Hello Railpagers,

I think many people who are getting their knickers in a knot over this whole climate change thing dont really understand the different sectors of the environmental movement so i will try and clear things up now here goes:

1) Pollution = Any human addition to the earths environment of harmful products - This is a real problem and can come in the solid, liquid, and gaseous forms. Think chimneys spewing toxic gases into the air, factories releasing dangerous chemicals into the water, and rubbish trucks dumping toxic waste in landfill.

2) Extraction = Any human removal from the earths environment of limited products - This is a real problem and can come in the energy and materialistic sectors. Think Earth having a finite amount of feed-stock for non renewable energy sources, and Earth having a finite amount of reserves for minerals and metals.

3) Climate change = The periodic (on a geological time scale) change of the earths weather systems, temperature, rainfall, and all the rest of that fun stuff. Most scientists agree that this particular climate cycle is going to be more serious than previous climate cycles due to human beings pumping more carbon into the air.

Have i missed anything?

They Wont Listen, Its Simple. They have already made up their mind on this topic. Blinding as Ideology.

They Wont Listen, Its Simple. They have already made up their mind on this topic. Blinding as Ideology.

G'day All,

My late grandmother told me over 50 years ago about a heated discussion between her husband and his father at their home in Moonta SA in the mid 1920s. My grandfather (a blacksmith) employed at the hugh copper mines there wanted to change careers and become one of these new fangled motor mechanics, but his father (a miner at the same mine) was against it, claiming that the horseless carriages were a fad and will die out. The rest is history. Most earlier motor mechanics were in fact blacksmiths.

I disagree, people are concerned, but they are also concerned how these changes (voluntarily or government mandated) are going to affect their families, lifestyle, finances, jobs etc.

What we need, and have not in any way got, is a planned, phased transition process. Most politicians of all persuasions are only interested in kicking the can down the road until the take their taxpayer pensions. Therein lies the main problem.

Regards,

They Wont Listen, Its Simple. They have already made up their mind on this topic. Blinding as Ideology.

It ain't happening - it's simple. There is no climate emergency - violent storms and extreme weather events are killing less people than ever. Cyclonic activity in Australia has decreased markedly in the last decade - anyone remember the super-storms predicted to wipe out Sydney? Bushfires, droughts, storms - they're all completely natural phenomena in our nation, now suddenly they're evidence of carbon dioxide putting the system out of kilt? Pull the other one. Its the complete lack of predictive capacity with these predictions that has me stumped - the climate alarmists have been wrong for 20+ years and yet somehow they keep getting air-time, research grants, whatever.

What about sea-level rises - nup, the predictions were all wrong again. We've had a few mm but nothing like we were told 15-20 years ago. Pity because I was really hoping the Gold Coast would get inundated - all that glitter and glitz washed out into the Pacific. But no...!

No more Arctic sea ice in summer by 2013 Al Gore said. Do I have to go on? You people are completely ignorant to the reality that nothing is happening.

They Wont Listen, Its Simple. They have already made up their mind on this topic. Blinding as Ideology.

You people are completely ignorant to the reality that nothing is happening.

That's like saying there's no jobs in Adelaide because of Hawke and Keating!

Be interesting to see how the carbon tax, transitioning to an to an ETS under PM Gillard would have eventuated.
If nothing else, CERTAINTY.

It's rapidly becoming a toxic subject to talk about.

The far left are totally set In their ways and are fully against freedom of speech.

It's rapidly becoming a toxic subject to talk about.

The far left are totally set In their ways and are fully against freedom of speech.

Interesting that you label left leaning people as 'far left.'

Are you happy to be labelled as 'far right?'

As in, an extremist?

Lefties aren't against free speech, mate. But, they are fully aware (unlike righties) that there is a cavernous difference between free speech and hate speech.

Poofters....Muslims are terrorists....It-all-started-when-apartheid-ended....Climate change is crap....it's all the same to you mate.

Interesting that you label left leaning people as 'far left.'

Are you happy to be labelled as 'far right?'

As in, an extremist?

Lefties aren't against free speech, mate. But, they are fully aware (unlike righties) that there is a cavernous difference between free speech and hate speech.

Poofters....Muslims are terrorists....It-all-started-when-apartheid-ended....Climate change is crap....it's all the same to you mate.

What a load of rubbish you have written here !

I only mentioned the "far left" (the Greens fit this bill) and their continual push for censorship.

You people are completely ignorant to the reality that nothing is happening.

That's like saying there's no jobs in Adelaide because of Hawke and Keating!

There's no lots-of-things because of Hawke and Keating. But seriously - there's been a tiny rise of 1.0c since the start of the industrial revolution and the world hasn't ended... I really don't see how another degree before the end of the century is really going to be so catastrophic. Carbon dioxide isn't a poison you know - it's only 0.04% of the global atmosphere and yet there are people in authority who are banging on about how its causing the world ending in 12 years? Spare me your exaggerated fear-mongering rubbish, United Nations. As I've said repeatedly, forestry has actually resulted in more tree cover globally; if it continues then surely mitigation of the carbon 'problem' will be inevitable.

