|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14175353 - 03/24/11 11:47 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The graph alone may not prove that, but thanks to the miracles of modern science and carbon isotope analysis, it is proven beyond a doubt that the increased CO2 levels are the direct result of human activity.
I'm not really sure why you insist on pretending that climate change is not a political issue, when pro-business groups and oligarchs of all stripes have paid off parties in nearly every nation on earth to campaign on the fact that it is not real.
Since you seem incapable of responding to a post in toto, perhaps you can elaborate on the questions below, providing evidence from established scientific authorities(or your own research...lol) to support your answers.
Do you deny that arctic sea ice and glaciers have been in retreat for decades? Do you deny that the planet has become warmer in the last 100 years? Do you deny that the global sea level is rising? Do you deny that "extreme" weather events, meaning record highs and lows, are becoming more frequent? Do you deny that the oceans are becoming more acidic? Do you deny that if global warming it is a large risk to continue burning unrestricted amounts of high-carbon fuels?
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: jebustrist]
#14175649 - 03/24/11 12:47 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The graph alone may not prove that, but thanks to the miracles of modern science and carbon isotope analysis, it is proven beyond a doubt that the increased CO2 levels are the direct result of human activity.
Yet all those dozens of times in the past when CO2 levels were believed to be higher than they are today were also somehow the result of humans who hadn't even made their appearance on the planet yet? Okay then.
Regardless, even if this latest spike (and only this out of dozens or hundreds of past CO2 spikes) can be attributed to humans burning stuff, it does nothing to show that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) temperature increases.
Quote:
I'm not really sure why you insist on pretending that climate change is not a political issue...
Of course it's a political issue, duh! Any time politicians get it into their pointy little heads that they must forcefully extract even more pelf from peaceful individuals who have done nothing wrong, it is s political issue. How can it be otherwise?
All I am pointing out is that this is not the forum to parse the "science" behind the proclamations of the warm-mongers that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) temperature increases. The place to do "duelling graphs" and "duelling monographs" is either the Science and Technology forum or the Conspiracies and Coverups forum. Not this forum.
Quote:
Do you deny that arctic sea ice and glaciers have been in retreat for decades?
Consistent retreat? Of course I deny it, since it isn't the case.
But that has nothing to do with the assertion that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) temperature increases. Even if it were true that arctic sea ice and "glaciers" had been retreating steadily for decades, this does nothing to show the retreat is linked to humans burning stuff.
Quote:
Do you deny that the planet has become warmer in the last 100 years?
No one knows for sure. The only data that is reliable is satellite data, and that covers not more than about a third of that time period. The surface temperature record is hopelessly corrupted, as the ClimateGate e-mails revealed. The satellite data shows no statistically significant increase over the period of time they have been recording.
However, even if the planet has become warmer over the last hundred years this does nothing to show that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) temperature increases.
Quote:
Do you deny that the global sea level is rising?
Of course I do, since there is no hard evidence showing it has been - at least over the last century. Has it risen since the end of the last Ice Age? Of course it has.
But even if the sea level has risen a bit (and it hasn't, but let's pretend for the next minute or two that it has) this does nothing to show that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) results.
Quote:
Do you deny that "extreme" weather events, meaning record highs and lows, are becoming more frequent?
Of course I deny it, since they haven't become more frequent.
Quote:
Do you deny that the oceans are becoming more acidic?
The "oceans" or isolated patches of sea here and there? There is no convincing evidence that this is the case, but even if there were, this does nothing to show that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) changes in ocean acidity.
Quote:
Do you deny that if global warming it is a large risk to continue burning unrestricted amounts of high-carbon fuels?
This sentence doesn't make sense. What are you asking? Never mind... it doesn't matter anyway, since it is clear from the questions you ask that you still aren't grasping what I am saying (rather than what you think I am saying), that you have no understanding of the meaning of the word "fact", that you have no grasp of the difference between "cause" and "correlation", that you don't understand how science works, that you have at the very best a superficial, layman's-level grasp of the physics involved here, that you have done very little research into this on your own, instead opting to swallow uncritically the warm-monger's Kool-Aid, and that you will never expend the effort to examine the science presented by those scientists not conned by the warm-monger's dishonest manipulation of data.
No skin off my nose.
The fact remains that there is nowhere close to enough support for the supposition that humans burning stuff will result in catastrophic (or even statistically significant) changes in global temperature to provide cover for politicians to disastrously cripple the Western world's already struggling economies. Even the warm-mongers themselves admit that if all the regulations they propose were to be scrupulously followed to the letter (which of course they wouldn't be -- see the dismal compliance record for the Kyoto Accords, for one) the theoretical reduction in global temperature half a century from now (or a century, in some projections... take your pick) will amount to just a fraction of the margin of error of current global temperature measurements.
And that's all that matters. Apart from the fact (and yes, it is a fact) that no one can even demonstrate increased temperatures will be harmful to mankind, what's more significant is that the warm-mongers themselves admit we cannot reduce the temperature anyway! So why beggar ourselves in an exercise in futility?
Phred
*edit* P.S. -- did you catch the blatant error/dishonesty in the graph you posted?
--------------------
Edited by Phred (03/24/11 12:49 PM)
|
jebustrist
Stranger


