jUPqcPjh-6Gsx3wQeRq7vLgt8

Many are linking the bushfires to the climate change.
But as well as hazard reduction improvement (already discussed above) = how many of the fires would get started without the arsonists?

There is a super arsonist up in the sky who uses lightning as redheads

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2020, 12:40 PM
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f?fbclid=IwAR2l0Md5 0ZG_kmJ4qAVEEoglVGyk8WQ1R9jUPqcPjh-6Gsx3wQeRq7vLgt8

Many are linking the bushfires to the climate change.
But as well as hazard reduction improvement (already discussed above) = how many of the fires would get started without the arsonists?

There are always arsonists because of psychological disorders and so on - there's no way to ensure that there won't be any arsonists. However, climate change is (i) making their efforts more successful (ii) increasing the rate of ignitions from non-arson sources such as dry lightning.

Hazard reduction is fiddling around the edges of the problem. It is part of the picture but it is not easy to do much more than is being done and there are downsides. Hazard reduction burns can escape and become bushfires. They have killed firefighters. Making a meaningful difference in many of the vegetation types requires burning so regularly that it destroys the existing ecology (more than probably even these fires will) not to mention the vast amount of smoke that will be put out by such burning regularly and its health impacts.

Until the world gets serious about addressing climate change we need to be greatly increasing early-intervention firefighting and also thinking a lot more about where we choose to put houses.

antichrist
07-01-2020, 01:10 PM
In the national park near me they cancel about three planned burn-offs for every successful one.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2020, 02:38 PM
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/bushfires-firebugs-fuelling-crisis-asarson-arresttollhits183/news-story/52536dc9ca9bb87b7c76d36ed1acf53f?fbclid=IwAR2l0Md5 0ZG_kmJ4qAVEEoglVGyk8WQ1R9jUPqcPjh-6Gsx3wQeRq7vLgt8
Many are linking the bushfires to the climate change. But as well as hazard reduction improvement (already discussed above) = how many of the fires would get started without the arsonists?
In Victoria - all of them (https://twitter.com/JarrodWhittaker/status/1214309782728785920): "The Victorian Premier @DanielAndrewsMP has told ABC Gippsland that none of the bushfires in Victoria have been confirmed to be deliberately lit. This fits with what police told me on Saturday - just one man has been charged with attempting to light a fire... "

And "deliberately lit" is not the same as arson of course - it would include campfires (for example).

Just to repeat the bleeding obvious yet again: Global heating doesn't ignite fires (generally speaking), but it creates the conditions where fires spread more quickly and do more damage. It also makes hazard reduction burning more difficult.

Patrick Byrom
07-01-2020, 02:55 PM
... Last but not least, the very fact that we deal with the climate matters ahead of socio-economic ones is a clear indication that some people view the whole ''climate challenge'' as an escape from economic reality of the everyday life. ...Like the COSBOA (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-06/climate-change-deniers-hinder-fire-response-says-business-group/11843530)?

The Council of Small Business Organisations Australia (COSBOA) said its members who have been affected by the fires, either directly or indirectly, are generally disappointed with the Federal Government's handling of the crisis. "What I'm hearing from my members is the fact that there should have been better preparation for what was predicted by many to be very bad bushfires, worse than normal," said COSBOA's chief executive Peter Strong. "The preparation at the state level, I think, was very good. But at the federal level, there are people within Government who firmly believe there is no such thing as climate change or that human beings don't have an impact upon it, and they are adamant that no extra work or extra effort should ever happen because they don't believe in climate change.

Desmond
07-01-2020, 10:21 PM
Anglican Parish of Gosford - Fr Rod Bower (https://www.facebook.com/anggos/posts/2897304916966789?__tn__=K-RH-R)
January 5 at 8:00 PM



It is difficult to frame a response to some of the Prime Ministers’ statements in the last few days.

We are now beyond the usual social media argy-bargy.

As I write this, I am conscious that people’s lives are still at risk and that many grieve the loss of loved ones, livelihoods and property. Lives have been changed forever. I am also conscious of the incredibly courageous men and women who continue to risk their own lives to save others. We owe them a debt that can never be repaid. It is never too soon however to think about the sociological mechanisms that have led us to this catastrophic reality.

Our journey begins with coal fired power and the industrial revolution. This moved millions of people out of poverty, but the early industrialists and their beneficiaries could never have imagined the ultimate and catastrophic consequences of this technology. Polluting the atmosphere was only half the problem, however. The other half was the ultimate concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few.

By the early 20th century, scientists were warning of the devastating effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Henry Ford was intending to develop an electric engine for his cars, but Getty Oil pressured the government of the day to encourage the evolution of the internal combustion engine so that he could sell more oil. Here we see writ large something that had been in quiet progression for over a century; the political and social influence of the oligarch.

This is how we have arrived at the situation we find ourselves in today. This is why Australia is burning. The oligarchs have discovered how to get ordinary people to make decisions that are in the interests of the wealthy few. The recent election is a classic case in point. Millions of people who will never benefit from franking credits voted to keep them for the small number of rich retirees.

One oligarch in particular, Rupert Murdoch, is arguably now the most powerful man who has ever lived. He clearly dictates government policy in much of the western world. Politicians openly lie for him and are absolved of corruption and unconscionable behaviour by the spin in News Corp publications. Murdoch is, without any doubt, the most dangerous animal on the planet today, capable of causing death and destruction in biblical proportions with impunity.

The climate change denialism that he demands from his minions continues to contribute to environmental catastrophes that we see unfolding at an alarming rate in Australia today. The question remains; when will we stop making decisions that benefit the wealthy few, and start choosing the common good?

Until we do that, the world will continue to burn.

Given that the majority of the world’s human inhabitants ascribe to some manifestation of religion, and given that, almost without exception, those religions have in their essence the concept of the common good, it is difficult to understand how we have found ourselves in this predicament.

There are those of course that will argue that religion is the cause of all the world’s ills. This is a superficial argument that fails to recognise the way power manipulates all forms of human society.

Others may point to the overt religiosity of our own Prime Minister, clearly one of Murdoch’s minions. I am reminded that Jesus had some stern words for such outwardly religious people. “Hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs—beautiful on the outside but filled on the inside with dead people’s bones and all sorts of impurity”. (Matthew 23:27)

I am also reminded of the powerful story of the Prophet Nathan’s rebuke of King David. (2 Samuel 12). Nathan tells David the story of a rich man who takes a poor man’s lamb to feed the guests at his banquet. The hypocritical David is enraged at the story and declares that such a man must be punished. Nathan’s chilling retort to David is, “You are the man”.

There is a powerful voice that can cut through the lies, spin and propaganda that now, in every moment of our lives, manipulates us into putting the wants of the powerful before the needs of the common good. That is the prophetic voice of the world’s ancient traditions, as they provide us with a common, clear, unambiguous voice of truth. The necessity of the voice of First Nations people cannot be overstated in this dynamic.

This voice is, as it ever has been, in the midst of the people. The oligarch’s minions know this, and they are afraid of it. That is why we are encouraged to be “quiet Australians” and to remain “optimistic”. This is why we are encouraged to believe the oligarch’s publications are the voice of the people, that they speak for us.

They do not.

We must revisit our ancient wisdom and rediscover how to recognise and speak truth.

It is then and only then that our grandchildren will have a future.

Fr Rod Bower.

antichrist
07-01-2020, 11:40 PM
Well you tell your mate Fr Rod that we have two religious people here but that they don't look at it through God's eyes. One, Capa Fan, is a literalist therefore because environmentalism is not advocated in the Bible then it must be a sin. The other one does not agree with me that we should protect all the species (that is from CC) because they are creations of the Lord and thus unique. I thought it was a lay-down open misere hand. But it was like casting pearls to swine. God does not appeal to the godly around here. I thought I was giving a good Sunday School topic to the second guy but to no avail.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2020, 10:01 AM
'Illegally' clearing his property cost him $100k in fines. But when the Black Saturday fires killed 173, his family and home survived while his neighbours died—
so LIAM SHEAHAN asks, why can't we control our own homes? (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7678955/Black-Saturday-survivor-fined-cutting-trees-supports-hazard-reduction.html)


Liam Sheahan was fined $50,000 by his local council for illegally clearing trees
His decision was vindicated when his house remained after Black Saturday fires
Every other home at Strath Creek, in central Victoria, was destroyed in the blaze
Mr Sheahan, 64, believes property owners should be allowed to clear their land
As fires rage in NSW, politicians refuse to discuss if preparations were adequate


By JOSH HANRAHAN FOR DAILY MAIL AUSTRALIA, 14 November 2019

With a dangerously hot summer forecast, debate has turned to whether more hazard reduction efforts and back burning could have lessened the impact of the blazes.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison and NSW Premier Gladys Berejiklian have both refused to be drawn into the debate, saying now it is not the time for politics. [But evidently it's time for Green politics, which always demand more money from the people while restricting their freedoms—C-F]

'That's what they always say', claims Mr Sheahan, who believes it is the perfect time to discuss the policies on organised burns, before the consequences are once again forgotten.

'I think it's a combination of ideology and ignorance. You need three things for a fire: heat, oxygen and fuel,' he said.

'Now, we can't do much about the heat and we can't do much about the oxygen, so the only thing we have control over is the fuel.

'There's people who seriously believe organised burns are bad, but in Australia we've got really good fire services and they've only gotten better over the years.

'It's not like they come in and light a match and just let it burn down the whole forest.

'Animals aren't stupid, they don't just sit there and think "ah well, I'm going to fry to death"... they get out of there.

'But when a catastrophic fire happens like those we've seen recently the animals do burn to death and all the vegetation gets completely destroyed anyway.'

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2020, 10:12 AM
Well you tell your mate Fr Rod that we have two religious people here but that they don't look at it through God's eyes.
What would you know?


One, Capa Fan, is a literalist therefore because environmentalism is not advocated in the Bible then it must be a sin.
Not true; the Bible advocates responsible stewardship—the right balance between raping the environment (that was rife in atheopathic communist countries) and placing it above humans. I wrote about this many years ago: Earth Day: Is Christianity to blame for environment problems? (https://creation.com/earth-day-is-christianity-to-blame-for-environment-problems)


The other one does not agree with me that we should protect all the species (that is from CC) because they are creations of the Lord and thus unique.
Who says all of today's species were direct creations, as opposed to being the result of speciation from comparatively few created kinds? For example, I see nothing good coming from killing hybrids as some species-preservers advocate, because they indicate that the two species are the same created kind.

You don't have to agree, but at least try to study what you're criticising. Creationists before and after Darwin rejected your straw man of fixity of species (https://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2#Evolution_bait-and-switch). This was actually the teaching of Darwin's mentor Lyell, and the foil for many of Darwin's arguments in Origin of Species.


I thought I was giving a good Sunday School topic to the second guy but to no avail.
We have already established that you know next to nothing about Sunday school material, science, or the real history of the middle ages as opposed to the discredited 19th-century myths of Draper and White.

Patrick Byrom
08-01-2020, 10:19 AM
'Illegally' clearing his property cost him $100k in fines. But when the Black Saturday fires killed 173, his family and home survived while his neighbours died— so LIAM SHEAHAN asks, why can't we control our own homes? (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7678955/Black-Saturday-survivor-fined-cutting-trees-supports-hazard-reduction.html) ... So no evidence that 'greenies' are preventing hazard reduction burns. And no evidence that there have been insufficient hazard reduction burns. While fire experts have repeatedly said that this isn't the main problem, all you have is an anecdote. Listening to anecdotes, instead of relying on experts, is why we were not prepared for this summer.

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2020, 10:28 AM
Are hazard reduction burns effective in managing bushfires? The answer is complicated (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-20/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfires/11817336)
RMIT ABC Fact Check
Updated 20 Dec 2019

How effective are prescribed burns?
A plethora of scientific papers describe hazard reduction burns as the easiest and most effective tool of bushfire management — more effective than slashing, weeding, herbicide use and so forth.

Professor Bradstock told Fact Check this was because of its wide reach and comparatively low cost.

"You can treat [through burning] relatively large areas with costs around $100 a hectare in terms of operational costs; so you might be able to burn out 2000 hectares in a day or two, relatively cheaply," he said.

"If you were to go in there and try and mechanically treat that, you wouldn't be able to do it."

Burning has been found to be even more effective in areas adjacent to houses or within a so-called Bushland Urban Interface Zone, also known as the wildland-urban interface, despite the higher cost, which can range from $1000 to $10,000 per hectare.

"[E]ven then, it's still probably cheaper than mechanical work," Professor Bradstock told Fact Check.

A 2018 research article published by the CSIRO indicated that "intensifying prescribed burning treatments in public land in the [wild-urban interface] achieves a greater reduction in damages compared with applying the majority of the treatments in rural areas.

"However, prescribed burning in the WUI is significantly more expensive and, despite additional benefits gained from this strategy, in most cases it is not the most economically efficient strategy."

But research has also found that prescribed burning as a bushfire management tool is not a panacea.

A 2015 research paper exploring variations in the effectiveness of prescribed burns in south-eastern Australia found that the inconsistency was due to biogeographical variation in fuel types, climatic influences and fire regimes.

"Prescribed burning solutions that are effective in one particular region may not be effective elsewhere unless there is strong similarity in vegetation types, fire weather, fuel accumulation and ignition rates.

"The most efficient use of prescribed fire is applying it to the immediate proximity of assets, where a resultant reduction in fire intensity can be of immediate benefit in terms of impacts on structures and ease of suppression."

As an example of the futility of some prescribed burns, Dr Penman pointed to the forest around Port Macquarie in northern NSW, which has been widely studied and found to have fuel vegetation that regenerates every three to five years.

"Any burn you undertake in those areas has a longevity of about three to five years," he said.

"You have to be burning a huge amount before you are actually reducing the risk at all."

In other areas where fuels accumulated more slowly, planned burns had a greater impact, he added.

"But it's never going to stop wildfires."

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2020, 10:37 AM
So no evidence that 'greenies' are preventing hazard reduction burns. And no evidence that there have been insufficient hazard reduction burns. While fire experts have repeatedly said that this isn't the main problem, all you have is an anecdote.
One that is concrete: a property owner fined by greenie councils for clearing trees on his own property, which meant no fuel for a future fire that burned his neighbours' homes.


Listening to anecdotes, instead of relying on experts, is why we were not prepared for this summer.
The only experts you listen to are those who push leftist solutions, i.e. more taxes and more regulations.

Patrick Byrom
08-01-2020, 10:54 AM
One that is concrete: a property owner fined by greenie councils for clearing trees on his own property, which meant no fuel for a future fire that burned his neighbours' homes.He claims that tree clearing protected his property. Does he have supporting evidence? And it's not the lack of fuel that may have protected him, but the absence of trees near his property.


The only experts you listen to are those who push leftist solutions, i.e. more taxes and more regulations.Like the New South Wales Rural Fire Service boss Shane Fitzsimmons, who has "shot down Barnaby Joyce's claim that 'green caveats' stopped his team from conducting hazard reduction burns, leading to the bushfire crisis" (New South Wales Rural Fire Service boss Shane Fitzsimmons has shot down Barnaby Joyce's claim that 'green caveats' stopped his team from conducting hazard reduction burns, leading to the bushfire crisis.)? He probably knows a lot more about the situation in NSW than a property owner in Victoria :P

Capablanca-Fan
08-01-2020, 10:56 AM
We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/weve-just-had-the-best-decade-in-human-history-seriously)
Little of this made the news, because good news is no news
Matt Ridley, Spectator, 21 December 2019

Let nobody tell you that the second decade of the 21st century has been a bad time. We are living through the greatest improvement in human living standards in history. Extreme poverty has fallen below 10 per cent of the world’s population for the first time. It was 60 per cent when I was born. Global inequality has been plunging as Africa and Asia experience faster economic growth than Europe and North America; child mortality has fallen to record low levels; famine virtually went extinct; malaria, polio and heart disease are all in decline.

Little of this made the news, because good news is no news. But I’ve been watching it all closely. Ever since I wrote The Rational Optimist in 2010, I’ve been faced with ‘what about…’ questions: what about the great recession, the euro crisis, Syria, Ukraine, Donald Trump? How can I possibly say that things are getting better, given all that? The answer is: because bad things happen while the world still gets better. Yet get better it does, and it has done so over the course of this decade at a rate that has astonished even starry-eyed me.

Perhaps one of the least fashionable predictions I made nine years ago was that ‘the ecological footprint of human activity is probably shrinking’ and ‘we are getting more sustainable, not less, in the way we use the planet’. That is to say: our population and economy would grow, but we’d learn how to reduce what we take from the planet. And so it has proved. An MIT scientist, Andrew McAfee, recently documented this in a book called More from Less, showing how some nations are beginning to use less stuff: less metal, less water, less land. Not just in proportion to productivity: less stuff overall.

A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress.

As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction.

Patrick Byrom
08-01-2020, 12:57 PM
We’ve just had the best decade in human history. Seriously (https://www.spectator.co.uk/2019/12/weve-just-had-the-best-decade-in-human-history-seriously) Little of this made the news, because good news is no news Matt Ridley, Spectator, 21 December 2019 ...

