Now I am not going to make this easy, first, climate change is only a theory, if any scientist says anything else then they don't understand science. Flat earth society. As a theory it is only true according to our best ... Guess, yes it's a guess based on evidence, statistics, modelling etc. An educated guess. Here are the questions I would like to hear your opinions on. 1: If we ignore climate change and we are wrong what impact will it have in your opinion. 2: If we work towards a reduction in carbon and clean up our energy production and manufacturing, and we are wrong what impact will it have in your opinion.
Do really want my opinion??? I don’t think so but anyway… I think your assertion is considerably shallow. I don't believe anybody wants to ignore the issues of climate change, I could be wrong. What they do want to prevent , people trying to make others pay for their ideals. Again no reflection on the poster. Just as the consensus of scientist the answers provided to your questions are generally devoid of the reality. For example, my belief of the impact on Australia continuing its current climate policy is nil, zero, zip, Nada. Does this mean I oppose action on climate change??? as for your second point, if you do impose huge costs on economy to appease your idea that "just in case" we will be counting the bodies for decades to come. again, does nothing to point to my belief on action on climate. BUT when you (figuratively speaking) support policy that makes the poor pay while giving tax relief to the rich to meet arbitrary goals that actually do nothing (mitigation) then claim climate action, I oppose your every fibre on this subject. Because, while I cannot prove the body count is yours (figuratively) I know it is... If you would like to restructure your premise or questions, you might find different response. Perhaps you would like to demonstrate how parties policy are, I don’t know. It is up to you, but I expect all you want to do is provide insult so I am not expecting much. Now before you decide to take offence, as I know you will, any reference to you and your opinion is not personal but figuratively to those who read the comment…
(((((Sigh)))) Garnaut report Haven’t read it have you? Have you read the IPCC? No? Anyways We have to pay for electrical infrastructure regardless of whether it is coal, wind, solar or some bloke on a push bike. We always have. There are copper cables stretching across this country and every pole and every cable needs maintenance Power stations need maintenance even and can become highly inefficient if not maintained properly. In other words you have to put money into the system constantly Does it really hurt for that money to also assist with changing the system? The South Australian Battery made its owners millions last year, THAT is an idea that is not disappearing soon. With the upside that other countries are looking at this and thinking deeply. I would rather this country be a leader than a follower
Yes, your condescension is noted… don’t expect respect in return. So tell me, Australia’s action on climate change will impact the climate how much??? I know the poster made the question vague in regards to national aspect, but since area of influence is only national, that is where the comment lays. I do apologise if I did not make that clear, but internationally raises more difficult issues. Now that is the point isn't it??? You want to point at what needs to be paid for but not how to pay for it. It is imperative to pay for such, as long as you don't have too. You have to put money into it so what does it matter when the poor are burning candles to live by, cannot heat their homes or struggling to feed themselves to meet an ideal of “Does it really hurt for that money to also assist with changing the system?” I have asked you before, HOW many people have to die for YOUR ideal of climate mitigation??? Take the carbon tax, yes tax, the ALP promote. A tax that does not raise any money for the government. Business will pay for it... is there disconnect between people and business??? No, business won’t pay, people do. Under the last carbon tax ALP\Greens imposed prices increased 100%. Placing clean energy subsidies on energy to pay for an ideal of making clean energy cheaper. Tell me how hard did YOU personally find that increase??? Did you have to count your meals, maybe you went without going to the movies??? Or perhaps instead of the Penfolds merlot you had to buy the more generic brand like Lilly Pilli??? I hate to tell you, many didn’t have that choice, it was meals they missed, and more even missed out on energy… But that of course that is an inconvienent truth nobody wants to address... BUT that is fine isn’t it… “Does it really hurt for that money to also assist with changing the system?” maybe not YOU, but YES it does. Talk about humanitarian… apparently only to those of other nations… Now I would like reference to who you’re talking about here. If you’re talking about the battery array built to help make SA power more reliable, I have to ask WHO made millions from it??? After all the SA tax pay paid for it so I assume it is not Tesla but the SA government who owns it. May be the new battery producers??? Somebody batteries, they haven’t started yet. SO how did they make millions???
Regardless of my opinion on cc, the coal industry is on its way out, it is only a question of time. Even countries like India will let it go. If we want to stay in the business, we have to come up with new ideas. Selling energy (wind, sun) might be one of them (running undersea power cables to neighboring countries). The next big issue will be food. Nothing wrong to have desal plants all along our coastline, fed by the sun during day, creating fresh water for farming purpose. We could make trillions..... Have we got the politicians to deliver? Nope!!! Reg.