Registered: 07/08/09
Posts: 79
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14176027 - 03/24/11 02:06 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yeah sorry your whole post is worthless as you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your contentions, all of which go against the well-established scientific consensus in 2011.
Besides that I'm extremely confident that I understand quite a bit more about science and logic than someone that signs their posts. Despite your frequent allusion to conspiracies and debunkings, without credible evidence you're just another two-bit tea-bagging political whacko who is more motivated by his emotions and fears than a genuine concern for society.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: jebustrist]
#14176135 - 03/24/11 02:23 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
The only ones playing the fear card are you and your ilk. The only evidence you provided shows an increase in CO2 concentration of, wait for it, about 5 thousandths of a percent. And you think this is catastrophic. Nor have you provided any evidence that it is causing whatever warming has occurred, the degree of which is well in dispute and keeps getting revised by your precious Hansen.
Phil Jones Quote:
Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming
A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. The positive trend is quite close to the significance level. Achieving statistical significance in scientific terms is much more likely for longer periods, and much less likely for shorter periods.
Since you supposedly "understand quite a bit more about science and logic", I'm sure you know what "statistically significant" means. One thing it doesn't mean is "close enough".
How come they never released the raw data to other scientists? How come they tried to "hide the decline"? How come we haven't gotten all those hurricanes?
--------------------
|
ZenXi6
Illuminate



Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 1,173
Loc: Melbourne, Australia
Last seen: 1 month, 13 days
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: zappaisgod]
#14177281 - 03/24/11 05:20 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Hang on... radical Greens?
That sounds like a Liberal Party political advertisment, rather than a well thought through position on a political party, to me.
What, precisely is more radical about the Green's policy, in comparison with any other major political party in Australia?
I think people take politics a little too simply... as if politicians ACTUALLY have that much power, or that the system ACTUALLY allows them to keep to their promises.
Here's some advice for everyone:
When ever a politician comes out and PROMISES results on something - ignore them, even if you like them. They are lying - they don't have the POWER to promise such things. No Australian does. If they say they will try their BEST and fully support a certain motion, then they go back on that - well, that's different.
And - Socialist ALP? Are you serious??? The ALP are about as socialist as the.. well, as the Liberal Party, really.
There is no right or left in the two-party Australian political system. We have... centre and.. more centre.
We have such a shit of a tabloid political system, and I think this is well proved by people's silly slogans and buzz words in this thread...
What's the point of slogans and buzz words? The point is to paint simple pictures for the media to use, which the people will pick up on and then think of the issues in black and white terms.
Naive.
We need to get out of this tabloid-emotive driven politics, because it's hidden our truths and perverted our debates.
--------------------
We are the Divine Universe, Incarnate!
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: jebustrist]
#14177518 - 03/24/11 05:56 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Yeah sorry your whole post is worthless as you have not provided a shred of evidence to support your contentions, all of which go against the well-established scientific consensus in 2011.
And there we have it folks -- proof of my observation that jebustrist has no idea how science works. When I was in school, the overwhelming scientific consensus (much more monolithic than the "consensus over AGW global warming) was that continents didn't move. That was just crazy talk! Less than two decades ago, the overwhelming scientific consensus was that stomach ulcers were caused by stress or by some genetic predisposition, not by bacteria.
Scientific truth is not decided by consensus. Never has been, never will be.
Quote:
Besides that I'm extremely confident that I understand quite a bit more about science and logic than someone that signs their posts.
If you believe the bilge from the warm-monger link you provided, then no, your understanding does not in fact exceed my own. As just one example of this, I remind the viewing audience (though the rational members of the audience have already noted it) of your inability to even identify, much less acknowledge, the blatant error/dishonesty in the graph you posted.
Phred
--------------------
|
seeker28
student