A modern irony is that many green policies advocated now would actually reverse the trend towards using less stuff. A wind farm requires far more concrete and steel than an equivalent system based on gas. Environmental opposition to nuclear power has hindered the generating system that needs the least land, least fuel and least steel or concrete per megawatt. Burning wood instead of coal in power stations means the exploitation of more land, the eviction of more woodpeckers — and even higher emissions. Organic farming uses more land than conventional. Technology has put us on a path to a cleaner, greener planet. We don’t need to veer off in a new direction. If we do, we risk retarding progress. As we enter the third decade of this century, I’ll make a prediction: by the end of it, we will see less poverty, less child mortality, less land devoted to agriculture in the world. There will be more tigers, whales, forests and nature reserves. Britons will be richer, and each of us will use fewer resources. The global political future may be uncertain, but the environmental and technological trends are pretty clear — and pointing in the right direction.Ridley is another non-believer in the laws of physics, unfortunately. The last time he made such rosy predictions (when he was in charge of Northern Rock (https://theecologist.org/2018/nov/05/matt-ridley-would-turn-planet-northern-rock)) they didn't turn out so well for those who believed him :(

Ian Murray
08-01-2020, 07:49 PM
Here comes the sun (https://insidestory.org.au/here-comes-the-sun/)

Amid almost daily complaints from industry about skyrocketing electricity costs, out drops an announcement so counter to the dominant flow of news that it seems beyond belief. Yet there it is in the business pages: Australian software billionaire Mike Cannon-Brookes and iron ore billionaire Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest are backing a project that will aim to supply a fifth of Singapore’s electricity needs — all of it from solar power — via a 3750 kilometre underwater cable from the Northern Territory.

The proposed solar farm, near Tennant Creek, would be the world’s biggest by a comfortable margin. It would stretch as far as the eye can see across an area equal to more than 20,000 soccer fields.

Despite Cannon-Brookes’s self-deprecating description of the project as “batshit insane,” it might actually make technical and economic sense. And it’s not the only mega-renewable energy project being pursued by credible Australian companies with the aim of powering the many hundreds of millions of people living to the north of us.

The scheme is a long way from a done deal, of course. Its commercial and technical challenges are enormous, and with a $20 billion price tag it would be one of Australia’s largest-ever construction projects. ...

Desmond
08-01-2020, 11:09 PM
Scomo (https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Scomo) (N)


1. A person in charge who leaves things to others when a difficult or emergency situation arises.

Shit was going really tits up at work this week so I Scomo’d off to a tropical island for some R&R and let someone else sort it out.
#scomo#scomod


2. A person who lacks leadership, accepts no responsibility, and takes credit for other people's work.

Nickname of the Prime Minister of Australia Scott Morrison.
It was a total Scomo: we dropped the ball, denied the problem, had no plan, cut the budgets, and stood in the way; but then we grabbed the credit for "getting it done". "SCOMO!"


3. A person who has set aside the needs of the people they have been elected to represent in order to pursue personal religious convictions and political aspirations.

“Hey mate, do you remember that time you, a self-reported Christian, set up illegal prisons to detain human beings seeking political refuge, thereby committing human rights abuses, and then sold it as ‘protecting borders’? That was such a ScoMo move, dude.”
...

Capablanca-Fan
09-01-2020, 07:28 AM
Ridley is another non-believer in the laws of physics, unfortunately.
Ridley is a real scientist with a doctorate in zoology.


The last time he made such rosy predictions (when he was in charge of Northern Rock (https://theecologist.org/2018/nov/05/matt-ridley-would-turn-planet-northern-rock)) they didn't turn out so well for those who believed him :(
So when are your ilk held accountable for all the false doom predictions for at least the last 50 years? Some of the most notorious were by Paul R. Ehrlich, such as mass famines in the 1970s and '80s, and shortages of essential metals, and that England probably would not exist by 2000. But he is still a hero to the Greenies (or as leftist environmental extremists would put it, ‘Greenies’ in scare quotes). Now of course, population is far higher and poverty is at an all-time low. In 2008, alGore predicted that the north polar ice cap would be gone in five years (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16/ten-years-ago-algore-predicted-the-north-polar-ice-cap-would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/); it's still here after over twice that. Polar bear populations are not doomed as he claimed, but thriving (https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/04/10/fat-healthy-polar-bears-prompts-gore-to-abandon-use-as-a-global-warming-icon-new-book-excerpt/). And if you want to discuss bad Greenie investments, try Solyndra for a start that cost taxpayers half a billion dollars.

Desmond
09-01-2020, 09:17 AM
Ridley is a real scientist with a doctorate in zoology.


So when are your ilk held accountable for all the false doom predictions for at least the last 50 years? Some of the most notorious were by Paul R. Ehrlich, such as mass famines in the 1970s and '80s, and shortages of essential metals, and that England probably would not exist by 2000. But he is still a hero to the Greenies (or as leftist environmental extremists would put it, ‘Greenies’ in scare quotes). Now of course, population is far higher and poverty is at an all-time low. In 2008, alGore predicted that the north polar ice cap would be gone in five years (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16/ten-years-ago-algore-predicted-the-north-polar-ice-cap-would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/); it's still here after over twice that. Polar bear populations are not doomed as he claimed, but thriving (https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/04/10/fat-healthy-polar-bears-prompts-gore-to-abandon-use-as-a-global-warming-icon-new-book-excerpt/). And if you want to discuss bad Greenie investments, try Solyndra for a start that cost taxpayers half a billion dollars.

Nice strawman. Gore's predictions are not science.

You could try responding to the predictions previously documented for you. Your climate deniers' track record speaks for iteslf:


You mean, such as Lindzen, Michaels, Easterbrook, and Akasofu?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=71&v=wJoMp-k_H3w

MichaelBaron
09-01-2020, 12:46 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/andrew-forrest-pledges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654?fbclid=IwAR1eB94MVp5sFpQl7OgbBNKsIn3MtHjw 7B6pjcCovDPcgfTzBt5E-6zhllg
Evil Capitalist chips-in. The mining industry/people contributions should not be underrated.

Ian Murray
09-01-2020, 01:04 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/andrew-forrest-pledges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654?fbclid=IwAR1eB94MVp5sFpQl7OgbBNKsIn3MtHjw 7B6pjcCovDPcgfTzBt5E-6zhllg
Evil Capitalist chips-in. The mining industry/people contributions should not be underrated.

Make that https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/andrew-forrest-pledges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654

Twiggy Forrest is a philanthropist and renewable energy investor - see Post #5800

Patrick Byrom
09-01-2020, 01:07 PM
... The mining industry/people contributions should not be underrated.... For their ability to distract attention from their contribution to global heating :(

Patrick Byrom
09-01-2020, 01:25 PM
Ridley is a real scientist with a doctorate in zoology.So what - that doesn't mean that he accepts the laws of physics. For example, he has obviously never heard of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past):

"Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour"
Here Ridley is again quite wrong. We know that water vapour (as a greenhouse gas) will amplify global warming because a warmer atmosphere can hold more of it. Observations have confirmed this is exactly what’s happening in the real world. This isn’t an assumption of models – it’s based on scientists’ understanding of basic atmospheric physics.



So when are your ilk held accountable for all the false doom predictions for at least the last 50 years? Some of the most notorious were by Paul R. Ehrlich, such as mass famines in the 1970s and '80s, and shortages of essential metals, and that England probably would not exist by 2000. But he is still a hero to the Greenies (or as leftist environmental extremists would put it, ‘Greenies’ in scare quotes). Now of course, population is far higher and poverty is at an all-time low. In 2008, alGore predicted that the north polar ice cap would be gone in five years (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/12/16/ten-years-ago-algore-predicted-the-north-polar-ice-cap-would-be-gone-inconveniently-its-still-there/); it's still here after over twice that. Polar bear populations are not doomed as he claimed, but thriving (https://www.climatedepot.com/2018/04/10/fat-healthy-polar-bears-prompts-gore-to-abandon-use-as-a-global-warming-icon-new-book-excerpt/). And if you want to discuss bad Greenie investments, try Solyndra for a start that cost taxpayers half a billion dollars.Gore did mot make that prediction about the ice cap - I've refuted that at least twice already here!

And while Matt Ridley was directly responsible for Northern Rock, climate scientists are not responsible for what Paul Ehrlich said decades ago, or what Al Gore says, or Solyndra. It's yet another Gish Gallop to avoid dealing with the fact that predictions by climate scientists are being confirmed in the real world.

MichaelBaron
09-01-2020, 02:00 PM
... For their ability to distract attention from their contribution to global heating :(

Hopefully u are not considering rejecting the money...

Patrick Byrom
09-01-2020, 02:51 PM
Hopefully u are not considering rejecting the money...Forrest's money wouldn't be a problem. But I suspect that other mining companies are trying to deflect criticism - I'd still accept their money, but keep in mind that they may have ulterior motives.

Ian Murray
09-01-2020, 05:14 PM
Forrest's money wouldn't be a problem. But I suspect that other mining companies are trying to deflect criticism - I'd still accept their money, but keep in mind that they may have ulterior motives.

Forrests's Fortescue Metals is an iron ore miner, not a coal miner.

ER
09-01-2020, 05:28 PM
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-09/andrew-forrest-pledges-$70m-donation-to-bushfire-relief/11854654?fbclid=IwAR1eB94MVp5sFpQl7OgbBNKsIn3MtHjw 7B6pjcCovDPcgfTzBt5E-6zhllg
Evil Capitalist chips-in. The mining industry/people contributions should not be underrated.

As long as the contributions are directed to the right hands ie Govt, Red Cross, Salvos etc and don't end up to finance XRstinker propaganda!

Patrick Byrom
09-01-2020, 08:01 PM
Forrests's Fortescue Metals is an iron ore miner, not a coal miner.Fair point. And I'm sure that his motives are good and the money will be used well. But Kristina Keneally made a good general point (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/24/twiggy-forrests-philanthropy-is-great-but-he-could-have-just-paid-more-tax) about this sort of donation: "Philanthropy from wealthy individuals is many things: generous, inspiring, and selfless. But it is also inherently undemocratic. It vests massive power in the hands of the giver to determine how much money is available and what causes merit support."

I want to see a lot more spending by governments to prevent future bushfires, especially the Federal government. But not on the arsonists that Forrest was mainly blaming for the fires, despite the lack of evidence.

Ian Murray
09-01-2020, 08:37 PM
... But not on the arsonists that Forrest was mainly blaming for the fires, despite the lack of evidence.

The article quoted him as saying:


He said while arson had been suspected in some of the fires, he was "unequivocal" in his belief that the bushfires were primarily linked to climate change.

"Arson may be responsible for starting fires in some cases, but it is not the reason the fires have reached the proportions they have through this season and it is not the reason they have continued for so long."

So not mainly blaming 'em

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2020, 01:53 AM
Fair point. And I'm sure that his motives are good and the money will be used well. But Kristina Keneally made a good general point (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/may/24/twiggy-forrests-philanthropy-is-great-but-he-could-have-just-paid-more-tax) about this sort of donation: "Philanthropy from wealthy individuals is many things: generous, inspiring, and selfless. But it is also inherently undemocratic. It vests massive power in the hands of the giver to determine how much money is available and what causes merit support."
But at least they give their own money, not taxpayers. I fail to see why philanthropic giving is bad while political giving for favours is good. As Milton Friedman asked decades ago, why is economic self-interest bad while political self-interest good? There is also no evidence that bureaucrats can spend money better than philanthropists. Philanthropists want to see some return on their giving, while bureaucrats are just happy if their bureaucracy can expand.


I want to see a lot more spending by governments to prevent future bushfires, especially the Federal government. But not on the arsonists that Forrest was mainly blaming for the fires, despite the lack of evidence.
There is evidence for arsonists. Some have been arrested.

There is also evidence that locking up forests and calling them "national parks" has prevented judicious logging, access roads, and clearing underbrush.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2020, 02:16 AM
So what — that doesn't mean that he accepts the laws of physics. For example, he has obviously never heard of the Clausius–Clapeyron equation (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/jan/21/matt-ridley-wants-to-gamble-earths-future-because-wont-learn-from-past):
Do you think that Greta Thunberg or alGore have? Most people on this site would not have heard of this. It's something learned in undergrad physical chemistry courses for the general case, and probably meteorology courses for the case in point


"Also, I soon realised that all the mathematical models predicting rapid warming assume big amplifying feedbacks in the atmosphere, mainly from water vapour"
Here Ridley is again quite wrong. We know that water vapour (as a greenhouse gas) will amplify global warming because a warmer atmosphere can hold more of it. Observations have confirmed this is exactly what’s happening in the real world. This isn’t an assumption of models – it’s based on scientists’ understanding of basic atmospheric physics.



Gore did not make that prediction about the ice cap — I've refuted that at least twice already here!
Even the leftist Snopes has a page Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/) It rates the claim as a mixture of true and false:


What's True
In the late 2000s, Al Gore made a series of high-profile statements suggesting the possibility that Arctic sea ice could be completely gone during the summer by around 2013 or 2014.

What's False
Gore did not himself make these predictions but said (in some cases erroneously) that others had, and he never referred to a year-long lack of ice for both poles but instead largely referenced Arctic sea ice in the summer.


And while Matt Ridley was directly responsible for Northern Rock,
No one here is.


climate scientists are not responsible for what Paul Ehrlich said decades ago, or what Al Gore says, or Solyndra.
The point was that environmental alarmists have been demanding coercive solutions for decades, and the Greens still listen to them despite being proved wrong many times. Solyndra was a good example of a bad green investment with taxpayer money.


It's yet another Gish Gallop to avoid dealing with the fact that predictions by climate scientists are being confirmed in the real world.
Even if you are right, these would be finally crying wolf about a real wolf after decades of crying when there was no wolf.

antichrist
10-01-2020, 07:00 AM
What would you know?


Not true; the Bible advocates responsible stewardship—the right balance between raping the environment (that was rife in atheopathic communist countries) and placing it above humans. I wrote about this many years ago: Earth Day: Is Christianity to blame for environment problems? (https://creation.com/earth-day-is-christianity-to-blame-for-environment-problems)


Who says all of today's species were direct creations, as opposed to being the result of speciation from comparatively few created kinds? For example, I see nothing good coming from killing hybrids as some species-preservers advocate, because they indicate that the two species are the same created kind.

You don't have to agree, but at least try to study what you're criticising. Creationists before and after Darwin rejected your straw man of fixity of species (https://creation.com/cosmos-neil-degrasse-tyson-episode-2#Evolution_bait-and-switch). This was actually the teaching of Darwin's mentor Lyell, and the foil for many of Darwin's arguments in Origin of Species.


We have already established that you know next to nothing about Sunday school material, science, or the real history of the middle ages as opposed to the discredited 19th-century myths of Draper and White.

If the latter species evolved then why couldn't the earlier species also evolve? Why cannot humans also be a subspecies and therefore not a direct creation? The DNA you rely on to categorize subspecies also tells us that humans are a subspecies.

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2020, 11:52 AM
Do you think that Greta Thunberg or alGore have? Most people on this site would not have heard of this. It's something learned in undergrad physical chemistry courses for the general case, and probably meteorology courses for the case in pointBut Ridley rejects the basic physics implied in that equation. Do Thunberg or Gore?


Even the leftist Snopes has a page Did Al Gore Predict Earth’s Ice Caps Would Melt by 2014? (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ice-caps-melt-gore-2014/) It rates the claim as a mixture of true and false: ... So the claim is almost entirely false - as I said. But who cares if the ice cap is gone by 2015, or by 2035? Gore was completely correct when he said that it was melting - which is a proof of global heating.


The point was that environmental alarmists have been demanding coercive solutions for decades, and the Greens still listen to them despite being proved wrong many times. Solyndra was a good example of a bad green investment with taxpayer money.Who cares what "environmental alarmists" say? The scientists in the BOM and CSIRO are saying that we need to reduce greenhouse gases to prevent worse droughts and bushfires.


Even if you are right, these would be finally crying wolf about a real wolf after decades of crying when there was no wolf.Are you claiming that the BOM has previously 'cried wolf'? When? Like all deniers, you are unable to deal with the actual science, so you attack Gore and Thunberg instead.

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2020, 12:11 PM
But at least they give their own money, not taxpayers. I fail to see why philanthropic giving is bad while political giving for favours is good. As Milton Friedman asked decades ago, why is economic self-interest bad while political self-interest good? There is also no evidence that bureaucrats can spend money better than philanthropists. Philanthropists want to see some return on their giving, while bureaucrats are just happy if their bureaucracy can expand.Where did I mention political donations? My point is that philanthropy is no replacement for government spending. We decide how our government spends money, and what it spends it on.


There is evidence for arsonists. Some have been arrested.Of course there are arsonists, but most of the fires weren't started by them. Even Forrest has acknowledged that they are not the main problem.


There is also evidence that locking up forests and calling them "national parks" has prevented judicious logging, access roads, and clearing underbrush.There are claims, but no evidence. And if this is the main issue, why wasn't there a fire catastrophe in 2017 or 2018? What changed is that there was a massive drought caused by global heating. This is the main factor.

The drought and fire danger was predicted by climate scientists months, and even years, before it happened. And their predictions have been confirmed. Nobody (that I'm aware of) predicted that there would be terrible fires in 2019 because of arsonists or lack of forest clearing.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2020, 01:28 PM
Where did I mention political donations? My point is that philanthropy is no replacement for government spending. We decide how our government spends money, and what it spends it on.
Oh really? You have heard of politicians buying votes, concentrated benefits vs diffused costs, and public choice theory in general?


The drought and fire danger was predicted by climate scientists months, and even years, before it happened. And their predictions have been confirmed. Nobody (that I'm aware of) predicted that there would be terrible fires in 2019 because of arsonists or lack of forest clearing.
And so has the next sharemarket crash, months and even years before it happens.