Why not worry about things that might actually happen - like monster volcanoes that could kill millions from cold and famine? We're only one major volcanic eruption away from rapid global cooling - snow in summer and years of crop failures (536AD), and "the year without a summer" (1816), major famines globally when Tambora erupted causing severe cooling - the last time the Thames froze in its entirely actually. We really haven't had a major volcanic eruption since Krakatoa so we're probably about due for one...

It must be time for a group of volcanologists (an eruption? ) put their hands into the climate change bottomless bucket and throw this warming crisis a curveball.
But they wouldn't get the money as it wouldn't be the answer 97% of scientists are supposed to get.

You people are completely ignorant to the reality that nothing is happening.

That's like saying there's no jobs in Adelaide because of Hawke and Keating!

There's no lots-of-things because of Hawke and Keating. But seriously - there's been a tiny rise of 1.0c since the start of the industrial revolution and the world hasn't ended... I really don't see how another degree before the end of the century is really going to be so catastrophic. Carbon dioxide isn't a poison you know - it's only 0.04% of the global atmosphere and yet there are people in authority who are banging on about how its causing the world ending in 12 years? Spare me your exaggerated fear-mongering rubbish, United Nations. As I've said repeatedly, forestry has actually resulted in more tree cover globally; if it continues then surely mitigation of the carbon 'problem' will be inevitable.

Why not worry about things that might actually happen - like monster volcanoes that could kill millions from cold and famine? We're only one major volcanic eruption away from rapid global cooling - snow in summer and years of crop failures (536AD), and "the year without a summer" (1816), major famines globally when Tambora erupted causing severe cooling - the last time the Thames froze in its entirely actually. We really haven't had a major volcanic eruption since Krakatoa so we're probably about due for one...

90% of the excess heat has been absorbed by our Oceans since the Industrial revolution.  They're feeding that heat back into the atmosphere which is now accelerating.  Evidenced by the North Pole Ice Cap reduction, and melting glaciers.

The eruption of Pinatubo in 1991 only delayed global warming by about 2 years.

I'm no Flannery alarmist (in fact I'm a former climate change denialist), but we're making a mess of the world and we need to change the way we use our resources.

It ain't happening - it's simple. There is no climate emergency - violent storms and extreme weather events are killing less people than ever. Cyclonic activity in Australia has decreased markedly in the last decade - anyone remember the super-storms predicted to wipe out Sydney? Bushfires, droughts, storms - they're all completely natural phenomena in our nation, now suddenly they're evidence of carbon dioxide putting the system out of kilt? Pull the other one. Its the complete lack of predictive capacity with these predictions that has me stumped - the climate alarmists have been wrong for 20+ years and yet somehow they keep getting air-time, research grants, whatever.

Wow, you're using the GWPF as your source? That's a bit like going to a homeopath for cancer, unwise, not helpful and possibly fatal.

One of the biggest dangers of media trying to be impartial is that they tend to invite both sides of the 'debate' to create what appears to be a balanced discussion. To give a more realistic balance though, imagine an interview with 97 scientists all speaking about the threat of climate change, with 3 on the other side. That's balanced.

Oh, and please don't pull the crap about scientists working together to continue their richly funded work. I worked in science for 17 years and I take my hat off to the lot of them. They work with very very uncertain funding, year in, year out. They then have to cut each others throats to get future funding and as for agreeing with each other, they're a fractious mob, all very independently minded and intelligent. Life was never dull in science, but agreement and riches, don't make me laugh.

All I want is conclusive, peer validated and definite evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are going to do everything that we were promised to. Where's the cyclones as far south as Sydney? Where's the flooding of the Gold Coast and the 20-30cm sea rises I was promised fifteen years ago?

I keep returning to the complete lack of predictive capacity in the doom-sayers ramblings because its relevant that none of the things that have been predicted by the 'models' in the past have come true. Anyone who has been following this thing for 15-20 years (as I have) would realise that nothing has come true. Yet we're being asked to spend billions on ameliorating something that there's no evidence supporting.

Show me the sea rises! Show me the killer storms and cyclones!

It must be time for a group of volcanologists (an eruption? ) put their hands into the climate change bottomless bucket and throw this warming crisis a curveball.
But they wouldn't get the money as it wouldn't be the answer 97% of scientists are supposed to get.

That seems to be how it works.

FFS Don, your starting to sound like that One Nation idiot.

All I want is conclusive, peer validated and definite evidence that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere are going to do everything that we were promised to. Where's the cyclones as far south as Sydney? Where's the flooding of the Gold Coast and the 20-30cm sea rises I was promised fifteen years ago?