Registered: 07/03/08
Posts: 686
Loc: The 28th Dimension
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14178034 - 03/24/11 07:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: I will remind you once again that this is not the forum in which to argue the science (or pseudo-science) underlying the claim that humans burning stuff will lead to catastrophic (or even statistically significant) temperature increases. As such, your graph has no worth - in this forum. If you want to do a "duelling graphs" or "duelling experts" scenario, do it in Conspiracies and Coverups or in Science and Technology. This forum is for discussing policy.
Phred
spare me. with all due respect to the "M" next to your name, you as well as I as well as everyone else reading this thread knows that the science and policy in this issue are inextricably linked. One cannot be debated without the other. When it is (policy without the science), the digression to farcical slander is inevitable.
|
Starter
Stranger


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: ZenXi6]
#14180148 - 03/25/11 02:37 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Just tell me how this carbon tax from the socialists will fix the world global warming problem? Forget whether global warming is real or not; I want a solid answer on how will this tax fix the alleged problem? I want you to answer this with a straight face while recalling how the ALP blew 2.5 billion AUD on their failed insulation scheem, which has not just wasted a huge pile of Australian taxpayers' money, it has killed several people and burned down over 100 homes! It was lauded, at the time, as a way to save the planet from global warming. Sounds familiar.
Re: radical Green party: even the ALP's resource minister Martin Ferguson has stated the Greens are in a fantasy land and won't be happy until they've taxed to death the system and have Australians with no jobs. That's how radical the Greens are as even the ALP resources minister sees them as Soapbox Bob.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/ferguson-calls-greens-basket-weavers-and-labels-leader-soapbox-bob/story-e6frg6xf-1226027938159
As for "left" and "right", you inauguarated this thread on a "right bash" in some sort of comparison of the anti-carbon protests at the Parliament House being akin to the Republican Tea Party protest movement. Not to mention both Gillard and Brown have called the anti-carbon protesters "extremists", even though the protestors were peaceful and are taxpaying Australians who have every right to voice their opinions in a free nation against an unfair tax. So lets now compare the peaceful anti-carbon protesters to the leftists who broke down doors, looted and engaged in violence when they protested at the Parliament House. It's obvious which ones are "extreme"! http://www.2ue.com.au/blogs/2ue-blog/found-footage-of-parliament-riot/20110324-1c7qq.html
And finally, the ALP are socalists. They're Fabian Socialists with that scumbag Gough Whitlam as their messiah. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Fabian_Society
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: seeker28]
#14180683 - 03/25/11 07:11 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
spare me. with all due respect to the "M" next to your name, you as well as I as well as everyone else reading this thread knows that the science and policy in this issue are inextricably linked. One cannot be debated without the other. When it is (policy without the science), the digression to farcical slander is inevitable.
Nonsense. Policy can indeed be meaningfully debated while never needing to introduce a single graph or cut and paste a single equation, because - when it comes to policy - what matters is not the cause of any alleged global temperature increase, but whether the alleged temperature increase can be shown to be harmful enough to humans to warrant enacting legislation which will also be harmful to humans. Let's face it - if raising temperatures will have catastrophic results for humans, this is true whether humans are the cause of the rising temperatures or whether the sun is the cause.
As anyone who has spent even the slightest effort to look into this subject already knows, the earth has many times in the past been warmer than it is today (if we can believe what historians, archaeologists, and paleo-climatologists tell us) and it has many times in the past been colder, as well. Historians and paleo-biologists tell us that living things in general, and humans in particular, do much better in warmer periods than in colder ones. See the Roman warm period versus the Dark Ages, or the Mediaeval warm period versus the Little Ice Age, as the most recent two pairs of opposites. In these cases we have actual written histories amply supporting this common sense conclusion, but archaeological evidence leads us to the same conclusion regarding life prior to the advent of writing: humans do better in warmer eras than in colder eras. And one thing we can predict with absolute certainty is that there will be another Ice Age. As a matter of fact, statistically speaking we are overdue for one. Long overdue.
This being the case, the only question a policy-maker should be asking is - "How much money should we be spending in efforts to raise the global temperature and stave off the advent of the next Ice Age?" If it turns out the temperature appears to be rising with no assistance from politicians, then the answer is "Nothing." If it turns out the temperature is steady, debate can take place. If it turns out the temperature is falling, the answer is obvious - "As much money as we can possibly scrounge up!"
We already know the temperature has remained steady for the last fifteen years, so it could be reasonably expected that our policy makers might spend some time debating how much to spend to warm things up. But that's not what's being discussed, is it? Instead, they are trying to figure out how much they need to spend in order to cool us down to where it was four decades ago. I was alive four decades ago, living in Canada. It was fucking cold. Canadian winters in the Nineties were more bearable than Canadian winters in the Seventies. Any Canadian farmer would tell you in a New York minute he would prefer to have Nineties weather over Seventies weather. I have no doubt the same is true of Russian and Chinese farmers.
I repeat - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. So far the warm-mongers have provided none. They have instead provided computer simulations, none of which agree with each other, none of which can predict backwards with any degree of accuracy, all of which can vary wildly with a tiny tweaking of any one of dozens of variables which are assigned in most cases arbitrarily. So sorry, but that isn't proof. Hell, it isn't even evidence.
And I must point out - again - that even the warm-mongers admit the measures they are so adamantly screeching we must adopt instantly will not alter their projected increase in temperatures (and their various projected increases are all over the map) by any statistically significant amount anyway. This leads rational people to ask the obvious question : why implement the measures, then?
To get this thread back on track, is the Australian version of the "Tea Party" phenomenon a single-issue group, then? Are they objecting solely to the upcoming carbon tax? Or is the carbon tax just the straw that broke the camel's back, and they are in favor of less taxes and smaller government in general, like their American counterparts?
Phred
--------------------
|
rhave
Stranger


Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 262
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14184696 - 03/25/11 11:17 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I'm not sure why I'm posting here cause I know I won't change anyone's mind but I can't resist:
Quote:
Phred said: Nonsense. Policy can indeed be meaningfully debated while never needing to introduce a single graph or cut and paste a single equation, because - when it comes to policy - what matters is not the cause of any alleged global temperature increase, but whether the alleged temperature increase can be shown to be harmful enough to humans to warrant enacting legislation which will also be harmful to humans.
The cause is very important; if it's the sun it would be pointless to legislate anything; if it's CO2 it would make sense to try to curb emissions; if it's people wearing green it would make sense to try to dissuade people from wearing it. Obviously, like you said, global warming would have to at least be potentially harmful also for legislation to make sense. I think anyone would agree that an increase in global temperature is potentially harmful, while .5 degrees might not be, it might even be beneficial, 5 degrees wouldn't be good. A stable climate is preferable to one that is getting colder or warming up, our population and infrastructure is distributed based on how the climates been recently, any large change would probably fuck that up, even if more land overall became arable.
Quote:
And one thing we can predict with absolute certainty is that there will be another Ice Age. As a matter of fact, statistically speaking we are overdue for one. Long overdue.
One could see that of evidence that we are doing something that is affecting the climate.
Quote:
Any Canadian farmer would tell you in a New York minute he would prefer to have Nineties weather over Seventies weather. I have no doubt the same is true of Russian and Chinese farmers.
At the same time SE Australia has severe drought I think farmers there would prefer their old weather.
I hope you were being facetious when you suggested that governments should try to warm up the globe to prevent a possible ice age. That would be horribly reckless. Attempting to manipulate the global climate could easily get out of hand, I don't think we understand it that well yet. And there is a difference between trying reduce our affect, if any, on global climate, and trying to control global climate.
|
Phred
Fred's son


Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 9 years, 4 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: rhave]
#14185545 - 03/26/11 05:35 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
The cause is very important; if it's the sun it would be pointless to legislate anything...
But that's just it - it's not pointless! You are not following the logic here: either it is bad for humans to experience a higher global temperature or it isn't. It doesn't matter what causes the rise in temperature: the sun, increased CO2 emissions, aliens shining a heat ray on the earth from light years away. What matters is the effect that rising temperatures have on humans.
So, if it can be shown that increased temperature is bad for us (and it can't be shown that higher temps are bad, because the opposite is true) then it would make sense for politicians to propose actions they believe would lower global temperature.
Quote:
I think anyone would agree that an increase in global temperature is potentially harmful...
Then you think wrong, since the opposite is true. A reduction in global temperature would be harmful.
Quote:
A stable climate is preferable to one that is getting colder or warming up...
Even if this is true (and no one has shown it to be true) it will never happen. Climate is changing constantly. Always has, always will.
Quote:
...our population and infrastructure is distributed based on how the climates been recently, any large change would probably fuck that up, even if more land overall became arable.
Oh noes! Some people might have to *gasp* move! Some new roads might have to be built! Some existing buildings might have to be abandoned! Catastrophe! Apocalypse!
Quote:
One could see that of evidence that we are doing something that is affecting the climate.
Or one could see that as being near the far end of the normal variation of the length between glacial epochs.
Quote:
At the same time SE Australia has severe drought I think farmers there would prefer their old weather.
Droughts in SE Australia are cyclical. Always have been, always will be. Didn't I hear something about severe flooding in other parts of Australia this year? Why yes.... yes I did.
Quote:
I hope you were being facetious when you suggested that governments should try to warm up the globe to prevent a possible ice age.
No, I wasn't. There are few things more disastrous to life on this planet than having most of the land surface buried under ice a mile thick.
Quote:
That would be horribly reckless.
LOL. Dude, read what you just wrote. I mean, seriously, take a step back and try to read what you just wrote with the eyes of an objective reader coming across it for the first time.
This is my point exactly, duh! Governments are being horribly reckless by enacting legislation we know will damage human well-being even though the people urging them to enact the legislation admit that the legislation will have no appreciable effect on the alleged problem the legislation is supposed to fix. If ever there were an example of horrible recklessness, this is it.
Quote:
Attempting to manipulate the global climate could easily get out of hand, I don't think we understand it that well yet.
Exactly. Do you not see how you are making my argument for me? Seriously... do you not grasp the import of your own words?
Quote:
And there is a difference between trying reduce our affect, if any, on global climate, and trying to control global climate.
You are missing the point entirely here. If it turns out our actions undertaken to alter our terrestrial environment in order to better survive have the side benefit of also altering our atmospheric environment in a beneficial manner, then it's a win-win situation.
Phred
--------------------
|
Starter
Stranger


Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 1,148
Loc: Australia
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14189031 - 03/26/11 08:52 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
To get this thread back on track, is the Australian version of the "Tea Party" phenomenon a single-issue group, then? Are they objecting solely to the upcoming carbon tax? Or is the carbon tax just the straw that broke the camel's back, and they are in favor of less taxes and smaller government in general, like their American counterparts?
The catalyst is the carbon-tax, no question there. Is the carbon-tax a single issue? I don't think so. The people and business want less interference and less taxes. They want a return to the growth and boom of the Howard years that has stalled once the left sneaked into federal government as a minority government with support from independents.
Hence the landslide to the conservatives in yesterday's State NSW election. As a result the conservatives now control at state level the three most powerful states of the country (WA, QLD and now NSW). Come the federal the conservatives will win and this will be the end of the leftist ALP/Greens nightmare. The carbon-tax will be remembered as a government killer. No one will want to try that again!
|
TimmiT


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 5,303
Loc: Victoria
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Starter]
#14190233 - 03/27/11 02:19 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Starter said: As a result the conservatives now control at state level the three most powerful states of the country (WA, QLD and now NSW)
The conservatives are in power in Vic, WA and now NSW. QLD is still labor under Anna Bligh.
Although I don't myself identify as a conservative, I think they're the lesser of two evils. Australia needs strong environmental policy but a carbon tax would likely be ineffective and damaging to the economy.
-------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
|
seeker28
student



Registered: 07/03/08
Posts: 686
Loc: The 28th Dimension
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: TimmiT]
#14195398 - 03/27/11 11:26 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
I hope we can all keep in mind that our funky fungi friends are in no way partial whatsoever to atmospheric pollution. They're not lichen it one bit.
So let's keep the bastards honest, at least for them, hey?
|
TimmiT


Registered: 03/23/10
Posts: 5,303
Loc: Victoria
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: seeker28]
#14195623 - 03/28/11 12:18 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
-------------------- "Reality leaves a lot to the imagination" ~ John Lennon
|
seeker28
student