Capablanca-Fan
10-01-2020, 01:32 PM
Celebrities, activists using Australia bushfire crisis to push dangerous climate change myth (https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/celebrities-activists-using-australia-bushfire-crisis-to-push-dangerous-climate-change-myth-devine)
By Miranda Devine, 8 Jan 2020

I’m sorry, but I lived in Australia through the past two decades of escalating fire crises and it’s not climate change that has caused today’s disaster, but the criminal negligence of governments that have tried to buy green votes by locking up vast tracts of land as national parks, yet failed to spend the money needed to control ground fuel and maintain fire trails.

Instead, they bowed to an ideology that obstructs necessary hazard reduction and prevents landowners from clearing vegetation around their own properties, all in thrall to the god of “biodiversity.”

How’s that biodiversity now on incinerated land sterilized of all life forms?

I’ve interviewed local volunteer firefighters who bitterly recounted the bureaucratic obstruction they faced in performing prescribed burns in the offseason to prevent uncontrollable summer conflagrations.

One of my guides was Australia’s foremost bushfire researcher, Dr. Phil Cheney, who has spent 30 years trying to convince authorities that if ground fuel is reduced in a scientific, systematic fashion every year, fire intensity is reduced to a manageable level, no matter what the weather conditions. A quadrupling of ground fuel means a 13-fold increase in the heat generated by a fire. Hazard reduction won’t prevent fire but it will reduce its intensity so that it can be controlled.

So whether or not you believe the most dire predictions of climate alarmists makes no difference. We can’t dial down the Earth’s temperature any more than we can lock up every teenage arsonist.

The only practical way to prevent unmanageable fires is to reduce the one variable we control: ground fuel.

“Climate change has not caused the current fire crisis,” says Australian Capital Territory forester and former acting fire control officer Ian McArthur.

“Long unburnt fuels in national parks are the primary cause. Basic fire management states that a fire needs oxygen, a heat source, and fuel. The only one of those that can be manipulated is fuel. The more fuel, the more intense the fire, the harder it becomes to suppress the fire.”

Anecdotes illustrate the problem.

Last September, protesters in East Gipps*land in the state of Victoria stopped a hazard-reduction burn that they said was “killing baby birds alive.”

“I’m more worried about climate change,” one protesting grandmother told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As a result, the hazard reduction was reduced to 3 percent of the area planned. Two months later, East Gippsland was burned out.

Punishment for unauthorized hazard reduction has been brutal. For instance, when electricity authority TransGrid in 2001 cleared a 200-foot-wide firebreak to protect high-voltage lines that ran through rugged bushland near the national capital of Canberra, the authority was sued by four government agencies and fined $1 million. A year later, when a calamitous fire swept the Snowy Mountains in New South Wales, TransGrid’s firebreak was the only safe haven for kangaroos, wallabies and three forest workers.

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2020, 02:24 PM
And so has the next sharemarket crash, months and even years before it happens.I wonder how many times I have to post this (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-11/carol-sparks-climate-change-federal-government-claire-pontin/11691444) before Capablanca-Fan actually reads it:


Mr Mullins and 22 other former emergency chiefs wrote a letter to Mr Morrison earlier this year predicting a bushfire crisis and calling the Prime Minister to the table to come with an action plan. The meeting has not been held. "The numbers don't lie, and the science is clear," he wrote in an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Unprecedented dryness; reductions in long-term rainfall; low humidity; high temperatures; wind velocities; fire danger indices; fire spread and ferocity; instances of pyro-convective fires (fire storms — making their own weather); early starts and late finishes to bushfire seasons. An established long-term trend driven by a warming, drying climate," he wrote.

I've already posted the BOM predictions, but I see I'll have to keep doing it :(

Patrick Byrom
10-01-2020, 02:32 PM
Celebrities, activists using Australia bushfire crisis to push dangerous climate change myth (https://nypost.com/2020/01/08/celebrities-activists-using-australia-bushfire-crisis-to-push-dangerous-climate-change-myth-devine) By Miranda Devine, 8 Jan 2020 … So why was this bushfire season so much worse than previous ones? You and Devine don't have an answer, do you? But I do - drought caused by climate change, and predicted by climate scientists.

EDIT: Here's my post from several months ago:


... On the other hand, the Australian BOM considers that global heating is part of the problem (http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/updates/articles/a010-southern-rainfall-decline.shtml):

While natural rainfall variability in Australia is large, and influenced strongly by the El Niño-Southern Oscillation, based on current research it seems likely that drying across southern Australia cannot be explained by natural variability alone. A shift in atmospheric circulation characterised by a contraction of mid-latitude storm tracks towards higher southern latitudes, and movement of the subtropical and polar jetstreams, has very likely contributed to the cool season rainfall declines in southern Australia. A contraction of these weather systems toward the pole is at least partly explainable by anthropogenic warming and potentially also contributed to by anthropogenic reductions in stratospheric ozone. Global warming also reduces the temperature gradient between the equator and pole, reducing the energy available to mid-latitude weather systems (see the Climate Change in Australia website and Technical Report (PDF) for more information).
That article is from 2015, but its concerns seem to have been valid.

antichrist
10-01-2020, 02:51 PM
In about 40 years Devine has never been a serious reporter or columnist. You are scrapping the bottom if you have to rely on her.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2020, 01:26 AM
In about 40 years Devine has never been a serious reporter or columnist. You are scrapping the bottom if you have to rely on her.

What nonsense. She is one who doesn't toe the hard-left unthinking Left-Green party line.

The watermelons on this site have asked for evidence that greenies oppose reasonable fuel reduction policies. Her article provides that. This would do far more good than crippling our economy without making a measurable difference to atmospheric CO₂. I also notice that Saint Greta never whinges about the increasing coal-powered plants in China and India, which arguably do make a real difference.

Capablanca-Fan
11-01-2020, 01:29 AM
I wonder how many times I have to post this (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-11/carol-sparks-climate-change-federal-government-claire-pontin/11691444) before Capablanca-Fan actually reads it:


Mr Mullins and 22 other former emergency chiefs wrote a letter to Mr Morrison earlier this year predicting a bushfire crisis and calling the Prime Minister to the table to come with an action plan. The meeting has not been held. "The numbers don't lie, and the science is clear," he wrote in an opinion piece in the Sydney Morning Herald.

"Unprecedented dryness; reductions in long-term rainfall; low humidity; high temperatures; wind velocities; fire danger indices; fire spread and ferocity; instances of pyro-convective fires (fire storms — making their own weather); early starts and late finishes to bushfire seasons. An established long-term trend driven by a warming, drying climate," he wrote.

I've already posted the BOM predictions, but I see I'll have to keep doing it :(
Who says I haven't read it? But these people really want watermelon policies from the federal and state governments that will make no measurable difference, while opposing the things we could do NOW to ameliorate fire danger.

Similarly, there are soi-disant market forecasters who will eventually be right when they predict a sharemarket crash.

She explained, citing fire experts: long build up of fuel over the years, while persecuting power companies that cut firebreaks and fining home owners who clear trees on their own properties, which proved to be lifesavers. Fires need fuel, and these policies reduce fuel. Do you ignore the basic laws of thermochemistry: a fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat; the only thing we can control right now is fuel.

antichrist
11-01-2020, 07:09 AM
Who says I haven't read it? But these people really want watermelon policies from the federal and state governments that will make no measurable difference, while opposing the things we could do NOW to ameliorate fire danger.

Similarly, there are soi-disant market forecasters who will eventually be right when they predict a sharemarket crash.

She explained, citing fire experts: long build up of fuel over the years, while persecuting power companies that cut firebreaks and fining home owners who clear trees on their own properties, which proved to be lifesavers. Fires need fuel, and these policies reduce fuel. Do you ignore the basic laws of thermochemistry: a fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat; the only thing we can control right now is fuel.
What is wrong with water melon policy? They are full of water and can't ignite - I have worked on water melon farms at Yetman and there were certainly no bush fires there.

Desmond
11-01-2020, 08:57 AM
In about 40 years Devine has never been a serious reporter or columnist. You are scrapping the bottom if you have to rely on her.

https://i.redd.it/it247fkl7q941.png

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2020, 10:41 AM
Curiously, Miranda Devine has made the same mistake often made by opponents of clearfell-and-burn logging - asserting that burnt areas are "sterilized of all life forms". In general this is not true. Eucalypts are often not killed by fires but resprout after them. Many seeds lie dormant in the soil waiting to be triggered by fires. Invertebrates deep within large rotting logs, deep in the soil or deep in rockpiles often survive fires. Fires also rarely burn everything; within burnt areas there are often scattered patches of unburnt material within which life forms at least temporarily survive. Of course a lot depends on the severity of the fires and with some of these fires areas that would normally be refuges will have been eliminated.

antichrist
11-01-2020, 10:59 AM
https://i.redd.it/it247fkl7q941.png

They almost make my lack of scientific qualifications look good.

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2020, 12:09 PM
Who says I haven't read it? But these people really want watermelon policies from the federal and state governments that will make no measurable difference, while opposing the things we could do NOW to ameliorate fire danger.So you obviously haven't read it (as I suspected). Those fire experts were trying to warn the Morrison government about what was coming. They made many practical suggestions of how the Federal government could prepare, which were ignored.


Similarly, there are soi-disant market forecasters who will eventually be right when they predict a sharemarket crash.The BOM predictions of lower average rainfall and higher temperatures have repeatedly been proved correct.


She explained, citing fire experts: long build up of fuel over the years, while persecuting power companies that cut firebreaks and fining home owners who clear trees on their own properties, which proved to be lifesavers. Fires need fuel, and these policies reduce fuel. Do you ignore the basic laws of thermochemistry: a fire needs fuel, oxygen, and heat; the only thing we can control right now is fuel.But, as I said, if this is such a major issue, why is it only a problem now? She's ignoring the drought caused by climate change, as are you.

And the idea that fire services are not trying to reduce the fuel load is just nonsense. But the problem, once again, is the climate change related drought (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/11/factcheck-are-national-parks-locked-up-and-more-vulnerable-to-bushfires):

The NSW National Parks and Wildlife Service says it undertook 75% of all hazard reduction burning in the state over the past four years. This includes 137,500 ha of hazard reduction last year, with a five-year rolling average target of 135,000 ha. Hazard reduction burning is highly dependent on weather conditions. In 2019, the prolonged drought and heat has reduced the ability to safely carry out hazard reduction burns in some areas. The window in which to safely conduct this kind of fuel management is narrowing because of the effects of climate change.

In Victoria, Hardman says, “we planned to burn 246,396 hectares of public land in 2019, but were unable to do so because it would have been unsafe”. He says, based on advice from emergency services agencies and communities, and taking into account the longer bushfire season, fuel reduction was carried out across 142,078 hectares of public land.

Of course, no matter how much clearing is done, armchair experts like you and Devine will always argue, without evidence, that more clearing would have prevented the fires :doh:

Kevin Bonham
11-01-2020, 01:02 PM
Anecdotes illustrate the problem.

Last September, protesters in East Gipps*land in the state of Victoria stopped a hazard-reduction burn that they said was “killing baby birds alive.”

“I’m more worried about climate change,” one protesting grandmother told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. As a result, the hazard reduction was reduced to 3 percent of the area planned. Two months later, East Gippsland was burned out.

I was interested in this anecdote mainly to see whether the protesters were actually greenies or whether they were NIMBYs using the bird issue as a pretext.

I found this Joanne Nova post with details of the location and a photo of protesters (all two of them) http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-deleting-facebook-posts-on-how-protesters-stop-prescribed-burns-more-worried-about-climate-change-than-wildfires/ However in comments it is shown that the Gippsland Environment Group objected to the burns.

However, this also gave me the location of the scaled-back (not stopped) burn. It is in an area not yet burned by the fires according to Vic emergency fire mapping which shows the fire edge a few kilometres away from Nelson Road.

Patrick Byrom
11-01-2020, 01:52 PM
I was interested in this anecdote mainly to see whether the protesters were actually greenies or whether they were NIMBYs using the bird issue as a pretext. I found this Joanne Nova post with details of the location and a photo of protesters (all two of them) http://joannenova.com.au/2020/01/abc-deleting-facebook-posts-on-how-protesters-stop-prescribed-burns-more-worried-about-climate-change-than-wildfires/ However in comments it is shown that the Gippsland Environment Group objected to the burns. However, this also gave me the location of the scaled-back (not stopped) burn. It is in an area not yet burned by the fires according to Vic emergency fire mapping which shows the fire edge a few kilometres away from Nelson Road.A good bit of research. Devine's anecdotes, even if the facts are all true, contain a lot of assumptions about cause and effect. In this case, it's not clear whether the protests actually had any effect on the amount burnt. Burns are often reduced because they're just not safe.

MichaelBaron
12-01-2020, 01:38 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/extinction-rebellion-listed-as-extremist-by-anti-terror-police/ar-BBYR20u?ocid=spartandhp
Extinsion Rebellion listed as extremist!

ER
12-01-2020, 06:57 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/extinction-rebellion-listed-as-extremist-by-anti-terror-police/ar-BBYR20u?ocid=spartandhp
Extinsion Rebellion listed as extremist!

unfortunately that's not the case Michael!


Detective Chief Superintendent Kath Barnes, the head of CTPSE, said: "I would like to make it quite clear that we do not classify Extinction Rebellion as an extremist organisation.
"The inclusion of Extinction Rebellion in this document was an error of judgement and we will now be reviewing all of the contents as a result."

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 07:23 AM
https://i.redd.it/it247fkl7q941.png

Ignores:


Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology.
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. biology
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.


But then, if you are going to produce such lists, then don't whinge when people criticise a Swedish teenager.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 08:02 AM
A promising new hybrid is the Hyundai Ioniq (https://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/ioniq-electric/2017/review/), which comes in an all-electric variety (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/Ioniq/index.aspx) too. The hybrid gets 58 mpg (4 litres per 100 km).

There is also a Hyundai Ioniq Electric (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/2020-ioniq-electric/)that apparently has a range of 170 miles has good reviews (https://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/ioniq-electric/2020/), available for $US31,500.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAExO5VUb_0

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 09:14 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/world/extinction-rebellion-listed-as-extremist-by-anti-terror-police/ar-BBYR20u?ocid=spartandhp
Extinsion Rebellion listed as extremist!

Just what you'd expect from a News Corp outlet. The headline and first couple of paras convey the clear impression that ER has been classified as extremist.

One has to read 'below the fold' (as MB didn't, of course) to learn that it was an error.

Desmond
12-01-2020, 09:18 AM
Ignores:


Ian Plimer, Professor of Geology.
Jennifer Marohasy, Ph.D. biology
Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.
Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.
Ignores "Most well known". For instance Alan jones has 60k facebook followers. Garth Paltridge isn't even on there. If you just want to create a list of qualified scientists, around 3% of them are in the climate denial camp.


But then, if you are going to produce such lists, then don't whinge when people criticise a Swedish teenager.If you don't have training/specialty in a certain area, then your provisional position should be to accept the position of 97% of the world's experts. As opposed to knuckle-draggers like Craig Kelly, who should be humble and listen to the experts, instead thinking he knows better.

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 09:25 AM
There is also a Hyundai Ioniq Electric (https://www.hyundaiusa.com/2020-ioniq-electric/)that apparently has a range of 170 miles has good reviews (https://www.edmunds.com/hyundai/ioniq-electric/2020/), available for $US31,500.


Hyundai makes nice motor cars. The Aust-published specs (https://www.caradvice.com.au/805909/2020-hyundai-ioniq-review/) for the 2020 Ioniq give the range as 311 Km (193 miles), at a price of $53K - $57K

MichaelBaron
12-01-2020, 09:25 AM
https://7news.com.au/sport/tennis/roger-federer-responds-to-climate-change-swipe-from-greta-thunberg-c-643812?fbclid=IwAR3wLyxwM0gb73G-8pjkh-4M6wf0OLp5mEeA24H08fSgdhN02606DizccHU

Attacking Roger and refusing the to pay fines for trespassing the Credit Sousse offices.
Curiously, Roger does believe in climate change or at least his PR officer suggested he ''should believe at least to a limited extent'' :).

I sometimes wonder if political activism is becoming the best shield from disengaging from productive activities and destroying officers, infrastructure etc instead.
If you enter private company's office and cause damage, should you pay?

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 09:34 AM
... As opposed to knuckle-draggers like Craig Kelly, who should be humble and listen to the experts, instead thinking he knows better.

Who started it all (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-am-so-qualified-meteorologist-responds-to-craig-kelly-s-insult-20200108-p53pnd.html) with his "ignorant Pommy weather girl" dismissal of a British TV broadcaster with physics and meteorology degrees.

Desmond
12-01-2020, 09:42 AM
Who started it all (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/i-am-so-qualified-meteorologist-responds-to-craig-kelly-s-insult-20200108-p53pnd.html) with his "ignorant Pommy weather girl" dismissal of a British TV broadcaster with physics and meteorology degrees.

Yes. Bit rich coming from a furniture salesman.

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 10:02 AM
Attacking Roger

Attacking his sponsorship deal with Credit Suisse, not attacking him


and refusing the to pay fines for trespassing the Credit Sousse offices.

Everyone has the right to refuse to pay a fine and elect to face trial instead. The protesters will be ably defended by pro-bono lawyers more than willing to defend the right to free speech


Curiously, Roger does believe in climate change or at least his PR officer suggested he ''should believe at least to a limited extent'' :).