Fwiw, Gravity is also only a theory Fwiw, most climate change skeptics do not question that climate has and is changing Fwiw the fact that co2 is a greenhouse gas is indisputable... any one on this forum can perform the proof at home... instructions available on request Fwiw essentially no one disputes that we are changing the concentration of co2 in the atmosphere.... which logically brings us to the inexorable conclusion the we have “some impact” on climate Fwiw, the greenhouse impact of co2 was discovered almost two centuries ago and the scientist calculated (with surprising accuracy, ) the expected impact on global temperatures. This was done only based upon the experimentally derived properties of co2 along with a speculative increase in co2 concentrations due to ongoing industrialization . So, really, the only thing which remains in dispute is the impact of The climate change which we know is happening... and whether there are any unknown and unspecified contributing factors other than co2 A best guess made 200 years ago and validated by experience since then.... for which no better guess has been proposed Well... evidence being that you yourself can test whether co2 is a greenhouse gas.... that is the sort of guess it is... and i think no one dispute that we are burning lots of fossil fuels... which are dumping lots of co2 into the atmosphere... for which we have excellent and undisputed records of.... which you apparently describe as a “guess” This is, in fact, what we have to guess about But it is sort of like guessing whether smoking cigarettes will damage your health Many people “guess” that they can smoke cigarettes without negative consequence The problem with guessing about the impact of co2 is that those who guess are not just guessing for themselves.... they are guessing for all of us, and our children, and their children, and their children In answer to your question.... probably most of us reading this forum will do ok. We will turn up the air conditioning, we will build sea walls, we might complain about the weather. But, if temperatures continue rising at the current rate for 200 years.... there will certainly be big problems. So, who is making the guess. It seems like climate change skeptics are the ones making the guess. They are guessing that temperatures will not continue to rise.... without any “theory” about why that might be so.... just guessing Again you are asking for a guess. We have no idea what people actually might, or will do If i was going to guess about solar energy 20 years ago, i would not guess it would be as inexpensive as it now is, so my guess is that if we make more efforts, we will find more ways to cost effectively address the problem... as compared to doing nothing. How ever, i would be interested why anyone would guess that doing nothing and doing something would have the same results
this may well be considerably off topic, but I would suggest the focus of Co2 as contributing factor has been made the main issue of the debate. Other contributing factors are ignored due (I guess, Irony) to the complication of factoring or simply inability to address. Take the gas Ozone, since majority at present is natural I guessing there is little to be done. BUT with the increased emphasis on electric will human production increase to such levels as harmful to climate as it is a greenhouse gas??? I am not sure if this sort of thing is what you refer but could well be the next problem…
There is zero question that we are in such a dangerous position that if we do not act quick, and this is everyone not just Australia, we are going to see the end of life. Australia has the honour of being the country where the first mammal became extinct due to climate change. New Research suggests we need to be at zero emissions by 2035. Extinction Rebellion want the UK to make it by 2025. A UK research agency has said we must be at zero by 2050. Scotland intends 2045. Extinction Rebellion say too late. I think I am right on this. We are not yet seeing the results of the damage we have done in the last 30 years so even if we get our act together super quick things are going to get a lot worse before they stabilise. Worse case scenario is something called dimming which suggests that all the pollution which we are still doing is actually stopping us from feeling the worse effects and that when we clean up we will face an immediate catastrophic worsening of conditions leading to human extinction. Although work has gone on to try and develop ways to clear up the sky with this and that, nothing has as yet been found which looks likely to be available in the little time we have left. Both psychologically and if this is hopefully wrong, in reality, we need to continue working to get to zero emissions asap as that is the only possible way to leave a planet for our children. Most of the damage has been done in the past 30-40 years by the West and since we were made aware that we had a very serious problem. Our monetary system was very much involved. Yes, we need a different form of government and presumably a different attitude to things. Possibly quality of life rather than quantity of goods. .
Gravity is not a theory, fall out of a tree and you will find it very real, we do have theories about the physics of it .
Yes, the nature of our situation is that there will ALWAYS be a next problem. If we were just another animal.... it would not much matter what we do. But as our numbers continue to multiply, and a as the environmental impact of each of those billions of people also continues to swell.... our impacts on the global environment will continue to accelerate. And, of course, we will find solutions to many, if not all of these problems. But we will only find solutions if we look for solutions. And we will only look for solutions if we acknowledge the problems
Questions could be made this one point could be part of the same problem... But that is nit picking. So, it does interest me if that point is being studied already. There is always something to solve that is for sure.
I support: -nuclear grid, -household solar, -electric cars, -wind power for remote communities. in that order. ______________ As for your questions: 1. I do not know. Not good. 2. We will clean up a lot of pollution nonetheless and achieve energy independence while maintaining a low cost of living.