Registered: 07/03/08
Posts: 686
Loc: The 28th Dimension
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: TimmiT]
#14196471 - 03/28/11 06:56 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
So I've come to realize that it's all gonna be OK. Everything will work itself out. Action on Climate Change is anthropocentric just as the big polluters' action on climate change is. We can't kill the Earth because we are the Earth as much as it is us. The human population will be balanced out and THAT will be sustainable.
Take for example Lake Eyre; that used to be completely salt. Now it's vibrant, with water pumping through its veins, and beautiful flocks of birds returning to it to call it home. Some have argued that the floods that ravaged QLD were such a detrimental, disastrous effect of climate change. Because they fucked up the QLD economy and heaps of people's lives. Now don't get me wrong, I really feel for those people, as well as the people of Japan, I truly do, but examples such as Lake Eyre have helped me realize that beauty is eternal. The Earth will adapt and new sites of beauty will emerge. Life is change. The Earth is a constantly evolving entity.
I used to hate us, the human race, for doing what we're doing, but everything will adapt, everything will work itself out. Shoot me for my opinions, but I'll just come back as some funky hybrid fungi for my great-great-grandkids to appreciate.
It's been an internal conflict I've been confused over for quite some time now, but I've spoken to a close, older, quite awakened friend about the issue, and I guess "come out" with my thoughts on the climate which I hadn't really felt comfortable voicing to my activist friends. I've come to realize that even campaigning for environmental sustainability can create scope for self-serving interests. One of the things that tipped me over the edge was reading the front page of the Business section of my state paper, The Advertiser, and seeing the CEO of BHP announce that they were going to invest billions of dollars into the expansion of their Australian mines to support and profit off the economic booms of overseas economies. They said with a huge, fat, smug-as-fug grin that they'd factored in the costs of the mining and carbon tax.
We had a great discussion.
When I got home tonight I had a good old laugh at Tony Abbott bickering about the carbon tax on Lateline.
PS: It was refreshing seeing the War on Drugs appear to be debated as a real issue on QANDA, if anyone else saw that.
|
rhave
Stranger


Registered: 03/04/11
Posts: 262
Last seen: 8 years, 2 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: Phred]
#14200365 - 03/28/11 09:07 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Phred said: But that's just it - it's not pointless! You are not following the logic here: either it is bad for humans to experience a higher global temperature or it isn't
It isn't proven that the amount of change that has occurred in the past and was beneficial to humans would be if it occurred again, or that a greater amount of change would be more beneficial. Obviously(this time i hope even to you) an extreme case such as a 50 degree increase in average global temperature would probably drive humans nearly to extinction. I don't think anyone thinks global warming will change the temperature any where near that much, but no one knows exactly where the higher temperature stops being beneficial and becomes harmful.
Quote:
Quote:
I think anyone would agree that an increase in global temperature is potentially harmful...
Then you think wrong, since the opposite is true. A reduction in global temperature would be harmful.
I didn't say it must be harmful, or even that it probably would be, or that a reduction in temperature wouldn't be. Same as above, a temperature increase could be harmful.
Quote:
Oh noes! Some people might have to *gasp* move! Some new roads might have to be built! Some existing buildings might have to be abandoned! Catastrophe! Apocalypse!
It's not quite that simple, much of the worlds population doesn't have the resources to just up and move if they can't grow food where they are anymore. You and I may not be bothered much by it, but people not born in a developed country wouldn't be so lucky.
Quote:
Didn't I hear something about severe flooding in other parts of Australia this year? Why yes.... yes I did.
Ah, well that's good, I guess they must be making up for droughts by having larger crops from the flooding.
Quote:
This is my point exactly, duh! Governments are being horribly reckless by enacting legislation we know will damage human well-being even though the people urging them to enact the legislation admit that the legislation will have no appreciable effect on the alleged problem the legislation is supposed to fix. If ever there were an example of horrible recklessness, this is it.
You can't have it both ways, either reducing CO2 would prevent warming or it would have no effect. Governments are notorious for wasting tons of taxpayers' money, doing a bit more of it doesn't really seem horribly reckless.
Quote:
Quote:
Attempting to manipulate the global climate could easily get out of hand, I don't think we understand it that well yet.
Exactly. Do you not see how you are making my argument for me? Seriously... do you not grasp the import of your own words?
You're the one who said we should be trying to warm it up. I was arguing in favor of trying to limit our affect on global climate, the opposite of trying to influence it.
P.S. I like the sentiment of the poster above me. I don't think I'll post any more in this thread after this, so don't feel like you have to respond.
Edited by rhave (03/28/11 09:19 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: rhave]
#14203461 - 03/29/11 12:16 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/mtr_today_march_25/
Quote:
Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery joins us - but refuses to say by how much the world’s temperature will fall thanks to Julia Gillard’s global warming policies. Later he concedes that even if the whole world slashes its emissions we won’t know what difference it will make for maybe a thousand years. Doesn’t sound like much of a deal to me.
But we'll know in short order how much human suffering it will cause.
--------------------
|
seeker28
student



Registered: 07/03/08
Posts: 686
Loc: The 28th Dimension
Last seen: 10 years, 8 months
|
Re: Tea Party Politics comes to Australia [Re: zappaisgod]
#14204960 - 03/29/11 05:39 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh you would love Andrew Bolt.
|
|