Where did you find the quote from his PR officer? Or did you make it up? In Federer's own words:


“I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amid devastation from the bush fire,” Federer said.

“As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions.

“We owe it to them and ourselves to listen.

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 11:06 AM
Hyundai makes nice motor cars. The Aust-published specs (https://www.caradvice.com.au/805909/2020-hyundai-ioniq-review/) for the 2020 Ioniq give the range as 311 Km (193 miles), at a price of $53K - $57K

Yes, Hyundai is excellent value for money, and have a 5-year warranty. If hybrid and electric cars become affordable to most, probably Hyundai will have a lot to do with it. It's interesting that the Ioniq is already outselling the Prius.

I've driven the Ford Fusion hybrid, and it was very good. It is a bigger car with some power and feature advantages over the Ioniq Hybrid (https://www.asburyauto.com/compare/2019-ford-fusion-hybrid-vs-2019-hyundai-ioniq-hybrid/160960), but its fuel economy is not as good (https://carbuzz.com/compare/ford-fusion-hybrid-vs-honda-insight-vs-hyundai-ioniq-hybrid). A comparable car is the Hyundai Sonata Hybrid that is a little cheaper and more powerful (NAR).

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 11:10 AM
The protesters will be ably defended by pro-bono lawyers more than willing to defend the right to free speech.
The right to free speech and public protest is sacrosanct, even for speech we hate.

This right doesn't extend to forcibly disrupting traffic or vandalism.

MichaelBaron
12-01-2020, 11:19 AM
Attacking his sponsorship deal with Credit Suisse, not attacking him



Everyone has the right to refuse to pay a fine and elect to face trial instead. The protesters will be ably defended by pro-bono lawyers more than willing to defend the right to free speech



Where did you find the quote from his PR officer? Or did you make it up? In Federer's own words:


“I take the impacts and threat of climate change very seriously, particularly as my family and I arrive in Australia amid devastation from the bush fire,” Federer said.

“As the father of four young children and a fervent supporter of universal education, I have a great deal of respect and admiration for the youth climate movement, and I am grateful to young climate activists for pushing us all to examine our behaviours and act on innovative solutions.

“We owe it to them and ourselves to listen.

They can face the trial, lose..then pay :). Or will they still not have to pay? I am wondering, if they spend the time blocking roads etc building roads or doing other work ...will they be more likely to make the world a better place or not?

MichaelBaron
12-01-2020, 11:21 AM
The right to free speech and public protest is sacrosanct, even for speech we hate.

This right doesn't extend to forcibly disrupting traffic or vandalism.

Apparently some people do not think so :).
This is why when in another thread someone suggested I lobby Aus government about laws/policies I dislike...i wonder why these ''rebels'' can not do likewise :).

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 12:21 PM
The right to free speech and public protest is sacrosanct, even for speech we hate.

This right doesn't extend to forcibly disrupting traffic or vandalism.

Vandalism is intentional property damage, which is not an issue here. Disrupting traffic is a minor misdemeanour, a deliberate tactic to draw attention to the protest.

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 12:27 PM
They can face the trial, lose..then pay :). Or will they still not have to pay?

If they lose they can pay or serve time in lieu.


I am wondering, if they spend the time blocking roads etc building roads or doing other work ...will they be more likely to make the world a better place or not?

Better. “A small group of thoughtful people could change the world. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.” - Margaret Mead

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 12:31 PM
Apparently some people do not think so :).
This is why when in another thread someone suggested I lobby Aus government about laws/policies I dislike...i wonder why these ''rebels'' can not do likewise :).

You'd achieve much more by protesting than by lobbying

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 01:06 PM
... This is why when in another thread someone suggested I lobby Aus government about laws/policies I dislike...i wonder why these ''rebels'' can not do likewise :).Tell that to Rosa Parks!

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 01:08 PM
The right to free speech and public protest is sacrosanct, even for speech we hate. This right doesn't extend to forcibly disrupting traffic or vandalism.Tell that to Rosa Parks!

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 01:23 PM
Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBbvehbomrY&feature=youtu.be

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 01:26 PM
Ignores "Most well known". For instance Alan jones has 60k facebook followers. Garth Paltridge isn't even on there. If you just want to create a list of qualified scientists, around 3% of them are in the climate denial camp.If you restricted that list to active scientists - which neither Paltridge nor Salby are - the percentage would be even smaller.


If you don't have training/specialty in a certain area, then your provisional position should be to accept the position of 97% of the world's experts. As opposed to knuckle-draggers like Craig Kelly, who should be humble and listen to the experts, instead thinking he knows better.I always find it fascinating that Michael and Capablanca-Fan have no problem recognising that Carlsen is an chess expert who knows more about chess than they do, but refuse to recognise that climate scientists are also experts who know more about physics than they do :(

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 01:30 PM
Professor Jordan Peterson on climate change and climate policy at the Cambridge Union ... Another 'Craig Kelly' who thinks he knows more about physics than actual physicists :(

Is that the video where he denies the existence of batteries :P

ER
12-01-2020, 02:46 PM
… convey the clear impression that ER has been classified as extremist. …

that Ian Murray is a conservative xr stinker keyboard warrior more likely!

The above silly comment of mine was posted on the wrong assumption that Ian Murray's "ER" was directed to my Chesschat ID on # 5837 of this thread.
I was wrong since as it was clarified ER = extinction rebellion instead! I apologise to Ian for the inappropriate as well as irrelevant comment!

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 02:52 PM
…but refuse to recognise that climate scientists are also experts who know more about physics than they do :(

I doubt that. At least, I doubt that most climate scientists know more about infrared absorption physics than I do. I doubt that most of them could work out the vibrational modes of greenhouse gases from first principles, for example.

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 03:24 PM
I doubt that. At least, I doubt that most climate scientists know more about infrared absorption physics than I do. I doubt that most of them could work out the vibrational modes of greenhouse gases from first principles, for example.Deriving the vibrational modes of greenhouse gases is useless if you don't understand the effect those modes have on the atmosphere, which climate scientists clearly understand much better than you do. I understand x-ray crystallography much better than most engineers, for example, but that doesn't mean I'm an expert on metallurgy :)

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 03:28 PM
Finally! (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/12/scott-morrison-flags-bushfires-royal-commission-and-says-coalition-could-bolster-emissions-targets)

But Morrison said there was “no dispute” that climate change was creating “the longer, hotter, dryer, summer seasons”. “The fact is, over the next 10 years and beyond we are going to be living in a very different climate and we need to improve our resilience to that,” he said. “Adaptation” to climate change needed greater attention “because they’re the things that are practically affecting people’s daily lives here in Australia”.
Of course, there's plenty of dispute - even within his own party - but it seems that the deniers will soon become irrelevant politically.

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 04:00 PM
that Ian Murray is a conservative xr stinker keyboard warrior more likely!

My ER = Extinction Rebellion. Nothing personal

Capablanca-Fan
12-01-2020, 04:24 PM
Debunking the "Simple Physics" Slogan About Climate Change
16 Apr 2019

Dr. John Robson investigates this misused slogan and talks with physicist William van Wijngaarden about the complexity of the physics behind global warming models.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KaUmDZEAhbE&feature=youtu.be

antichrist
12-01-2020, 04:26 PM
there is no complexity Capa, my fishpond analogy is so simple - even the stupid can understand it. What goes down must come up with vengeance

ER
12-01-2020, 04:35 PM
My ER = Extinction Rebellion. Nothing personal

apologies, I will correct immediately! done!

Patrick Byrom
12-01-2020, 05:43 PM
Debunking the "Simple Physics" Slogan About Climate Change 16 Apr 2019
Dr. John Robson investigates this misused slogan and talks with physicist William van Wijngaarden about the complexity of the physics behind global warming models. ... Just because they can't understand it doesn't mean it isn't simple :)

If van Wijngaarden is basing his arguments on this work (van Wijngaarden), which he seems to be doing, then there are a lot of problems with his arguments. To name one very important one, in a book which was apparently written in 2016, he dismisses climate models because they don't match the observed temperatures up to about 2010. But if he used more recent data, the models do very much better. And this is just wrong: "Global warming predicts increases to not just the surface air temperature but to all of the atmosphere." - stratospheric cooling had been understood for several years before he wrote that.

Maybe you should ask a real climate scientist at the BOM? They used climate models to warn us about the drought and bushfires (http://www.bom.gov.au/state-of-the-climate/): "These changes affect many Australians, particularly the changes associated with increases in the frequency or intensity of heat events, fire weather and drought." If only Morrison had listened.

Ian Murray
12-01-2020, 10:03 PM
Terror, hope, anger, kindness: the complexity of life as we face the new normal (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/jan/11/terror-hope-anger-kindness-the-complexity-of-life-as-we-face-the-new-normal)

... There has been a lot of talk about adapting to the new normal in recent weeks. But this is not the new normal. This is just the beginning. The rolling disasters we are now experiencing are the result of 1C of warming above pre-industrial averages. Even if the commitments enshrined in the Paris agreement are met – something that looks extremely unlikely – we are on track for well over 2C of warming by the end of the century, while on current trends we are headed for 3C or 4C.

A world that is 3C or 4C hotter will be almost unrecognisable. Large areas in equatorial and subequatorial regions will be effectively uninhabitable. Sea levels will rise by many metres. Ecosystems around the world will collapse, causing mass extinctions on land and in the oceans. Hundreds of millions of people will die, while hundreds of millions more will be displaced.

Even at 2C our world will be irrevocably altered. According to the IPCC’s special report, Global Warming of 1.5C, released in October 2018, 2C of warming will lead to significant increases in both the incidence and severity of heatwaves and extreme weather events, dramatically affect food production, especially in south-east Asia, south and central America and sub-Saharan Africa, leading to a “rapid evacuation” of people from tropical countries. Tropical diseases will spread into formerly temperate areas. Sea levels will rise by up to a metre by 2100, and continue rising for centuries afterwards. The impacts on the natural world will be similarly devastating: extinction rates will soar, ocean acidification and warming waters will devastate marine life and coral reefs will disappear almost entirely within a decade or two.

In fact, the IPCC’s advice is that to have any hope of avoiding dangerous climate change, we must hold warming to only 1.5C above pre-industrial averages. At 1.5C, the world will be a much harder, less hospitable place than the one we once knew. Heatwaves, droughts and disasters like those of recent weeks will be more commonplace. Shortages of food and water will affect only half as many people as they will at 2C, and the number of people displaced might be held to only 50 million. Natural systems and biodiversity will be irreparably damaged, but we might save 10% of coral reefs, and sea level rise might be held to only half a metre by 2100.

This is not an accident

As best-case scenarios go, this is pretty bleak. But it gets worse. Because in order to have any chance of holding warming to 1.5C, net global emissions need to reach zero by 2050, with close to half that reduction taking place over the next 10 years. This isn’t going to be achieved by installing solar panels or making meat-free Monday part of our lives. It demands the transformation of every aspect of our economies and societies in the space of a few years. In a world where emissions are still rising year on year, where rightwing populism is on the march and the international order looks shakier by the day, the odds of this happening look vanishingly unlikely.

The brutal truth, in other words, is that things are going to get worse whatever we do. A lot worse. And probably quickly. ...

MichaelBaron
13-01-2020, 12:05 AM
https://www.facebook.com/JacintaNPrice/photos/a.1622540894673617/2430502763877422/?type=3&theater

So for those environmental protesters...should there be a minimal age? I gather some do not mind under=aged taking it to the streets....but how underaged? Should parents of such babies be held accountable or shall we say that the baby is exercising her right to be heard? :)

Kevin Bonham
13-01-2020, 06:17 AM
Moderation Notice

antichrist is banned from posting on this thread for three months for persistent silly posts, which have been deleted.

antichrist is also banned from mentioning Donald Trump or religion on this thread again except where clearly directly relevant.

Ian Murray
13-01-2020, 08:15 AM
https://www.facebook.com/JacintaNPrice/photos/a.1622540894673617/2430502763877422/?type=3&theater

So for those environmental protesters...should there be a minimal age? I gather some do not mind under=aged taking it to the streets....but how underaged? Should parents of such babies be held accountable or shall we say that the baby is exercising her right to be heard? :)

Lenny looks like he's having a good time in Adelaide last week

4033

(Lenny crossed the Atlantic with Greta Thunberg aboard La Vagabonde)

4034

MichaelBaron
13-01-2020, 06:04 PM
Lenny looks like he's having a good time in Adelaide last week

4033

(Lenny crossed the Atlantic with Greta Thunberg aboard La Vagabonde)

4034

At least accompanied by a parent/guardian....
Greta looks happy there...smiling rather than screaming at people that they stole her childhood (I wonder what kids living in rural areas of Bangladesh and Zimbawe are thinking about the ''stolen childhood'' is that what stolen childhood is all about for them).

Patrick Byrom
13-01-2020, 06:32 PM
Greta looks happy there...smiling rather than screaming at people that they stole her childhood (I wonder what kids living in rural areas of Bangladesh and Zimbawe are thinking about the ''stolen childhood'' is that what stolen childhood is all about for them).I don't know about Zimbabwe, but a lot of children in Bangladesh would be very worried about rising sea levels caused by climate change. They would probably appreciate Greta speaking out on their behalf.

Ian Murray
13-01-2020, 07:29 PM
At least accompanied by a parent/guardian....

Flanking Greta are Elayna Carausu and Riley Whitelum, an Australian couple sailing the world (https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZdQjaSoLjIzFnWsDQOv4ww/featured), with their son Lennon. On the left is Greta's father Svante and on the right is Nikki Henderson (https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-50659318), a renowned British yachtswoman who was asked by Riley for help (crossing the North Atlantic in winter in a small boat is no mean feat).


Greta looks happy there...smiling rather than screaming at people that they stole her childhood

From the BBC report:


As a professional sailor, Nikki says that she knows to be prepared for the unexpected, but weather like this, 40-knot winds and five-metre high waves were "pretty nerve wracking."

However experiences like these also helped her learn more about Greta.

"I think it takes a certain type of person to cross the Atlantic in the winter - she's obviously very brave," says Nikki.

"I take my hat off to her and her father for joining us. That was a pretty courageous thing to do."

"They didn't do it for themselves, they did it to send a message. It felt very selfless."

After spending 19 days with her at sea, Nikki describes Greta as "friendly, quiet and kind" and says the experience has taught her why she is so "captivating."

"Her passion comes across if you know her as a person as well as if you see her on stage or you see a setting aside parliament on the floor," Nikki says.

"She's so captivating because she genuinely, authentically is true to her message in every way."


(I wonder what kids living in rural areas of Bangladesh and Zimbawe are thinking about the ''stolen childhood'' is that what stolen childhood is all about for them).

You don't seem to be aware of the climate crisis in Bangladesh, but as Patrick says it is one of the most vulnerable countries on earth. It's offshore islands are already disappearing.

On the climate change frontline: the disappearing fishing villages of Bangladesh (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/20/climate-change-frontline-disappearing-fishing-villages-bangladesh)

MichaelBaron
13-01-2020, 07:33 PM
You don't seem to be aware of the climate crisis in Bangladesh, but as Patrick says it is one of the most vulnerable countries on earth. It's offshore islands are already disappearing.

On the climate change frontline: the disappearing fishing villages of Bangladesh (https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2017/jan/20/climate-change-frontline-disappearing-fishing-villages-bangladesh)

Do you really think this is what children in Bangladesh are concerned about? Particularly the one who have really rough childhood living on the street?

Ian Murray
13-01-2020, 07:47 PM
Do you really think this is what children in Bangladesh are concerned about? Particularly the one who have really rough childhood living on the street?

Bangladeshi children shoulder burden of rising seas (https://www.dw.com/en/bangladeshi-children-shoulder-burden-of-rising-seas/av-49267818)

Desmond
13-01-2020, 09:32 PM
I'm a Greens minister and ordered hazard-reduction burning (https://www.smh.com.au/national/i-m-a-greens-minister-and-ordered-hazard-reduction-burning-20200109-p53q3h.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3uPQtEAZme0PAtTWuKenk0Jd6dF2Pb13yu0RuD9 cZzDNASchWslI3cMvc#Echobox=1578913551)
Shane Rattenbury
January 13, 2020

... In the ACT, the Labor and Greens parties have had a power-sharing arrangement since 2012, meaning the Greens have held various ministerial portfolios. Between 2012 and 2016, I was the ACT minister for territory and municipal services and was responsible for, among other things, the agency that managed our national park and nature conservation parks, including managing fuel loads across the ACT landscape.

This was a practical demonstration of how the Greens approach bushfire risk. Each year, with the expert advice of the agency, we developed and implemented comprehensive fire-related operational works plans. For example, in 2013-14 I oversaw a significant program of burning, slashing and grazing across 20,000 hectares of land in the ACT to help manage the increasing risk of fires. ...

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2020, 05:04 AM
Jo Nova - How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps
7 Dec 2018

Australia has more energy resources per capita than almost any place on Earth, yet despite that challenge has managed to take top spot for electricity prices.

Joanne Nova explains what it took to achieve state-wide blackouts, flying squads of diesel generators, and a tripling of wholesale electricity prices in just five years. Filmed at the GWPF in November 2018.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q

Desmond
14-01-2020, 09:35 AM
Jo Nova - How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps
7 Dec 2018

Australia has more energy resources per capita than almost any place on Earth, You know what else australia has a lot of - sunshine and wind.

