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

Bing, here's some evidence - supposedly the sea-line has moved up to a foot in coastal Oz since the 1880's yet these historic terraces have been on the Grange SA shoreline since that decade. They still have sea-views, but look they're pretty damn close to the rising water. Should have been obliterated by now don't you think?

Despite the fact that the Gold Coast QLD could seemingly be flooded by climate change any moment there's still squillions of dollars being invested in Queensland. Here's a skyscraper aficionado's latest map of the super-tall buildings being built there at the moment - at this forum which I look at from time to time.

Now ask yourself this: Why would any investor and/or insurer in their right mind be building new skyscrapers when that place is totes going to drown with the rising oceans. Who has insured these buildings? They're out of their minds if what Greta says is true. Any moment now catastrophic climate change will drown that million or so residents.

The Gold Coast is full of overly optimistic shysters and conmen property developers. Of course they're going to ignore science.

Despite the fact that the Gold Coast QLD could seemingly be flooded by climate change any moment there's still squillions of dollars being invested in Queensland. Here's a skyscraper aficionado's latest map of the super-tall buildings being built there at the moment - at this forum which I look at from time to time.

Now ask yourself this: Why would any investor and/or insurer in their right mind be building new skyscrapers when that place is totes going to drown with the rising oceans. Who has insured these buildings? They're out of their minds if what Greta says is true. Any moment now catastrophic climate change will drown that million or so residents.

We can only hope!

The money being invested in the Gold Coast is small change compared to the money being invested in Siberia, Alaska and Northern Canada to secure access to oil and gas reserves, newly arable land, and the north east east north west passages. All of these investments depend on climate change happening.

Wait, I thought This thread had been locked?

Confusion?   It must be climate change!

thread opened to see if any balanced posts are forthcomming.

thread opened to see if any balanced posts are forthcomming.

Why did you close it, you don't agree with the data presented by some posters? There was nothing wrong with the previous debate, certainly far worse in other threads are not locked.

The money being invested in the Gold Coast is small change compared to the money being invested in Siberia, Alaska and Northern Canada to secure access to oil and gas reserves, newly arable land, and the north east east north west passages. All of these investments depend on climate change happening.

I have a few Rel's with canal properties in the GC over the years, most are a fair way above the high tide level and even a 1m sea level rise wouldn't I think be end of the world for them (not that I'm promoting). There are however other generally older areas less fortunate on the GC and other such as Woy Woy / Umina area of the Central Coast, NSW, where a friend of mine has a house where the highest tide almost lap the floor boards of their old fishing shack house which they know needs to be replaced. Also Launceston CBD etc.

So, this thread is reopened today. Coincidentally, the quote from my desktop flip page calendar thingy today says, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley.

Just because some people don't feel that things have changed since the day they were born (while freely admitting that they had changed immensely in the eons before) doesn't mean that they haven't changed at all.

Let's look beyond climate averages, unseasonal firestorms, rampant coastal erosion etc. What is behind the sudden onset of delayed migratory patterns of certain bird species?

Salient from the following article is "For the past 30 years, the south-west Victorian population has arrived at Griffiths Island, near Port Fairy, a day either side of September 22. But this year, the day came and went without the usual flurry of activity."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-05/mutton-birds-delayed-migratory-vic-arrival-alarms-birdwatchers/11572220

What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?

So, this thread is reopened today. Coincidentally, the quote from my desktop flip page calendar thingy today says, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley.

Just because some people don't feel that things have changed since the day they were born (while freely admitting that they had changed immensely in the eons before) doesn't mean that they haven't changed at all.

Let's look beyond climate averages, unseasonal firestorms, rampant coastal erosion etc. What is behind the sudden onset of delayed migratory patterns of certain bird species?

Salient from the following article is "For the past 30 years, the south-west Victorian population has arrived at Griffiths Island, near Port Fairy, a day either side of September 22. But this year, the day came and went without the usual flurry of activity."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-05/mutton-birds-delayed-migratory-vic-arrival-alarms-birdwatchers/11572220

What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?

Yes, apparently someone objected to the views, comments and data presented and decided to Lock the thread.

Back to topic.
It think the general feeling in the community are things need to change and that there are negative impacts of sorts from the CO2 emissions as there was from chemical emissions, although the level of impact is certainly debatable.

The question on how to reduce CO2 emissions is on the how, is it practical, does it actually achieve anything, will it lead to us being at a disadvantage economically to others, who pays and who should be doing it?

For example
- Industry doesn't pay, the end user customer pays
- The Govt doesn't pay, the taxpayer pays
Note: The customer and taxpayer are one and the same.

What are people doing themselves?
For example, are they Wag a day off school protesting, then front a function the next day wearing a once off outfit riding in a car?

What about ill thought through Govt CO2 taxes on rail, but not trucks OR PT but not petrol?

Is the plan to cut 24/7/365/40 available coal, but replace it with intermittent wind and solar at 3 x the price? If we are serious, does this mean the previous negatives views of nuclear are now considered null and void?