I keep returning to the complete lack of predictive capacity in the doom-sayers ramblings because its relevant that none of the things that have been predicted by the 'models' in the past have come true. Anyone who has been following this thing for 15-20 years (as I have) would realise that nothing has come true. Yet we're being asked to spend billions on ameliorating something that there's no evidence supporting.

Show me the sea rises! Show me the killer storms and cyclones!

Don, here is both the satellite and ground based data on Sea Level rises (94mm since 1993, 230mm since 1880):
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

As for killer storms and cyclones - there is much less consensus on that.  The indications are that frequency has definitely reduced: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

Don, here is both the satellite and ground based data on Sea Level rises (94mm since 1993, 230mm since 1880):
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Meaningless: The oceans are still rising from the end of the last mini-ice age mid last millennia.

As for killer storms and cyclones - there is much less consensus on that. The indications are that frequency has definitely reduced: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

Again, meaningless. The Bureau of Meteorology says that cyclonic activity has decreased substantially in the last ten years. Although someone will probably tell us that this is evidence of climate change.

Sun came up this morning? Climate change.

FFS Don, your starting to sound like that One Nation idiot.

If the 'science is settled' then you'll be able to easily show me why we need to spend billions of more stupid bloody windmills. So far I haven't seen anything that conclusively proves 'the science is settled'.

Don, the argument has been settled for nigh on 30 years, if your not going to accept the facts, no evidence will convince you. And there has been enough links provided on these forums alone. Exxon admitted they new about the issue in the late sixties, and buried all the research and have done everything possible in the years since to undermine the science.The argument we should be having is the best way to respond.

Have a read of this and see what can be achieved by  regulation and being prepared to accept the science.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/acid-rain/


Especially the last bit.

Don, here is both the satellite and ground based data on Sea Level rises (94mm since 1993, 230mm since 1880):
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

Meaningless: The oceans are still rising from the end of the last mini-ice age mid last millennia.

As for killer storms and cyclones - there is much less consensus on that. The indications are that frequency has definitely reduced: http://www.bom.gov.au/cyclone/climatology/trends.shtml

Again, meaningless. The Bureau of Meteorology says that cyclonic activity has decreased substantially in the last ten years. Although someone will probably tell us that this is evidence of climate change.

Sun came up this morning? Climate change.

If you bothered to look closer, the rate of sea level increase is accelerating.  Hardly meaningless:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

Don, the argument has been settled for nigh on 30 years, if your not going to accept the facts, no evidence will convince you.

I do wonder why these people put so much effort attempting to discredit the science. We know Global Warming became Climate Change due to pressure from oil producers and their constituent governments. There's plenty of evidence of who is funding the disinformation campaigns. All very similar to the tactics of 'Big Tobacco' and just like every 'treat' to the status quo since JC tore up that temple.

If you bothered to look closer, the rate of sea level increase is accelerating.  Hardly meaningless:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-climate-change-is-accelerating-sea-level-rise

There's no agreement about the rate of rise of sea levels - CSIRO says 3mm a year since 1990. However the Bureau of Meteorology has said that in some parts of Australia ie Sydney Harbor that they've experienced a receding shore-line. The Aussie continental shore-line has gone up and down 120+ metres in the last 140,000 years - it's just that in the last two millenia the shore-lines have been relatively stable.  

So the shore-line might actually rise a foot or so before the end of this century - so what? Like I said my only disappointment is that I might not live to see the Gold Coast swallowed by one of those mega-cyclones they have been predicting for 20 years, smashing all that glitz and glamour and inflicting a biblical punishment on us. Hooray, the Jehovah's Witnesses will be all saying "I told you so...".

But no - I bet not even that happens.

Carnot, I would normally respect you as one of the more balanced people on this board but you have to realise that catestrophic climate change is a hoax designed to enrich the promoters of 'green' alternatives. If it isn't then why won't they allow nuclear power in Australia - it's really the only other realistic choice we have if we're not allowed to burn coal.

Don, the argument has been settled for nigh on 30 years, if your not going to accept the facts, no evidence will convince you.

I do wonder why these people put so much effort attempting to discredit the science. We know Global Warming became Climate Change due to pressure from oil producers and their constituent governments. There's plenty of evidence of who is funding the disinformation campaigns. All very similar to the tactics of 'Big Tobacco' and just like every 'treat' to the status quo since JC tore up that temple.

Nothing will come of it - the climate will change a bit but not nearly at the catastrophic levels being predicted. It's like telling kiddies that they'll be annihilated by nuclear war as they did in the eighties with this charming number. Why bother if we're going to get nuked by the Russians is just the old fashioned version of that vulgar form of emotional blackmail being used against children right now - otherwise known as the anti-carbon dioxide people.

It's not a poison, peoples, stop your new-fashioned fear-mongering!

When don_dunstan has health issues he doesn't bother with doctors or hospitals, he just asks his barber or the bloke down the pub