MichaelBaron
14-01-2020, 10:06 AM
Jo Nova - How to Destroy a Perfectly Good Electricity Grid in Three Easy Steps
7 Dec 2018

Australia has more energy resources per capita than almost any place on Earth, yet despite that challenge has managed to take top spot for electricity prices.

Joanne Nova explains what it took to achieve state-wide blackouts, flying squads of diesel generators, and a tripling of wholesale electricity prices in just five years. Filmed at the GWPF in November 2018.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYHX-Ib3Q5Q

We are picking up the bill for the environmentalists as always.

MichaelBaron
14-01-2020, 10:08 AM
You know what else australia has a lot of - sunshine and wind.

They did not stop the blackouts. As I've pointed out previously - nothing stops people generating energy by other means at cheaper prices.

Ian Murray
14-01-2020, 10:12 AM
A high price for policy failure: the ten-year story of spiralling electricity bills (https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450)

... Electricity retailers find fault with governments, and renewable energy advocates point the finger at the nasty old fossil-fuel generators. The right-wing commentariat blames renewables, while the federal government blames everyone but itself.

The truth is there is no silver bullet. No single factor or decision is responsible for the electricity prices we endure today. Rather, it is the confluence of many different policies and pressures at every step of the electricity supply chain.

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), retail customers in the National Electricity Market (which excludes Western Australia and the Northern Territory) now pay 44% more in real terms for electricity than we did ten years ago.

Four components make up your electricity bill. Each has contributed to this increase.

The biggest culprit has been the network component – the cost of transporting the electricity. Next comes the retail component – the cost of billing and servicing the customer. Then there is the wholesale component – the cost of generating the electricity. And finally, the government policy component – the cost of environmental schemes that we pay for through our electricity bills.

Each component has a different tale, told differently in every state. But ultimately, this is a story about a decade of policy failure. ...

MichaelBaron
14-01-2020, 10:58 AM
A high price for policy failure: the ten-year story of spiralling electricity bills (https://theconversation.com/a-high-price-for-policy-failure-the-ten-year-story-of-spiralling-electricity-bills-89450)

... Electricity retailers find fault with governments, and renewable energy advocates point the finger at the nasty old fossil-fuel generators. The right-wing commentariat blames renewables, while the federal government blames everyone but itself.

The truth is there is no silver bullet. No single factor or decision is responsible for the electricity prices we endure today. Rather, it is the confluence of many different policies and pressures at every step of the electricity supply chain.

According to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), retail customers in the National Electricity Market (which excludes Western Australia and the Northern Territory) now pay 44% more in real terms for electricity than we did ten years ago.

Four components make up your electricity bill. Each has contributed to this increase.

The biggest culprit has been the network component – the cost of transporting the electricity. Next comes the retail component – the cost of billing and servicing the customer. Then there is the wholesale component – the cost of generating the electricity. And finally, the government policy component – the cost of environmental schemes that we pay for through our electricity bills.

Each component has a different tale, told differently in every state. But ultimately, this is a story about a decade of policy failure. ...

Ok, but people/small businesses are still unlikely to build a ''windmill'' :). Or else, lets build :).

Ian Murray
14-01-2020, 11:26 AM
Ok, but people/small businesses are still unlikely to build a ''windmill'' :). Or else, lets build :).

Rooftop solar is more practical - there are now more than 2.2 million residential installations (at Sep 2019) plus many thousands of commercial installations (74000 up till 2018).

MichaelBaron
14-01-2020, 01:11 PM
Rooftop solar is more practical - there are now more than 2.2 million residential installations (at Sep 2019) plus many thousands of commercial installations (74000 up till 2018).

Good. I am all for economic solutions!

ER
14-01-2020, 01:24 PM
Good. I am all for economic solutions!

I wouldn't be jumping with glee on my way to install or to invest in them!

https://saregionalsolar.com.au/2019/02/5-reasons-why-solar-is-a-failure-in-australia/

For a rather balanced view of pros and cons this is also worth a look.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/abc-report-solar-australia/

MichaelBaron
14-01-2020, 02:08 PM
I wouldn't be jumping with glee on my way to install or to invest in them!

https://saregionalsolar.com.au/2019/02/5-reasons-why-solar-is-a-failure-in-australia/

For a rather balanced view of pros and cons this is also worth a look.

https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/abc-report-solar-australia/

This is exactly my point. Let people make educated choices and if those who support the ''eco-solutions'' are able to make better sales - off they go!

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2020, 02:49 PM
They did not stop the blackouts. As I've pointed out previously - nothing stops people generating energy by other means at cheaper prices.Actually they do, if you install rooftop solar in your home. And you're ignoring the enormous government subsidies for coal-fired power.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2020, 02:52 PM
This is exactly my point. Let people make educated choices and if those who support the ''eco-solutions'' are able to make better sales - off they go!Unfortunately the price of coal power doesn't yet include its externalities.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2020, 02:58 PM
Actually they do, if you install rooftop solar in your home.

In Georgia where I live, an online estimate of rooftop solar installation in my house is $47,325, up-front incentives and rebates $12,305, net cost $35,021, Pay-back time (assuming cash purchase) 13 Years 11 Months. Not feasible for me, even though Total Cost of Utility Power Avoided over 25 years is $75,197.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2020, 03:04 PM
This is exactly my point. Let people make educated choices and if those who support the ''eco-solutions'' are able to make better sales - off they go!

That's the right idea.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2020, 03:13 PM
In Georgia where I live, an online estimate of rooftop solar installation in my house is $47,325, up-front incentives and rebates $12,305, net cost $35,021, Pay-back time (assuming cash purchase) 13 Years 11 Months. Not feasible for me, even though Total Cost of Utility Power Avoided over 25 years is $75,197.So you'll continue to rely on the government for power? :( What happened to your free-market principles?

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2020, 04:46 PM
If van Wijngaarden is basing his arguments on this work (van Wijngaarden), which he seems to be doing, then there are a lot of problems with his arguments. ...

He also seems to be ignoring ocean heat content (https://wvanwijngaarden.info.yorku.ca/files/2016/07/KlimaatBoek.pdf?x45936) (I've corrected the link), which is a problem (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/ocean-temperatures-hit-record-high-as-rate-of-heating-accelerates):

The heat in the world’s oceans reached a new record level in 2019, showing “irrefutable and accelerating” heating of the planet. The world’s oceans are the clearest measure of the climate emergency because they absorb more than 90% of the heat trapped by the greenhouse gases emitted by fossil fuel burning, forest destruction and other human activities. The new analysis shows the past five years are the top five warmest years recorded in the ocean and the past 10 years are also the top 10 years on record. The amount of heat being added to the oceans is equivalent to every person on the planet running 100 microwave ovens all day and all night.

Capablanca-Fan
14-01-2020, 05:02 PM
So you'll continue to rely on the government for power? :( What happened to your free-market principles?

The power infrastructure was there long before I got there. Free market advocacy doesn't require martyrdom. In any case, I pay for my power.

Desmond
14-01-2020, 06:10 PM
The power infrastructure was there long before I got there. Free market advocacy doesn't require martyrdom. In any case, I pay for my power.

You don't pay the true market price, since the fossil fuel industry is subsidised to the tune of trillions of dollars.

Ian Murray
14-01-2020, 08:20 PM
In Georgia where I live, an online estimate of rooftop solar installation in my house is $47,325, up-front incentives and rebates $12,305, net cost $35,021, Pay-back time (assuming cash purchase) 13 Years 11 Months. Not feasible for me, even though Total Cost of Utility Power Avoided over 25 years is $75,197.

Very pricey. A 5 kW system here costs $4-8K (https://www.choice.com.au/home-improvement/energy-saving/solar/articles/solar-panel-payback-times) (ignoring the el cheapo options), break-even after 4-5 years. Adding a battery is an option gaining popularity.

Patrick Byrom
14-01-2020, 09:21 PM
Very pricey. A 5 kW system here costs $4-8K (https://www.choice.com.au/home-improvement/energy-saving/solar/articles/solar-panel-payback-times) (ignoring the el cheapo options), break-even after 4-5 years. Adding a battery is an option gaining popularity.According to this site (https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost/cost-of-solar-panels-in-georgia), they're only slightly more expensive in Georgia. I'm not sure where Capablanca-Fan gets his numbers from.

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2020, 01:19 AM
Very pricey. A 5 kW system here costs $4-8K (https://www.choice.com.au/home-improvement/energy-saving/solar/articles/solar-panel-payback-times) (ignoring the el cheapo options), break-even after 4-5 years. Adding a battery is an option gaining popularity.
I would probably install solar panels for that. And well you should ignore the el cheapo options.


According to this site (https://www.solarreviews.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost/cost-of-solar-panels-in-georgia), they're only slightly more expensive in Georgia. I'm not sure where Capablanca-Fan gets his numbers from.

I did use a site (https://www.energysage.com/) that did the calculations even for my specific house (it had photos of the roof). The site above has no data for my county or city.

Edit: a quote came in, and I see the problem: this is for a 15.8 kW system. I might have overestimated current energy use. I doubt that I would need more than 5–6 kW.

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2020, 01:29 AM
You don't pay the true market price, since the fossil fuel industry is subsidised to the tune of trillions of dollars.

This is wrong. In the USA, there are also subsidies and mandates for ethanol.

But my state, Georgia, is relatively green (https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=GA):


Natural gas accounted for 41% of Georgia’s net electricity generation in 2018, the state’s four operating nuclear reactors accounted for 26%, coal accounted for 25%, and renewable energy, including hydroelectric power [19 hydroelectric dams (https://www.georgiapower.com/company/energy-industry/generating-plants.html)], contributed 8%.

Natural gas is better than coal, first because it produces less CO₂ which is apparently important, and second because it enables combined-cycle plants for much greater efficiency than the Rankine-cycle–only coal. Much of the natural gas can be exploited because of the privately owned fracking technology not government subsidies.

Georgia is also starting two new nuclear reactors.

Desmond
15-01-2020, 07:32 AM
This is wrong. In the USA, there are also subsidies and mandates for ethanol.

But my state, Georgia, is relatively green (https://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=GA):


Natural gas accounted for 41% of Georgia’s net electricity generation in 2018, the state’s four operating nuclear reactors accounted for 26%, coal accounted for 25%, and renewable energy, including hydroelectric power [19 hydroelectric dams (https://www.georgiapower.com/company/energy-industry/generating-plants.html)], contributed 8%.

Natural gas is better than coal, first because it produces less CO₂ which is apparently important, and second because it enables combined-cycle plants for much greater efficiency than the Rankine-cycle–only coal. Much of the natural gas can be exploited because of the privately owned fracking technology not government subsidies.

Georgia is also starting two new nuclear reactors.
Small beer when compared to the $US 5.2 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels (https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/), thought that number is three years old now, so expect it to have grown.

Ian Murray
15-01-2020, 07:37 AM
They did not stop the blackouts. As I've pointed out previously - nothing stops people generating energy by other means at cheaper prices.

Battery storage keeps the lights on, and brings costs down

South Australia's big battery slashes $40m from grid control costs in first year (https://www.afr.com/companies/energy/south-australias-big-battery-slashes-40m-from-grid-control-costs-in-first-year-20181205-h18ql1)

Ian Murray
15-01-2020, 07:46 AM
Actually they do, if you install rooftop solar in your home.

Technically, rooftop PV with battery backup will blackout-proof your home. PV alone will not, as output shuts down automatically in a blackout to de-energise the transmission lines during repairs.

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2020, 12:24 PM
Small beer when compared to the $US 5.2 trillion global subsidies for fossil fuels (https://reneweconomy.com.au/global-fossil-fuel-subsidies-reach-5-2-trillion-and-29-billion-in-australia-91592/), thought that number is three years old now, so expect it to have grown.

I oppose all subsidies.

Capablanca-Fan
15-01-2020, 12:24 PM
Technically, rooftop PV with battery backup will blackout-proof your home. PV alone will not, as output shuts down automatically in a blackout to de-energise the transmission lines during repairs.

Yes, it makes sense to have batteries as well. What kilowattage is your system?

Ian Murray
15-01-2020, 09:17 PM
Yes, it makes sense to have batteries as well. What kilowattage is your system?

Only 1.8, which was the standard offering at the time

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2020, 08:46 AM
Only 1.8, which was the standard offering at the time

You must have had this for a while then. Is it still working well and covering all electrical requirements? Sounds like the 15.8 kW I have been quoted for is overkill. 6 kW seems to be the US average home installation these days.

Desmond
17-01-2020, 09:04 AM
David Attenborough weighs in on Australia's bushfire crisis (https://7news.com.au/news/climate-change/moment-of-crisis-for-earth-attenborough-c-651182)
7 News, Friday, 17 January

David Attenborough says the "moment of crisis" has come in the fight against climate change, warning that governments' targets for decades in the future are not enough to save the planet.

Noting the destruction being caused by Australia's wave of bushfires, Attenborough criticised Canberra's approach to climate change, saying the government's support for coal mines showed the world it did not care about the environment.

The British naturalist also called on China in particular to reduce its carbon emissions, saying he thought other countries would follow if China set a lead.

... "This is an urgent problem that has to be solved. And what is more is that we know how to do it - that's the paradoxical thing - that we are refusing to take steps that we know have to be taken." ...

Capablanca-Fan
17-01-2020, 09:50 AM
David Attenborough weighs in on Australia's bushfire crisis (https://7news.com.au/news/climate-change/moment-of-crisis-for-earth-attenborough-c-651182)
7 News, Friday, 17 January

The British naturalist also called on China in particular to reduce its carbon emissions, saying he thought other countries would follow if China set a lead.
That makes a change.

Ian Murray
17-01-2020, 10:31 AM
You must have had this for a while then. Is it still working well and covering all electrical requirements? Sounds like the 15.8 kW I have been quoted for is overkill. 6 kW seems to be the US average home installation these days.

Still in good nick but too small to run a household. I'm still paying about $450 a year for power. 5 kW is a good size; 6.6 is a common offering nowadays.

15.8 is humungous.

Ian Murray
17-01-2020, 10:59 AM
BlackRock bows to pressure and begins exit from coal investments

The CEO of BlackRock, has responded to intense pressure from NGO’s, investors and commentators and announced the US$7 trillion asset management company will begin “exiting investments that present a high sustainability-related risk, such as thermal coal producers.”

Sustainability as BlackRock’s New Standard for Investing (https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/blackrock-client-letter)

... Over the past few years, more and more of our clients have focused on the impact of sustainability on their portfolios. This shift has been driven by an increased understanding of how sustainability-related factors can affect economic growth, asset values, and financial markets as a whole.

The most significant of these factors today relates to climate change, not only in terms of the physical risk associated with rising global temperatures, but also transition risk – namely, how the global transition to a low-carbon economy could affect a company’s long-term profitability. As Larry Fink writes in his 2020 letter to CEOs, the investment risks presented by climate change are set to accelerate a significant reallocation of capital, which will in turn have a profound impact on the pricing of risk and assets around the world. ...

Thermal coal is significantly carbon intensive, becoming less and less economically viable, and highly exposed to regulation because of its environmental impacts. With the acceleration of the global energy transition, we do not believe that the long-term economic or investment rationale justifies continued investment in this sector. As a result, we are in the process of removing from our discretionary active investment portfolios the public securities (both debt and equity) of companies that generate more than 25% of their revenues from thermal coal production, which we aim to accomplish by the middle of 2020. As part of our process of evaluating sectors with high ESG risk, we will also closely scrutinize other businesses that are heavily reliant on thermal coal as an input, in order to understand whether they are effectively transitioning away from this reliance. In addition, BlackRock’s alternatives business will make no future direct investments in companies that generate more than 25% of their revenues from thermal coal production. ...

Ian Murray
18-01-2020, 09:23 AM
Mitigation or adaptation? When it comes to climate change, it's not a case of either/or (https://www.abc.net.au/news/science/2020-01-17/climate-change-mitigation-or-adaptation-not-a-case-of-either-or/11874202)

Here's a ridiculously extreme best case scenario: everywhere in the world, we immediately cease all human made CO2 emissions. Right now. No emissions. Forevermore.

Great! Problem solved! Right? Well, not quite.

Climate change is a long, heavy, slow moving train crawling across decades. Even if we pull the emergency brake right now, we're not stopping for a while yet.

I mean, in terms of warming trajectories, ceasing all emissions immediately would be a very good thing to do. The best science currently estimates that under this super extreme best case scenario we could probably keep warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius over pre-industrial levels.

But, even so — and especially if we shoot past 1.5 degrees and then 2 degrees, which is where the current trajectory takes us — the train has a hell of a distance to travel before it grinds to a halt.

Whatever we do from here, we've locked in at least some amount of warming — and the climate impacts that come with it.

We're already seeing these impacts. The devastating fire season we're currently choking our way through has played out against a background of just 1 degree of warming.

Things are getting worse before they get better, and we need to be prepared. This is why adaptation is an essential component of any effective climate change strategy. ...

Desmond
18-01-2020, 02:25 PM
I don't know about Catholic schools :) But no one - not even Capablanca-Fan - on this thread is now putting forward any serious scientific arguments that global heating isn't happening, which is a definite change from when the thread started. Of course, that has more to do with observable reality than any post.

I wish you were right, but I fear it hasn't been all that long since a "there's a cold snap in my town so global warming is happening" type post.