Or off shore CO2 to achieve statistical agendas?
In my industry a very respected consultant was telling me recently Iceland is under pressure to close its aluminium industry, which is very large compared to its small population and hence driving Icelands CO2/capita up despite its being powered by Geothermal. Meanwhile Australia's CO2/capita is going down and lower than Iceland despite our large coal power industry. Note nearly all growth in the aluminum sector for last 20 years has been on coal and gas and generally moving away from hydro and nuclear as their output gets redirected to growing population and/or closure of nuclear.

What about the elephant in the room? Population control, why are we still paying people to breed above replacement levels. Should there not be a longterm plan to allow the population to contract?

No side of politics has provided rational, practical solutions, however consider that Australia's CO2/capita is decreasing around 2% YoY mostly steadily since the mid to late 2000's (depending on source of data). Is this fast enough? On current trends it will achieve global average in 60 years?

thread opened to see if any balanced posts are forthcomming.

Just curious: Does "balanced" mean post that only agree with catastrophic man-made climate change?

I'm again going to point to this film as a previous generation's climate change disaster designed to scare the bejesus out of children and force them to 'act'. It's irresponsible, alarmist and it turned out to be complete rubbish.

What's the difference?

thread opened to see if any balanced posts are forthcomming.

Just curious: Does "balanced" mean post that only agree with catastrophic man-made climate change?

I'm again going to point to this film as a previous generation's climate change disaster designed to scare the bejesus out of children and force them to 'act'. It's irresponsible, alarmist and it turned out to be complete rubbish.

What's the difference?

Agree, talking with friends yesterday about the recent "Chernobyl" series and how much BS this series was on technical merit and I wonder if it was done specially to try and squash the rising support for nuclear power to replace coal.

Even the notorious contrarian alternative film-maker Michael Moore has produced a movie about how so-called green energy is a load of rubbish and won't do anything to reduce our 'carbon footprint'. Not surprisingly he's had trouble getting it released because nobody in Hollywood will touch it with a barge pole - Associated Press:

What if alternative energy isn’t all it’s cracked up to be? That’s the provocative question explored in the documentary “Planet of the Humans,” which is backed and promoted by filmmaker Michael Moore and directed by one of his longtime collaborators. It premiered last week at his Traverse City Film Festival.

The film, which does not yet have distribution, is a low-budget but piercing examination of what the filmmakers say are the false promises of the environmental movement and why we’re still “addicted” to fossil fuels. Director Jeff Gibbs takes on electric cars, solar panels, windmills, biomass, biofuel, leading environmentalist groups like the Sierra Club, and even figures from Al Gore and Van Jones, who served as Barack Obama’s special adviser for green jobs, to 350.org leader Bill McKibben, a leading environmentalist and advocate for grassroots climate change movements.

Gibbs, who produced Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine” and “Fahrenheit 9/11,” didn’t set out to take on the environmental movement. He said he wanted to know why things weren’t getting better. But when he started pulling on the thread, he and Moore said they were shocked to find how inextricably entangled alternative energy is with coal and natural gas, since they say everything from wind turbines to electric car charging stations are tethered to the grid, and even how two of the Koch brothers — Charles and David — are tied to solar panel production through their glass production business.

“It turned out the wakeup call was about our own side,” Gibbs said in a phone interview. “It was kind of crushing to discover that the things I believed in weren’t real, first of all, and then to discover not only are the solar panels and wind turbines not going to save us ... but (also) that there is this whole dark side of the corporate money ... It dawned on me that these technologies were just another profit center.”

So 'green energy' is all a lie designed to enrich the promoters and do nothing at all to "save the planet". What a shock!

So, this thread is reopened today. Coincidentally, the quote from my desktop flip page calendar thingy today says, "Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored" - Aldous Huxley.

Just because some people don't feel that things have changed since the day they were born (while freely admitting that they had changed immensely in the eons before) doesn't mean that they haven't changed at all.

Let's look beyond climate averages, unseasonal firestorms, rampant coastal erosion etc. What is behind the sudden onset of delayed migratory patterns of certain bird species?

Salient from the following article is "For the past 30 years, the south-west Victorian population has arrived at Griffiths Island, near Port Fairy, a day either side of September 22. But this year, the day came and went without the usual flurry of activity."

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-05/mutton-birds-delayed-migratory-vic-arrival-alarms-birdwatchers/11572220

What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?

Peter Dutton was seen in the area.

What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?

The climate IS changing; how much of that is to do with anthropomorphic climate change is going to be almost impossible to separate from climate change that would have occurred naturally anyway.

And bushfires have always happened in Australia at unseasonable times of the year - it just depends on what local conditions are like. We live in a continent of extreme weather conditions with unreliable rain and cyclical droughts: This is how its always been. It has nothing at all to do with burning of fossil fuels.

What's going on, if it isn't due to an environmental change which is dictated by climate change or man made activity?

The climate IS changing; how much of that is to do with anthropomorphic climate change is going to be almost impossible to separate from climate change that would have occurred naturally anyway.

And bushfires have always happened in Australia at unseasonable times of the year - it just depends on what local conditions are like. We live in a continent of extreme weather conditions with unreliable rain and cyclical droughts: This is how its always been. It has nothing at all to do with burning of fossil fuels.

