Climate change

[think positive]

Brilliant post pies4shaw

[watt price tully]

The debate is over except for the extent and rate. There are a few paroxysms of protest by deniers who are mostly from the extremist right wing; indeed most but not all conflate (yuck) this with creationism (go figure)

"...It’s time to stop being mealy-mouthed about this and to give silent passes to those peddling climate-change denialism either explicitly or implicitly by demanding we listen to both sides.

But OK, here’s both sides of the debate – for well over 40 years scientists have been researching and testing evidence that climate change is occurring due to CO2 emissions. They have found conclusive evidence that there is a link and that on the current path by 2100 global temperatures will likely reach 3C above pre-industrial levels.

The other side is that they have kept researching and testing the data, and sorry, they were wrong – it’s even worse than they thought...."

https://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2019/aug/04/both-sides-of-the-climate-change-debate-how-bad-we-think-it-is-and-how-bad-it-really-is

Informative article written by (wait for it .......a climate scientist)

https://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2019/august/1566136800/jo-lle-gergis/terrible-truth-climate-change

[stui magpie]

^

Highly emotive piece there by the "climate scientist", starting off with the bleeding brain, quoting that 50% of the great barrier reef is already dead when Coral polyps have survived massive environmental change over millions of years.

Last time I snorkelled on the reef was 2017 at the Low Isles off Port Douglas. The coral there had been decimated by the cyclone that came through at low tide a couple of years before, but you could clearly see the signs of regeneration, new corals were growing. How could that be if she is right?

Keep in mind that the majority of the reefs people now snorkel and dive did not exist 10,000 years ago as sea level was 100m lower. All that area was above water level.

David posted a link in GD about how thawing permafrost could release diseases and referred to an increase of global temperature of 1.5c in the 1300's. That clearly didn't kill the reef.

That's the kind of long on emotive appeal - short on legitimate facts that I really hate because it winds people up

I have no issue with the global warming science as CO2 is a greenhouse gas etc and taking efforts to reduce CO2 emissions and increasing alternative forms of energy are no brainers, but those shrieking apocalypse and ruin in the near future need a Bex and a good lay down.

[stui magpie]

FWIW, for those shrieking about a Climate Change Emergency and wanting Australia to cut emissions immediately, I did a bit of research.

Australia contributes around 1.8% of global emissions which includes power generation, agriculture and other sources.

I repeat, 1.8%.

China is around 30%, the USA, the EU and India are all up there.

So, a little bit of reality. If Australia reduced our emissions to zero overnight it would make far call difference. Zilch, Nada, None.

Yes we need to do more about reducing them as per capita we aren't good, but it's hardly a screaming emergency or that Australia can save the Pacific nations from flooding alone. What we need her is a planned, phased approach that allows a transition from fossil fuel to non-greenhouse fuels that creates new employment as others close and doesn't bugger the economy.

[shawthing]

[shawthing]

^ You are right Stui. The problem climate scientists face now is largely because it has been so politicised. And people all over the world are beginning to hate politics. I know I am.

Several things concern me about the latest climate science however:

1. Carbon makes up a miniscule part of the atmospheric gases and yet it is supposedly causing all the problems.

2. Carbon dioxide is necessary for productive plant growth and plants thrive in warmer climates (Biology 101).

3. If we do succeed in cooling the earth and reducing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but do nothing to reduce human population growth we will starve ourselves to death.

4. More people = less arable land = fewer trees = rise in competition for basic food = rise in diseases born by micro-organisms that thrive in warmer conditions (e.g. tropical diseases like Malaria are making a comeback).

Perhaps Point 4 might be Nature's way of righting the ship again. If we can't stop breeding like rabbits then some form of global plague will sadly befall us. But nobody in power seems to want to do anything about:

a. Human population growth.

b. The obsession with requiring economic growth to be continuous and unsustainable.

Ipso facto: Humanity might be stuffed.

[David]

[stui magpie]

Some valid points in there, but we can't just stop exporting coal. The places that currently buy it from us will just buy it elsewhere, net impact on the environment nil, impact on our economy large.

We need to work on a sensible transition plan for our domestic power production, potentially using Gas as a wedge and work on another transition plan away from exporting coal as demand decreases and possibly work with our current customers on alternative solutions.

My point about our current domestic emissions remains valid though

[David]

^ Yeah, but surely the point is not just to take an "everyone else is doing it so we may as well too" approach. Same with international tax avoidance. Without co-ordinated global action on this, nothing will change.

[stui magpie]

It's not an everyone else is doing it approach, everyone else are (mostly) seeking to reduce emissions.

Countries that currently rely on coal for power need to get it somewhere until they transition their power generation to cleaner options.

Coal exports is a significant part of our economy, so we keep selling for now but plan for that to reduce as clients do that transition.

You can't just turn these things off without adverse consequences so it needs planning and yes a globally coordinated approach by people who understand what they're talking about.

[Pies4shaw]

https://ama.com.au/media/climate-change-health-emergency

I'll just leave this here.

The AMA has joined other health organisations around the world – including the American Medical Association, the British Medical Association, and Doctors for the Environment Australia – in recognising climate change as a health emergency.

At its August meeting in Canberra, the AMA Federal Council declared that climate change is real and will have the earliest and most severe health consequences on vulnerable populations around the world, including in Australia and the Pacific region.

The Federal Council Motion reads:

The Federal Council recognises climate change as a health emergency, with clear scientific evidence indicating severe impacts for our patients and communities now and into the future. The AMA commits to working with government agencies and other organisations to prioritise actions in line with the AMA’s 2015 Position Statement on Climate Change and Human Health.

AMA President, Dr Tony Bartone, said today that the evidence is in on climate change - and it is irrefutable.

“The AMA accepts the scientific evidence on climate change and its impact on human health and human wellbeing,” Dr Bartone said.

Etc etc.

[Wokko]

^^

[Skids]

I'd tell you what's more of a 'health emergency' ..... but I'd only get carded and have my post deleted

[stui magpie]

So now the AMA are experts on Climate change.

[Skids]