Patrick Byrom
18-01-2020, 03:02 PM
I wish you were right, but I fear it hasn't been all that long since a "there's a cold snap in my town so global warming is happening" type post.I'm sure there'll be many similar claims, but that's not a serious scientific argument against global heating.

Ian Murray
18-01-2020, 04:00 PM
I wish you were right, but I fear it hasn't been all that long since a "there's a cold snap in my town so global warming is happening" type post.

I've been arguing on Facebook against the likes of https://notrickszone.com/2018/03/22/200-non-hockey-stick-graphs-published-since-2017-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-warming/

Capablanca-Fan
18-01-2020, 04:26 PM
Still in good nick but too small to run a household. I'm still paying about $450 a year for power. 5 kW is a good size; 6.6 is a common offering nowadays.

15.8 is humungous.

Thanks, I will check out the 5 and 6.6 kW options.

MichaelBaron
19-01-2020, 08:59 AM
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10665312/home-australia-prime-minister-scott-morrison-smashed-up-fire-resign/

Protesters break into Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s home.

Is this what we call civilised expression of one's views?

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 09:25 AM
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10665312/home-australia-prime-minister-scott-morrison-smashed-up-fire-resign/

Protesters break into Australia Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s home.

Is this what we call civilised expression of one's views?

Don't you love the headline? It turns out there was no break-in and no protest.

British tabloids beat up the story, which received no coverage in Australia

MichaelBaron
19-01-2020, 11:05 AM
Don't you love the headline? It turns out there was no break-in and no protest.

British tabloids beat up the story, which received no coverage in Australia

https://www.3aw.com.au/climate-protester-says-signs-calling-for-scomo-house-to-burn-totally-appropriate/
and here is Australian headline:
Climate protester says signs calling for ScoMo house to burn ‘totally appropriate’

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 12:14 PM
https://www.3aw.com.au/climate-protester-says-signs-calling-for-scomo-house-to-burn-totally-appropriate/
and here is Australian headline:
Climate protester says signs calling for ScoMo house to burn ‘totally appropriate’

So? If ScoMo's climate inaction allows others' homes to burn, why not his?

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 01:48 PM
The Firefighter Whose Denunciation of Australia’s Prime Minister Made Him a Folk Hero
(https://www.newyorker.com/news/as-told-to/the-firefighter-whose-denunciation-of-australias-prime-minister-made-him-a-folk-hero?)
The New Yorker
18.1.20

Patrick Byrom
19-01-2020, 02:15 PM
So? If ScoMo's climate inaction allows others' homes to burn, why not his?Funnily enough, the report didn't actually show any signs calling for Morrison's house to be burnt down - I wonder why :)

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 03:15 PM
Thanks, I will check out the 5 and 6.6 kW options.

I should mention that my electricity charges are inflated a little, as I don't get any feed-in tariff rebate (not possible for communities buying power in bulk then distributing to individuals)

Patrick Byrom
19-01-2020, 04:19 PM
15.8 is humungous.The last chemistry graduate who needed that much electricity was Walter White :)

MichaelBaron
19-01-2020, 05:42 PM
So? If ScoMo's climate inaction allows others' homes to burn, why not his?

Ok. so if in my view it is government that is responsible for bushfires shall we burn their houses...if they are responsible for rapists set free (in our view that is the ''rapists'' may not be legally convicted) shall we call for raping of the government members? What sort of tribal mentality is that? or wait...Sharia law? :)

MichaelBaron
19-01-2020, 05:44 PM
The Firefighter Whose Denunciation of Australia’s Prime Minister Made Him a Folk Hero
(https://www.newyorker.com/news/as-told-to/the-firefighter-whose-denunciation-of-australias-prime-minister-made-him-a-folk-hero?)
The New Yorker
18.1.20

I would hope he is becoming folk hero due to his firefighting efforts rather than rudeness.

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 05:58 PM
Ok. so if in my view it is government that is responsible for bushfires shall we burn their houses...if they are responsible for rapists set free (in our view that is the ''rapists'' may not be legally convicted) shall we call for raping of the government members? What sort of tribal mentality is that? or wait...Sharia law? :)

Except no-one is calling for his home to be put to the torch. You're overdoing it.

Ian Murray
19-01-2020, 06:00 PM
I would hope he is becoming folk hero due to his firefighting efforts rather than rudeness.

'Fraid not. His claim to fame is boring it up the PM, in true-blue Australian style

MichaelBaron
20-01-2020, 10:09 AM
'Fraid not. His claim to fame is boring it up the PM, in true-blue Australian style

If this is true blue Australian style I must be un-Australian. I would first say hello and only afterwards express my concerns about the governments' handling of the case. Imagine for a moment - the PM would ''greet'' him the same way..this would be the end of his political career.

MichaelBaron
20-01-2020, 10:11 AM
Except no-one is calling for his home to be put to the torch. You're overdoing it.

How will it burn then? Wishing for it to burn? Watching it burn and rejoice? When we see a house burning - shall we see it as disappointing?

Ian Murray
20-01-2020, 11:43 AM
How will it burn then? Wishing for it to burn? Watching it burn and rejoice? When we see a house burning - shall we see it as disappointing?

It's what's known in English as a figure of speech. There are actually no mobs storming The Shire carrying flaming torches.

Ian Murray
20-01-2020, 11:51 AM
If this is true blue Australian style I must be un-Australian. I would first say hello and only afterwards express my concerns about the governments' handling of the case. Imagine for a moment - the PM would ''greet'' him the same way..this would be the end of his political career.

This is the PM who brandished a lump of coal in the Parliament, and dismissed suggestions that firefighters might need some help, saying they're 'doing what they want to do'. And then in panic mode announces deployment of the ADF Reserve without even consulting with fire and emergency services.

And he wonders why firies won't shake his hand, and give him a serve on the media.

Desmond
20-01-2020, 03:26 PM
This is the PM who brandished a lump of coal in the Parliament, and dismissed suggestions that firefighters might need some help, saying they're 'doing what they want to do'. And then in panic mode announces deployment of the ADF Reserve without even consulting with fire and emergency services.

And he wonders why firies won't shake his hand, and give him a serve on the media.

If the firey were a woman, he might forcefully grab the hand, give it an unrequited shake and later claim to have had a conversation.

Hands up anyone who's surprised to see Mickey from Marketing defending Scotty from Marketing

MichaelBaron
20-01-2020, 03:41 PM
This is the PM who brandished a lump of coal in the Parliament, and dismissed suggestions that firefighters might need some help, saying they're 'doing what they want to do'. And then in panic mode announces deployment of the ADF Reserve without even consulting with fire and emergency services.

And he wonders why firies won't shake his hand, and give him a serve on the media.

So if I disagree with The labor party and what it does, is that how I am supposed to talk to them?

Desmond
20-01-2020, 04:28 PM
I was expecting a technical answer here that would make IM mouth water.

1.21 gigawatts!

Ian Murray
20-01-2020, 05:02 PM
So if I disagree with The labor party and what it does, is that how I am supposed to talk to them?

First its leader would need to deeply offend you

MichaelBaron
21-01-2020, 01:09 PM
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/1676523435830652/UzpfSTIwNzQzNDAzNzI2MzA4ODQ6Mjg5MjUyNDA5NDE0NTgzNw/

Very good explanations of what all these climate protests are all about: Nothing but desire of the Left to undermine capitalism and market economy

Desmond
21-01-2020, 01:26 PM
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/1676523435830652/UzpfSTIwNzQzNDAzNzI2MzA4ODQ6Mjg5MjUyNDA5NDE0NTgzNw/

Very good explanations of what all these climate protests are all about: Nothing but desire of the Left to undermine capitalism and market economy

Ah yes, climate change is just a great leftist conspiracy. That's why Marge Thatcher was a flag bearer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg

Ian Murray
21-01-2020, 01:30 PM
https://www.facebook.com/SkyNewsAustralia/videos/1676523435830652/UzpfSTIwNzQzNDAzNzI2MzA4ODQ6Mjg5MjUyNDA5NDE0NTgzNw/

Very good explanations of what all these climate protests are all about: Nothing but desire of the Left to undermine capitalism and market economy

Say Murdoch and govt mouthpieces on Sky News.

Capablanca-Fan
21-01-2020, 03:10 PM
Ah yes, climate change is just a great leftist conspiracy. That's why Marge Thatcher was a flag bearer:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VnAzoDtwCBg

She wanted to replace fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear. Do any of the greenies?

Patrick Byrom
21-01-2020, 03:24 PM
She wanted to replace fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear. Do any of the greenies?Nuclear power is only viable in Australia with massive government subsidies - I can see why you're so fond of it :)

Desmond
21-01-2020, 03:57 PM
She wanted to replace fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear. Do any of the greenies?

Hard to talk solutions with people who deny there is a problem.

Ian Murray
22-01-2020, 10:41 AM
She wanted to replace fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear. Do any of the greenies?

Replacing 19th century technology with 20th century. Now in the 21st, we have cheap emissions-free free-fuel technology.

Blunderbuss
22-01-2020, 03:46 PM
She wanted to replace fossil fuel electrical generation with nuclear. Do any of the greenies?

A simple question to ask but as always in life it’s a bit more complicated than that. From a book review of “The Fall and Rise of Nuclear Power in Britain”


Simon Taylor, a Cambridge academic and former investment banker, shows in his hard-hitting and authoritative The Fall and Rise of Nuclear Power in Britain, politics rather than economics has dominated this story. When the Thatcher government took office in 1979 it was initially pro-nuclear, partly because, as Nigel Lawson wrote later, nuclear power provided “the means of emancipation from Arthur Scargill” — an alternative source of electricity if Scargill’s mineworkers union halted the supply of coal to power stations, as it had done under a previous Conservative government. This argument became less relevant after Scargill’s defeat in the 1984-1985 miners’ strike.

When the government set about privatising the electricity industry at the end of the 1980s, it had to provide investors with full details of all the costs associated with the nuclear stations, including waste disposal. This exercise revealed that the state-owned nuclear industry, castigated by Taylor for “secrecy, deceptiveness and sheer incompetence”, had hidden the true costs of nuclear power over many years; the CEGB, he writes, “had decided nuclear was the future and had fixed and distorted the numbers to make it seem viable”. Decommissioning costs, in particular, had been vastly underestimated, although no one really knew what the actual costs would be. In the light of these uncertainties the government withdrew the nuclear stations from the privatisation.


And the problems remain to this day despite the UK government offering an eye wateringly generous £75/MWh for 35 years the private sector still will not commit to build new plants in the UK https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-unveils-financial-terms-it-offered-Hitachi (https://www.world-nuclear-news.org/Articles/UK-unveils-financial-terms-it-offered-Hitachi)


Japan’s Hitachi said it will halt work on its UK subsidiary's plan to build two new nuclear power plants "from the viewpoint of its economic rationality as a private enterprise". It added, however, that "further time is needed to develop a financial structure" for the Horizon project.

Finally, a nice quote from John Gummer who presumably would have known Thatcher’s views better than most https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/19/thatcher-understood-conservatives-not-true-climate-change-deniers (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/19/thatcher-understood-conservatives-not-true-climate-change-deniers)


Conservatives cannot properly be climate deniers. At the heart of their political stance is a desire to hand on something better to the future than they have received from the past. Now that climate science is so clear, a recognition of the duty to act to protect the next generation follows naturally.

Capablanca-Fan
23-01-2020, 03:17 AM
Hard to talk solutions with people who deny there is a problem.

Rather, it's hard to talk solutions with people who want only one type of solution: that which reduces individual freedom and increases power of politicians and bureaucrats.

PRESIDENT TRUMP AT DAVOS

Transcript:

To protect our security and our economy, we are also boldly embracing American energy independence.

The United States is now by far the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere in the world. By far. It’s not even close.

While many European countries struggle with crippling energy costs, the American energy revolution is saving American families $2,500 every year in lowering electric bills. Numbers that people said couldn’t happen and also very importantly prices at the pump.

We’ve been so successful that the United States no longer needs to import energy from hostile nations. With an abundance of American natural gas now available, our European allies no longer have to be vulnerable to unfriendly energy suppliers either. We urge our friends in Europe to use America’s vast supply and achieve true energy security.

With US companies and researchers leading the way, we are on the threshold of virtually unlimited reserves of energy, including from traditional fuels: LNG, clean coal, next-generation nuclear power and gas-hydrate technologies.

At the same time, I’m proud to report the United States is among the cleanest air and drinking water on earth and we’re going to keep it that way, and we just came out with a report that at this moment it’s the cleanest it’s been in the last 40 years. We’re committed to conserving the majesty of God’s creation and the natural beauty of our world.

Today I’m pleased to announce the United States will join the 1 trillion trees initiative being launched here at the World Economic Forum. 1 trillion trees, and in doing so we will continue to show strong leadership and restoring, growing, and better managing our trees and our forests.

This is not a time for pessimism, this is a time for optimism. Fear and doubt is not a good thought process because this is a time for tremendous hope, and joy and optimism and action.

But to embrace the possibilities of tomorrow, we must reject the perennial prophets of doom and their predictions of the Apocalypse.

They are the heirs of yesterday’s foolish fortune tellers, and I have them, and you have them and we all have them and they want to see us do badly but we won’t let that happen. They predicted an overpopulation crisis in the 1960s, mass starvation in the 70s, and an end of oil in the 1990s.

These alarmists always demand the same thing: absolute power to dominate, transform and control every aspect of our lives.

We will never let radical socialists destroy our economy, wreck our country or eradicate our liberty. America will always be the proud, strong and unyielding bastion of freedom.

In America, we understand what the pessimists refused to see. That a growing and vibrant market economy, focused on the future, lifts the human spirit and excites creativity: strong enough to overcome any challenge, any challenge by far.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lpVPh6LeU8

Desmond
23-01-2020, 07:32 AM
Rather, it's hard to talk solutions with people who want only one type of solution: that which reduces individual freedom and increases power of politicians and bureaucrats. You think the trimuph of a $5.2 trillion subsidised industry over free renewables is a triumph of the market?


PRESIDENT TRUMP AT DAVOS

Trump is a moron and has no idea what he's doing. If you think him postulating something gives it weight, you're barking up the wrong end of the stick.

Patrick Byrom
23-01-2020, 12:45 PM
Rather, it's hard to talk solutions with people who want only one type of solution: that which reduces individual freedom and increases power of politicians and bureaucrats.Are you claiming that Trump thinks global heating is a problem? Do you have evidence for that claim?

MichaelBaron
25-01-2020, 12:59 AM
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/outrage-as-vegan-blames-meat-eaters-for-causing-bushfires-as-she-tries-to-stop-people-buying-animal-products-in-coles-and-woolworths/ar-BBZhPEV?ocid=spartanntp&fbclid=IwAR0SvdiVy5qhLD9DwEB9SMVxkGBeIsKzli0V-bF0c4EH4406y0k63uCTpR8

When protesters make a ''salad'' out of all the causes they are fighting for :). Rather typical of how messed up and confused many of them are.

Capablanca-Fan
25-01-2020, 04:05 AM
You think the triumph of a $5.2 trillion subsidised industry over free renewables is a triumph of the market?
No. At the very least, some of the profits of the industry should pay back subsidies.

In the USA, we also have subsidies to ethanol, an inefficient and hygroscopic substance that is not even that green.


Trump is a moron and has no idea what he's doing. If you think him postulating something gives it weight, you're barking up the wrong end of the stick.
Everything he said makes sense. He judges policies by results, not gestures. America has become greener, unlike most of the countries still in the fraudulent Paris agreement. So of course the Greenies attack America, not countries building more coal-fired power stations.

Historian Niall Ferguson has slammed Greta Thunberg’s climate change hypocrisy at Davos, asking why “I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.” (https://yournews.com/2020/01/22/1412981/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing/)

Ian Murray
25-01-2020, 08:09 AM
... Everything he said makes sense. He judges policies by results, not gestures. America has become greener, unlike most of the countries still in the fraudulent Paris agreement. So of course the Greenies attack America, not countries building more coal-fired power stations.

Historian Niall Ferguson has slammed Greta Thunberg’s climate change hypocrisy at Davos, asking why “I don’t see her in Beijing or Delhi.” (https://yournews.com/2020/01/22/1412981/historian-slams-greta-thunberg-i-dont-see-her-in-beijing/)

Just for the record:

End of the year wrap-up: five figures show China’s renewable energy growth in 2019 (https://www.renewableenergyworld.com/2019/12/01/end-of-the-year-wrap-up-five-figures-show-chinas-renewable-energy-growth-in-2019/#gref)

India’s investments in renewable energy are growing faster than even China’s (https://qz.com/india/1323902/indias-investments-in-renewable-energy-are-growing-faster-than-even-chinas/)

And despite Trump's passion for coal and anti-green regulation changes:

More renewable energy expected to be built in 2019 than any other form of U.S. electrical generating power (https://www.solarpowerworldonline.com/2019/12/more-renewable-energy-was-built-in-2019-than-any-other-form-of-u-s-electrical-generating-power/)

Trump touts environment record, green groups scoff (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-environment/trump-touts-environment-record-green-groups-scoff-idUSKCN1U31RI)

Desmond
27-01-2020, 02:18 PM
Trump touts environment record, green groups scoff (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-environment/trump-touts-environment-record-green-groups-scoff-idUSKCN1U31RI)Yes, a very damning read.