Agree, its near impossible 60-80 years depending on your location, yes there are places that go back 200 years but those places are few and now mostly surrounded by development. That's not a longtime to be telling what is normal and what is an not-typical for something as variable as the weather.

I was having a debate with someone on LinkedIn about little Swedish Miss having a tanty on a global platform such as the UN trying to sell her message about Climate Change. My view being we need rational debate and discussion, not what happened the other week which will achieve nothing. This person responded showing me a graph of damaged caused by extreme weather in the USA increasing with time. So ok lets look at Florida, today 21m, 1980, 10m, so naturally damage will increase with time even with all else being equal. The same runs right up the US Eastern seaboard. Likewise damage from bush fires, more people live in the bush, there has been a move away from clear felling around development, Green movement pushing back on burn-off's. Earthquakes in California etc etc.

Agree, its near impossible 60-80 years depending on your location, yes there are places that go back 200 years but those places are few and now mostly surrounded by development. That's not a longtime to be telling what is normal and what is an not-typical for something as variable as the weather.

Bushfires are a regular occurrence on our continent, the first Australians (in some instances) used fire as a management tool and some of our flora actually relies on fire to help germinate and reproduce. We have to take into account our own management (or mis-management) of the bush ecosystem in whether or not fires are increasing or decreasing.

"Climate change" probably has bugger all to do with the prevalence or intensity of fires.

https://www.venganza.org/images/spreadword/pchart1.pdf

Over an extremely short period the concentration of the major greenhouse gases such as CO2, Methane and Nitrous Oxides have spiked impressively (or perhaps not) and human activity is the only explanation. In spite of Thump's ongoing assault on all things environmental, the US EPA still publishes the data.
http://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-atmospheric-concentrations-greenhouse-gases

Regardless, the politics of greed/self interest will hinder any meaningful changes and a point of no return will be reached during this century. Perhaps that's just the nature of this species and nature seems to have a way of sorting species out. As average temperatures continue to climb so will the incidents of crop failures, viruses and disease outbreaks.

Even if it doesn't conclusively contribute to some climatic disasters, surely the likelihood and extent of droughts and bushfires must increase as longer periods of warmer weather will have a corresponding impact on soil and vegetation moisture levels.

Agree, its near impossible 60-80 years depending on your location, yes there are places that go back 200 years but those places are few and now mostly surrounded by development. That's not a longtime to be telling what is normal and what is an not-typical for something as variable as the weather.

Bushfires are a regular occurrence on our continent, the first Australians (in some instances) used fire as a management tool and some of our flora actually relies on fire to help germinate and reproduce. We have to take into account our own management (or mis-management) of the bush ecosystem in whether or not fires are increasing or decreasing.

"Climate change" probably has bugger all to do with the prevalence or intensity of fires.

Don,
We are not quite on the same side of the fence on this one, but we both agree that "Climate Change" is now the go too phrase for anything that goes wrong or when you need to justify anything to the govt without too much resistance.

Listening to a numptie on ABC radio last night talking about how scientists are going to save the world in the climate emergency that is engulfing us all.   Apparently scientists are considering putting reflective bubbles in sea water to keep the heat out of the water to keep down the amount of CO2 coming out of the warming oceans.   Another way is to have reflective somethings in the stratosphere to reflect the suns warmth off the Earth to stop global warming.
Here is my suggestion to save the Earth.   A rocket containing St. Greta of the UN and her disciples (10% of the population) could be sent to discover a brand new world with just the right temperature and CO2 level.   Another 20% of population that are convinced of "The Science" could be cryogenicly frozen until St. Greta finds the New Earth.
That would leave the rest of us to live on this planet and if you are still worried about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere you could install some of those magic CO2 to O2 converters as suggested by a Prime Minister who shall not be named.
If man made CO2 is 3% of 4 ppm then that number is too small for me to calculate.

Listening to a numptie on ABC radio last night talking about how scientists are going to save the world in the climate emergency that is engulfing us all.   Apparently scientists are considering putting reflective bubbles in sea water to keep the heat out of the water to keep down the amount of CO2 coming out of the warming oceans.   Another way is to have reflective somethings in the stratosphere to reflect the suns warmth off the Earth to stop global warming.
Here is my suggestion to save the Earth.   A rocket containing St. Greta of the UN and her disciples (10% of the population) could be sent to discover a brand new world with just the right temperature and CO2 level.   Another 20% of population that are convinced of "The Science" could be cryogenicly frozen until St. Greta finds the New Earth.
That would leave the rest of us to live on this planet and if you are still worried about the level of CO2 in the atmosphere you could install some of those magic CO2 to O2 converters as suggested by a Prime Minister who shall not be named.
If man made CO2 is 3% of 4 ppm then that number is too small for me to calculate.

Geo-engineering would be a waste of time and effort.

Another possibility I've heard of is putting sulphur very high into the atmosphere; this is what occurs when there's a large volcanic eruption anyway so it's kind-of 'natural'. And it will instantly cool the planet - we know this because its happened with previous large volcanic eruptions as discussed earlier.