Ian Murray
29-01-2020, 09:42 AM
Denial to the Death: In Australia, Newspaper Headlines Tout “Warming Is Good For Us” (http://priceofoil.org/2020/01/27/denial-to-the-death-in-australia-newspaper-headlines-tout-warming-is-good-for-us/)

As Australia continues to burn, the deniers continue to deny. Australia is in the midst of a climate emergency with over 30 people dead, in excess of a billion animals incinerated, and millions upon millions of Australian’s breathing toxic air.

The cost of this catastrophe, if you can even begin to measure the loss of wildlife and quantify the collective trauma, is said to be in excess of AUS $100 billion. .

Despite the daily climate carnage, Murdoch’s columnists continue to spout climate denial in a way that many would find illogical, insensitive, and just plain idiotic.

Today, a columnist in the Herald Sun, Andrew Bolt, writes that “global warming is good for you.”

He alleges that “activists are exploiting these terrible bushfires to whip up an astonishing fear of man-made global warming and skeptics like me.”

Instead of denying that climate change is happening, Bolt uses another of the favorite denier arguments. “We don’t deny the planet has warmed. We instead question the warming we are seeing – less than predicted – is all bad.”

It is difficult to see how Australia’s omnicide is anything but the definition of bad. It’s nothing short of climate catastrophe. But Bolt takes up another denier argument – that it makes no sense to spend billions to prevent climate change, and instead would be better to spend more on “bush management.” ...

Luckily, there are those calling out the Murdoch denial machine. Earlier this month, a News Corp finance manager sent an email stating: “I find it unconscionable to continue working for this company, knowing I am contributing to the spread of climate change denial and lies,” she wrote.

And even some within the Murdoch family are calling out the deniers, with Rupert’s son James publicly criticizing what is going on. ...

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2020, 10:15 AM
Bolt's argument is stupid and disingenuous as usual (ignoring the role that rising temperatures play in reducing humidity and making fires more dangerous) but this tag "omnicide" coined by a sociologist and spread by Richard Flanagan is just as bad. It's an exaggeration - bushfires do not kill everything, and saying that they do legitimises the view that areas that have been burnt now have lost all conservation value for good and therefore we may as well log them, clear them for agriculture, repeat-burn them on unsustainably short cycles in the name of "hazard reduction" or let cute feral horsies who everyone loves run amok on them.

Flanagan writes powerfully of course but he is a serial melodramatist and often not too well informed on the science.

Patrick Byrom
29-01-2020, 12:01 PM
Majority of Australians do not support public transport disruptions, people jumping into fountains, protesters kicking horses etc.Actually, polling suggests that a majority of Australians do support the Extinction Rebellion protests. (https://essentialvision.com.au/awareness-support-extinction-rebellion)

Blunderbuss
29-01-2020, 12:15 PM
When I looked up Omnicide it gave me a definition of human extinction via nuclear war. Dated 1959


Yet the continuation of the human species can no longer be taken for granted. It has been endangered since the onset of the omnicidal weapons first demonstrated in 1945 in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The destruction of these cities heralded a new age, the nuclear age, the chief characteristic of which is that for the first time it has become possible for man to destroy his own species in a single action.— Joseph Rotblat

I don’t think Flanagan is saying the bush fires alone will lead to Omnicide. But rather business as usual and therefore rising emissions and an ever-hotter world surely will.

Patrick Byrom
29-01-2020, 12:35 PM
I don’t think Flanagan is saying the bush fires alone will lead to Omnicide. But rather business as usual and therefore rising emissions and an ever-hotter world surely will.I'm with Kevin on this - I don't like the term "omnicide". The human race would almost certainly survive global nuclear war or even the most extreme global heating. But the death and destruction from both would be so bad that "the survivors would envy the dead" (as the saying goes). Although it's easy for me to be complacent - I'll be long dead whatever happens :(

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2020, 01:38 PM
Actually, polling suggests that a majority of Australians do support the Extinction Rebellion protests. (https://essentialvision.com.au/awareness-support-extinction-rebellion)

Unfortunately another unsound issues poll by Essential, which has been using a lot of bad question designs lately. A fair second question would have been simply "To what extent do you support or oppose the Extinction Rebellion protests?" Adding "to push for governments to act on climate change and move towards renewable energy?", as Essential did, loads the question by (i) potentially implying that governments are not acting on climate change or moving towards renewable energy at all - which is, at best, a politically contested claim (ii) understating the goals of Extinction Rebellion by describing them only in broad and vague terms rather than with specifics such as net-zero emissions by 2025. Even if the description of both ER and government policies was incontestably accurate, the using of an argument for the group while not using one against would still have the potential to skew the outcome.

Issues polling in Australia is in a parlous condition. Almost all of it is rubbish. I have got so tired of seeing badly designed polls on more or less everything that I have written a guide on how to spot them:

https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/01/do-it-yourself-issues-polling-due.html

Desmond
29-01-2020, 04:14 PM
I was listening to Dr Karl's weekly science talkback on triple j (podcast available here (https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/dr-karl-podcast/11893972)) and this week he had Michael Mann as a special guest. One of the remarkable comments was that the Ausralian bushfire season this year has doubled! our carbon footprint for the year.

Ian Murray
29-01-2020, 05:08 PM
Unfortunately another unsound issues poll by Essential, which has been using a lot of bad question designs lately. A fair second question would have been simply "To what extent do you support or oppose the Extinction Rebellion protests?" Adding "to push for governments to act on climate change and move towards renewable energy?", as Essential did, loads the question by (i) potentially implying that governments are not acting on climate change or moving towards renewable energy at all - which is, at best, a politically contested claim (ii) understating the goals of Extinction Rebellion by describing them only in broad and vague terms rather than with specifics such as net-zero emissions by 2025. Even if the description of both ER and government policies was incontestably accurate, the using of an argument for the group while not using one against would still have the potential to skew the outcome.

Issues polling in Australia is in a parlous condition. Almost all of it is rubbish. I have got so tired of seeing badly designed polls on more or less everything that I have written a guide on how to spot them:

https://kevinbonham.blogspot.com/2020/01/do-it-yourself-issues-polling-due.html

The Lowy questions are more balanced. I would be surprised if the results are not higher based on the current bushfire crisis,

Lowy Institute Poll 2018 (https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/2018-lowy-institute-poll)

Climate change

Attitudes about climate change have been undergoing a dramatic reversal over the past six years. The number of Australians who saw global warming as a ‘serious and pressing problem’ about which ‘we should begin taking steps now even if this involves significant costs’ fell from 68% in 2006 to 36% in 2012. Since then, however, concern about global warming has been rising steadily. In 2018, almost six in ten Australians (59%) say global warming is ‘a serious and pressing problem’, up five points since 2017 and 23 points since 2012.

The issue of climate change and global warming continues to split Australians along generational lines. While a clear majority (70%) of younger Australians aged 18–44 see ‘global warming’ as a ‘serious and pressing problem’, just less than half (49%) of their elders have the same level of concern.

4065

Renewables vs coal

Power shortages in the southern states in early 2017 during heatwaves and storms, combined with the closure of the Hazelwood coal-fired power station in March 2017 and the proposed decommissioning of AGL’s Liddell coal-fired station in 2022, provoked a fierce debate about energy security in Australia during 2017. Later in the year, the Australian government put forward a new framework for energy policy, the National Energy Guarantee, with the aim of delivering a reliable, affordable energy supply. More recently, the Minister for Energy, Josh Frydenberg, has argued publicly that the sale, rather than closure, of the Liddell station would be ‘in the public interest’.[6]

Despite the debate and political rhetoric, most Australians have not been persuaded to support coal over renewables for the nation’s energy security. Almost all Australians remain in favour of renewables, rather than coal, as an energy source. In 2018, 84% (up three points since 2017) say ‘the government should focus on renewables, even if this means we may need to invest more in infrastructure to make the system more reliable’. Only 14% say ‘the government should focus on traditional energy sources such as coal and gas, even if this means the environment may suffer to some extent’. Even among those who take the most sceptical view about global warming (the 10% who say ‘until we are sure that global warming is really a problem, we should not take any steps that would have economic costs’), 40% favour a focus on renewables. Nine in ten of the rest support a focus on renewables rather than coal, as do 72% of Liberal-National Party supporters.

These attitudes are consistent with previous findings of the Lowy Institute Poll on Australians’ preference for alternative energy sources. In 2016, most Australians (88%) agreed that ‘the use of fossil fuels is in decline around the world and Australia should invest more in alternative energy sources or risk being left behind’. Only 53% agreed (45% disagreed) that ‘Australia has an abundant supply of fossil fuels and we should continue to use and export them to keep our economy strong’.

4066

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2020, 05:13 PM
This is the piece by the sociologist Danielle Celermajer that Flanagan was citing from regarding "omnicide". It's being talked about as a new term meaning the killing not just of humanity but supposedly of everything.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/danielle-celermajer-omnicide-gravest-of-all-crimes/11838534


During these first days of the third decade of the twenty-first century, as we watch humans, animals, trees, insects, fungi, ecosystems, forests, rivers (and on and on) being killed, we find ourselves without a word to name what is happening. True, in recent years, environmentalists have coined the term ecocide, the killing of ecosystems — but this is something more. This is the killing of everything. Omnicide.

Flanagan writes:


Ms. Celermajer argues that “ecocide,” the killing of ecosystems, is inadequate to describe the devastation of Australia’s fires. “This is something more,” she has written. “This is the killing of everything. Omnicide.”

It is clear enough that Flanagan is describing the fires as a local example of "omnicide", albeit not omnicide taken to its logical and full conclusion. The analogy would be that a person can be guilty of genocide without succeeding in wiping out the target ethnicity.

Ian Murray
29-01-2020, 05:17 PM
Pew Research 2016

What the world thinks about climate change in 7 charts (https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/04/18/what-the-world-thinks-about-climate-change-in-7-charts/)

Ian Murray
29-01-2020, 05:38 PM
And the last off-topic addition to this thread from me:

Extinction Rebellion risks polarising Australian public on climate, veteran activist says (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/oct/09/extinction-rebellion-risks-polarising-public-on-climate-veteran-activist-says)

Blunderbuss
29-01-2020, 06:16 PM
As Polly Higgins devoted much of her working life trying to get “ecocide” to be recognised as a crime against humanity. I tend to agree we don’t need a new phrase. Flanagan is a powerful writer he is a novelist not a scientist but I noted that Michael E Mann (who very much is a scientist) gave Flanagan's article the thumbs up.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/polly-higgins-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies (https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/apr/22/polly-higgins-environmentalist-eradicating-ecocide-dies)

Patrick Byrom
29-01-2020, 06:50 PM
As Polly Higgins devoted much of her working life trying to get “ecocide” to be recognised as a crime against humanity. I tend to agree we don’t need a new phrase. Flanagan is a powerful writer he is a novelist not a scientist but I noted that Michael E Mann (who very much is a scientist) gave Flanagan's article the thumbs up. ... I like "ecocide" as a term for the devastation caused by the bushfires. It is both literal and poetic. Maybe it's my Catholic background, but "omnicide" sounds too metaphysical.

Patrick Byrom
29-01-2020, 07:00 PM
The Lowy questions are more balanced. I would be surprised if the results are not higher based on the current bushfire crisis, ... You're right about that! In the most recent Essential poll (https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/commentisfree/2020/jan/29/finding-a-way-through-the-overton-climate-window-is-the-only-way-forward), over 60% of Australians support the Federal government preventing the opening of new coal mines, including almost 50% of LNP voters! Although only 27% of voters strongly support this, which probably gives a better indication of the actual level of support.

Kevin Bonham
29-01-2020, 07:12 PM
I like "ecocide" as a term for the devastation caused by the bushfires. It is both literal and poetic.

How literal it is varies from place to place. Unfortunately fires assisted by climate change are now too frequently burning habitats with no fire history for many centuries. These areas don't have good prospects of ever recovering without massive movement on the climate change front, or in cases even with it. They will still have an ecosystem but it isn't the pre-burn one so in this case the fire has basically destroyed the original ecosystem in that area.

In many other areas though, what we have is habitats adapted to infrequent or frequent fire burning. Fire is not, by itself, an unnatural event in those areas. In some it is essential. It remains to be seen whether the not-so-sensitive areas will suffer permanent serious ecological change as a result of the fires being too intense, too widespread, too frequent or having impacts compounded by other issues such as feral pests or past fragmentation (local species extinctions etc) but it's not obvious that all or most of the fires have destroyed their respective ecosystems.

Ian Murray
31-01-2020, 01:48 PM
Climate change, science fiction, and our collective failure of imagination (http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2019/06/picturing-a-way-forward/)
An interview with Kim Stanley Robinson on his next book Green New Deal

Ian Murray
31-01-2020, 05:26 PM
Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous (https://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778)

In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation’s editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a “zero-tolerance” approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.

His reasons were succinct:

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

From the standpoint of conventional media ethics, it was a dramatic, even shocking, decision. It seemed to violate journalism’s principle of impartiality – that all sides of a story should be told so audiences could make up their own minds.

But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date. A more analytical approach is called for. ...

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 01:02 PM
Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous (https://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778)

Yep, before, when normal people pointed out the rabidly leftard bias of the Mainstream Media, it was all deny, deny, deny. Now it has become impossible to deny, thanks partly to President Trump waking people up to their Fake News, so now it's, "Yes, we are biased, and we should be."

Capablanca-Fan
03-02-2020, 01:05 PM
Students Demanded Divestment From Fossil Fuels, A Professor Offered To Turn Off The Gas Heating (https://hotair.com/archives/john-s-2/2020/01/31/students-demanded-disinvestment-fossil-fuels-professor-offered-turn-off-heat)
JOHN SEXTON, 31 Jan 2020


Two students at St John’s College wrote to Andrew Parker, the principal bursar, this week requesting a meeting to discuss the protesters’ demands, which are that the college “declares a climate emergency and immediately divests from fossil fuels”. They say that the college, the richest in Oxford, has £8 million of its £551 million endowment fund invested in BP and Shell.

Professor Parker responded with a provocative offer. “I am not able to arrange any divestment at short notice,” he wrote. “But I can arrange for the gas central heating in college to be switched off with immediate effect. Please let me know if you support this proposal.”

One of the students wrote back and said he would present the proposal but he didn’t think Parker was being appropriately serious. Professor Parker responded to that note saying, “You are right that I am being provocative but I am provoking some clear thinking, I hope. It is all too easy to request others to do things that carry no personal cost to yourself. The question is whether you and others are prepared to make personal sacrifices to achieve the goals of environmental improvement (which I support as a goal).”

Professor Parker’s response focuses the mind on the fact that this isn’t a game. There are significant costs to real people associated with eliminating fossil fuels. Natural gas, for instance, isn’t something we can simply cease using overnight or even in ten years. If we’re not careful about how we proceed, a lot of people could get hurt. So a fair response to people demanding an end to the use of fossil fuels is the one the professor put to these protesters: You first.

Blunderbuss
03-02-2020, 03:21 PM
I was never a student at Oxford (not clever enough – I’m alumni of the University of Hertfordshire) but I reckon the answer to this one is very simple.

The students should demand that the £8 million be re-direct to replace the old gas heating system.

As a starting point ask the Principle Bursar to read this: https://www.wired.co.uk/article/central-heating-gas-boiler-climate-change (https://www.wired.co.uk/article/central-heating-gas-boiler-climate-change)
<quote>

A decade ago, gas and coal generated more than 70 per cent of the UK’s electricity. Now, for the first time since 1882 – when the world’s first commercial coal-fired power station opened in London – renewable energy sources have provided more electricity to UK homes and businesses than fossil fuels.
The milestone, set in the last quarter of this year, comes after the UK smashed the record for generating electricity without coal, going cold turkey for 18 straight days in May.
But while the switch to renewable electricity is going relatively smoothly, a much more formidable challenge is haunting the UK’s fossil fuel targets – the spectre of British boilers

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 07:04 PM
I was never a student at Oxford (not clever enough – I’m alumni of the University of Hertfordshire) but I reckon the answer to this one is very simple.I don't see any logical connection between disinvestment and switching off heating. The Bursar would certainly be justified in demanding that the students also disinvest in fossil fuels. But disinvestment doesn't result in any financial sacrifice, or cause harm to anyone.

Patrick Byrom
03-02-2020, 07:07 PM
Yep, before, when normal people pointed out the rabidly leftard bias of the Mainstream Media, it was all deny, deny, deny. Now it has become impossible to deny, thanks partly to President Trump waking people up to their Fake News, so now it's, "Yes, we are biased, and we should be."The Conversation is biased towards the Laws of Physics!

Ian Murray
03-02-2020, 09:31 PM
The Conversation is biased towards the Laws of Physics!

So is The Guardian!

MichaelBaron
03-02-2020, 11:49 PM
Media ‘impartiality’ on climate change is ethically misguided and downright dangerous (https://theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778)

In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation’s editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a “zero-tolerance” approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.

His reasons were succinct:

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

From the standpoint of conventional media ethics, it was a dramatic, even shocking, decision. It seemed to violate journalism’s principle of impartiality – that all sides of a story should be told so audiences could make up their own minds.

But in the era of climate change, this conventional approach is out of date. A more analytical approach is called for. ...

So much for freedom of speech!

Patrick Byrom
04-02-2020, 12:41 PM
So much for freedom of speech!If you're opposed to moderation on Chess Chat, why don't you say so :P

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2020, 05:09 PM
So much for freedom of speech!

Nothing to do with freedom of speech. I have a whole thread explaining why not here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?4050-Pol-phil-101-Freedom-of-speech-and-association . Freedom of speech is not one person's right to speak on somebody else's website. The idea that it is does not promote freedom of speech; it threatens it by implying that people should not be able to control what is said on their own websites.

Kevin Bonham
04-02-2020, 06:35 PM
Post deleted

Unnecessarily crude post deleted.

Anyone wishing to discuss this deletion may do so in the Help and Feedback section only. Any replies to this moderation notice on this thread will be deleted without exception.

ER
04-02-2020, 06:51 PM
If you're opposed to moderation on Chess Chat, why don't you say so :P

If your intention is to eulogise the establishment, why don't you say so :P

MichaelBaron
05-02-2020, 12:13 AM
Nothing to do with freedom of speech. I have a whole thread explaining why not here http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?4050-Pol-phil-101-Freedom-of-speech-and-association . Freedom of speech is not one person's right to speak on somebody else's website. The idea that it is does not promote freedom of speech; it threatens it by implying that people should not be able to control what is said on their own websites.

Kevin, I was writing in response to specific article ''Media Impartiality on climate Change'' That Ian shared and the Conversation's stand on this matter. NOT about chess chat.

Kevin Bonham
05-02-2020, 09:59 AM
Kevin, I was writing in response to specific article ''Media Impartiality on climate Change'' That Ian shared and the Conversation's stand on this matter. NOT about chess chat.

When you want to, you are very good at pretending an obviously irrelevant difference is relevant so you can avoid engaging with the issue. This means I have to spell things out for you veeeeeery sloooooooowly, and really I think that I should invoice you for my time. The thread I linked to notes that it is about general issues. Chesschat issues that were discussed on it were discussed as examples of those general issues.

Chesschat is a forum where things are sometimes deleted. The Conversation has a comments section where things are sometimes deleted. The thread I linked to shows why it is not a breach of freedom of speech if things are deleted off a forum or from a comments section by someone who owns the site. The same points I made on that thread about deleting stuff off Chesschat also apply to moderation rules on the Conversation.

Freedom of speech is infringed when you want to publish something on your own site and you are not allowed to. So if the climate change deniers were having their own websites taken down by the government or the courts just because they were denying that climate change was real, then there would be a free speech issue. But that's not what is happening in the Conversation case.

Freedom of speech is simply not someone's right to say what they like on someone else's website irrespective of whether the owner of that website wants them to or not. Just like how economic freedom is not someone's freedom to spend somebody else's money - a principle I'm sure you understand.

To say that the Conversation infringed the free speech of climate change deniers with their decision is the freedom of speech equivalent of extreme socialism.

(None of this is to say that I support their decision. I actually don't, because it was not accompanied by a thorough review of academic standards in the articles on the site. They have published some material that is just as bad as climate change denialism.)

Patrick Byrom
05-02-2020, 09:59 AM
Kevin, I was writing in response to specific article ''Media Impartiality on climate Change'' That Ian shared and the Conversation's stand on this matter. NOT about chess chat.Both The Conversation and Chess Chat are moderated sites - there is no right to freedom of speech.

Desmond
07-02-2020, 08:37 PM
Boris Johnson begins 'year of climate action', pledges ban on new petrol cars (https://www.smh.com.au/world/europe/boris-johnson-begins-year-of-climate-action-despite-accusations-he-still-doesn-t-get-it-20200205-p53xu9.html?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR2M63uEmCEx-pwInTz5RW8XHhhfpOKG9JGF05Ly_h_tieHeK8NsW7I-VHY#Echobox=1580847144)

London: British Prime Minister Boris Johnson has begun a "year of climate action", as the country said it plans to ban the sale of new petrol and diesel cars by 2035 - five years earlier than its previous target.

Britain will also hold a major climate summit in Glasgow at the end of the year and in a move aimed at strengthening its international claim to leadership in the area as it prepares for its place on the world stage post-Brexit. ...

Desmond
07-02-2020, 08:52 PM
You just lived through the warmest January on record (https://mashable.com/article/climate-change-january-2020-warmest-on-record/?fbclid=IwAR1EUfEkV6crmM9qHfBpHgokn_lfiWJvDHXdfR6S kLBQ7VSOiSRe_rG4oM8)

... January 2020 squeaked past January 2016 by just fractions of a degree (0.03 Celsius), but it's really the long-term heating trend that's important, not any individual month. Overall, 2019 was the second hottest year on record, 19 of the last 20 years are now the warmest on record, and high-temperature records now absolutely dominate low-temperature records. ...

Ian Murray
10-02-2020, 09:11 AM
Expect a lot of pro-coal spruiking from Matt Canavan, the ex-Minister for Coal. Don't expect too many factual claims.

Canavan: Renewables The “Dole Bludgers” Of Energy (https://www.solarquotes.com.au/blog/canavan-coal-renewables-mb1400/?fbclid=IwAR3NQ36hkoIOdk6PbRi3l0R0RJ7s-6dWTw9MANttZvNiGshXcmZn6LIS7zE)

Senator Matt Canavan is ramping up his pro-coal power message for North Queensland, and has made an interesting comment about renewables.

Up until last week, Senator Canavan was Federal Minister for Resources and Northern Australia. That came to an end when he backed Barnaby Joyce in his failed attempt at regaining leadership of the Nationals. ...

In an article by Senator Canavan for the Courier Mail published early this morning (paywall), he says there is no power station north of Rockhampton that can generate electricity 24 hours a day.

“Renewable energy can complement our energy needs but renewables do not run all the time making them unsuitable to support manufacturing jobs. Renewables are the dole bludgers of the energy system, they only turn up to work when they want to.”

Senator Canavan applauded a joint announcement ... for up to $4 million to support a feasibility study by Shine Energy for a proposed 1GW “high efficiency, low emissions” coal plant at Collinsville in Queensland.

The term “high efficiency, low emissions” – or HELE – is rather misleading. It would be more accurate to call it “not so high efficiency, not so low emissions”, but NSHENSLE is really hard to pronounce and does nothing to strengthen the case of those who support it.

The Finkel Review report (PDF) released in June 2017 noted the following estimated operating emissions (kg CO2-e/ MWh) for various forms of coal power:

Subcritical (conventional) brown coal – 1,140
Supercritical brown coal (HELE) – 960
Subcritical (conventional) black coal – 940
Supercritical black coal (HELE) -860
Ultra-supercritical brown coal (HELE) – 845
Ultra-supercritical black coal (HELE) – 700

.. so “HELE” is lower, but not low by any stretch of the imagination. Addition of HELE technology increases the cost of coal power and as for carbon capture and storage (CCS), well...

What Senator Canavan didn’t mention in his Courier Mail piece was another element of the same Federal Government announcement.

Up to $2 million is to be provided for a pre-feasibility study on Renewable Energy Partners Pty Ltd’s proposed 1.5 gigawatt (GW) pumped hydro-electric plant, which is to be developed in conjunction with the proposed Urannah Water Scheme located between Collinsville, Proserpine and Mackay.

But the Urannah Renewable Energy Hub would be much more than just pumped hydro. RenewEconomy reports it would also feature up to 1.3GW of solar PV capacity, 800MW of wind power and a 200MW hydrogen electrolyser. The project would significantly boost energy security in North Queensland, support manufacturing, create jobs – and generate zero-emissions electricity.

ER
10-02-2020, 09:24 AM
Canavan: Renewables The “Dole Bludgers” Of Energy

Harsh! disability support pension receivers more likely!

Ian Murray
10-02-2020, 06:10 PM
City of Adelaide inks deal to go 100% renewable from July 2020 (https://onestepoffthegrid.com.au/city-of-adelaide-inks-deal-to-go-100-renewable-from-july-2020/?fbclid=IwAR0XsvA5pY-4NhW2c11UVSlC4c8_YiL4ybw9Wy6IX4fdd_8lTbDFcOPUXEQ)

The City of Adelaide has revealed it will power all of its operations and council-owned facilities with 100 per cent renewable energy via a power purchase deal with Flow Power that will kick off in July.

The deal will see Flow Power supply all of the energy needs of South Australia’s capital city council from a mix of locally generated wind and solar power ...

Lord Mayor of Adelaide, Sandy Verschoor, said its PPA with Flow Power was part of the City’s commitment to achieving carbon neutrality, and would slash its operational emissions by around 50 per cent.

On top of that, Verschoor said, the deal would deliver electricity cost savings “in the order of 20 per cent” compared to the City’s most recent energy contract. ...

“From the 1 July 2020, if it’s run by the City of Adelaide, it’s being powered by renewable electricity.

“This means that all our corporate and community buildings, council event infrastructure, electric vehicle chargers, barbecues in the Park Lands, water pumps, street lighting and traffic lights – everything that council operates – will be powered by renewable electricity.” ...

Blunderbuss
11-02-2020, 10:50 AM
I like this (a lot)...

When people say "The climate has changed before", these are the kind of changes they are talking about. https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

Capablanca-Fan
11-02-2020, 03:00 PM
Climate Crisis Solved By New Jet That Runs On Liberal Hypocrisy (https://babylonbee.com/news/climate-crisis-solved-by-new-jet-that-runs-on-liberal-hypocrisy)
Babylon Bee, 10 Feb 2020

"Perder said he was trying to figure out what resource the earth has that's nearly limitless when it hit him: the hypocrisy of rich lefties. "There is so much liberal hypocrisy to go around that we never have to worry about running out," he said. "Fossil fuels may go away in a few hundred years, and people are scared of nuclear, but we have an inexhaustible supply of liberal hypocrisy."

And every time one of these liberal elites gives a condescending Oscar speech or goes on a world tour in their private jet to tell people how bad they are for flying commercial and not running around in a Flintstones car, they're just generating more energy to power these new airplanes."

Desmond
11-02-2020, 07:23 PM
I like this (a lot)...

When people say "The climate has changed before", these are the kind of changes they are talking about. https://xkcd.com/1732/ (https://xkcd.com/1732/)

Yes interesting (and scary) what a vast change to the climate 4 degrees would be. On the other hand you have mouth-breathers like ER who can only think how nice the mediterranean is in the summer.

MichaelBaron
11-02-2020, 11:16 PM
Florida had over 100 hurricanes since 1850...but the last one was due to climate Change :)

Ian Murray
12-02-2020, 08:39 AM
Florida had over 100 hurricanes since 1850...but the last one was due to climate Change :)

No scientist has ever claimed that individual hurricanes are caused by global heating. However there is a clear link between ocean surface temperature and cyclone formation and intensity

http://media.bom.gov.au/social/blog/1381/tropical-cyclones-at-sea-the-ocean-below-the-storm/

Capablanca-Fan
13-02-2020, 08:04 AM
Does "Capitalism Kill?" NO

Young Americans Against Socialism

Many socialists use environmentalism to promote their toxic goals. In reality, capitalism has enabled ways to make the environment cleaner and less polluting. E.g. fracking has enabled the USA to reduce CO₂ emissions more than the next 12 countries combined. Conversely, many socialist countries not only killed millions of their own people, but damaged their environment. If the government owns the environment, then the people have no say. Hence the polluting mines and deforestation in Venezuela.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVyQDB86njA

Ian Murray
13-02-2020, 08:35 AM
Yesterday's address to the National Press Club by Australia's Chief Scientist, Dr Alan Finkel, outlining his vision of a hydrogen future. Which is not science fiction - it's started. The world's first ship designed to transport liquid hydrogen has been launched in Japan. Australia is ideally placed to serve this market.

National Press Club Address: The orderly transition to the electric planet (https://www.chiefscientist.gov.au/news-and-media/national-press-club-address-orderly-transition-electric-planet)

"The only way to meet the energy needs of the future without sacrificing standards of living, or undermining the economy, is by planning for an orderly transition that embraces science and technology as the stepping stones to the future we want.

A future where we supply the vast majority of our energy requirements by electricity. Clean electricity. A future I like to call the “Electric Planet”." ...

Desmond
13-02-2020, 10:49 AM
Does "Capitalism Kill?" NO

Young Americans Against Socialism

Many socialists use environmentalism to promote their toxic goals.
Ah yes, environmentalists are all evil lefty socialists, like Margaret Thatcher (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Man-Made-Climate-Change-Issues-and-debates&p=460144&viewfull=1#post460144). :rolleyes:

Ian Murray
13-02-2020, 01:25 PM
Ah yes, environmentalists are all evil lefty socialists, like Margaret Thatcher (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?6637-Man-Made-Climate-Change-Issues-and-debates&p=460144&viewfull=1#post460144). :rolleyes:

The scare campaign over capitalism vs socialism is only an attempt to thwart any government action on climate change and preserve the profits of the fossil fuel industries. No-one seriously believes that the US or Australia are likely to elect socialist governments.

Fortunately there are venture capitalists who look beyond next quarter's bottom line and are prepared to invest serious dollars into long-term renewable projects (e.g. Mike Cannon-Bowles' SunCable (https://www.afr.com/policy/energy-and-climate/cannon-brookes-plan-to-export-aussie-solar-power-to-singapore-20190924-p52u9o) first stage was over-subscribed when opened to investors). It would be even easier with a supportive government rather than one including a former minister who describes renewables as the 'dole bludgers' of energy generation. (https://7news.com.au/politics/federal-politics/matt-canavan-labels-renewable-resources-the-dole-bludgers-of-energy-system-c-689853)

Desmond
13-02-2020, 03:18 PM
The scare campaign over capitalism vs socialism is only an attempt to thwart any government action on climate change and preserve the profits of the fossil fuel industries. No-one seriously believes that the US or Australia are likely to elect socialist governments.The irony being that the goverment's addicted to revenues from fossil fuel, and fossil fuel industry in turn addicted to subidies from the government. So which side of the argument is really the small government one?

Ian Murray
14-02-2020, 10:18 AM
The Barefoot Denier

https://www.facebook.com/sammyjcomedian/videos/194821128277878/

Ian Murray
20-02-2020, 11:00 AM
Sometimes solutions are simply simple

One simple trick could cut the climate impact of flying (http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/one-simple-trick-could-cut-the-climate-impact-of-flying)

Changing the flight paths of just a few aircraft could slash the contribution of contrails to global warming by three-fifths, according to a new analysis. ...

antichrist
20-02-2020, 12:50 PM
Sometimes solutions are simply simple

One simple trick could cut the climate impact of flying (http://www.anthropocenemagazine.org/2020/02/one-simple-trick-could-cut-the-climate-impact-of-flying)

Changing the flight paths of just a few aircraft could slash the contribution of contrails to global warming by three-fifths, according to a new analysis. ...

If they curtailed military flights it would save tonnes as well

Capablanca-Fan
24-02-2020, 06:07 AM
The Totally, Utterly Irrefutable Case Against Socialism (https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-totally-utterly-irrefutable-case-against-socialism)
Lee Edwards, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, 11 Jul 2019

Markets, not bureaucrats, are better for the environment, asserts Shawn Regan, a fellow at the Property and Environment Research Center, pointing out that Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union “were the most polluted and degraded places on earth.”

He quotes the economist Murray Feshbach and journalist Alfred Friendly Jr. as writing that when historians conduct an autopsy of Soviet Communism, “they may reach the verdict of death by ecocide.”

Closer to home, says Regan, the attempts of Cuban socialists to maximize production at all costs “has caused extensive air, soil, and water pollution.”

In Venezuela, socialist policies have contaminated drinking water supplies, fueled rampant deforestation, and caused frequent oil spills. The principal guilty party is the state-owned energy company.

Rarely, if ever, will Ocasio-Cortez and other sponsors of the Green New Deal concede the painful truth about socialism’s dismal environmental legacy.

Blunderbuss
24-02-2020, 01:13 PM
The Totally, Utterly Irrefutable Case Against Socialism

Total, utter bollocks.

When 61 countries are ranked by their climate change performance, Sweden (governed for 40 years by The Social Democratic Party) are top performers. Bottom - United States. CCPI-2020-Results_Web_Version.pdf (https://newclimate.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/CCPI-2020-Results_Web_Version.pdf)

Venezuela doesn’t have a monopoly on environmental issues – try Brazil: Brazil worker who protected indigenous tribes killed in Amazon (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-49633136)


Hundreds of government environment workers in Brazil last month signed an open letter warning that their work had been hampered by President Bolsonaro.

Since Mr Bolsonaro took office on 1 January, the government body charged with protecting the rainforest has seen its budget cut by 25%, while funding for the prevention of forest fires has been cut by 23%, according to data collected by the Reuters news agency.

In the same period, the number of fines issued to environmental criminals fell 29% and the collective value of the fines fell 43%, according to the Reuters data.

Last time I checked Bolsonaro isn’t a socialist.

Ian Murray
24-02-2020, 02:00 PM
The free market is unable to manage the harm it causes to the environment with waste

4098

There's a Trash Crisis in The US Happening Right Now (https://www.sciencealert.com/the-us-has-nowhere-to-put-its-recycling)

Recycling in the United States is piling up at an alarming speed and no one knows where to put it. ...

US produces far more waste and recycles far less of it than other developed countries (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/02/us-plastic-waste-recycling)

The US produces far more garbage and recycles far less of it than other developed countries, according to a new analysis by the global risk consulting firm Verisk Maplecroft. ...

Desmond
24-02-2020, 05:47 PM
The Totally, Utterly Irrefutable Case Against Socialism (https://www.heritage.org/conservatism/commentary/the-totally-utterly-irrefutable-case-against-socialism)
Lee Edwards, Ph.D., Heritage Foundation, 11 Jul 2019

Markets, not bureaucrats, are better for the environment,



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YGfwSvLkC0