Katoomba Monthly Temp average set to be SMASHED!!! AGAIN!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Absolutely Matt! We'll have run out of stuff to burn just as they are getting big enough to go off nicely.

Seriously though it's yet another thing we need to do, but carefully - no weed trees should be planted (right tree wrong location etc).

---

This could be run in with conjunction of a new school class.
Environmental science for kids ????
(Or look after the place you live in!!!)

Cheers Matt

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MandJ

I debated for a long time before positing this, I'll likely regret it.

YouTube

---

I wasn't familiar with the Independent Institute so Googled them. Good old Wikipedia states that they are an American think tank that is against National health care, supports the right to bear Arms and have published various works denying Climate Change. In other words, a Conservative Think Tank.

I also Google Dr Willie Soon and his Wikipedia profile inst blemish free. A well know Climate Change denier who has received major funding from Petroleum and Coal interests and has been accused of failing to disclose material conflict of interest when publishing articles.

I watched part of the video and thought it seemed more like a pep talk to a footy team than serious scientific debate. Checked some of the data he shows and he was not being totally honest with it. Not mentioning a caveat in the original data which had the effect of misrepresenting the picture.
Im sceptical of anyone who calls Al Gore a criminal and favourably quotes Donald Trump.

It didn't change my mind.

Regarding anthropogenic climate change, the overwhelming evidence, accepted by an overwhelming number of climate scientists who are qualified in their fields, is that it is real, and it is essential that we take urgent action to counteract it.
Of course, new evidence might be found to prove the experts wrong. However, the time is long past when 'deniers' can throw up a random topic and say "But what about...", when, in all probability, their answer has been published and peer-reviewed to within an inch of its life. They can no longer say "It's a conspiracy among the..." without providing any evidence. The burden of proof has now shifted to the deniers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

The burden of proof has now shifted to the deniers.

---

Hear hear! And also to say what they are afraid of.

Hi,
An ancient curse "May you live in interesting times"
I think we do.
Regards

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Hear hear! And also to say what they are afraid of.

---

There afraid of the truth(an losing a s.... loaf of money)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AlexS

Regarding anthropogenic climate change, the overwhelming evidence, accepted by an overwhelming number of climate scientists who are qualified in their fields, is that it is real, and it is essential that we take urgent action to counteract it.
Of course, new evidence might be found to prove the experts wrong. However, the time is long past when 'deniers' can throw up a random topic and say "But what about...", when, in all probability, their answer has been published and peer-reviewed to within an inch of its life. They can no longer say "It's a conspiracy among the..." without providing any evidence. The burden of proof has now shifted to the deniers.

---

It is clear that lots of people still see this as a "debate". However I suspect those who obviously want to reject the science or remain unconvinced will remain so for their own reasons. The problem is that everyone thinks they know something about the weather and they see climate and weather as being synonymous. Shove a Stuve diagram under their noses and discover what they truly know. The vast number know the term "greenhouse gases" but have no idea how the whole system works. If we were discussing a medical breakthrough, astronomy or some other topic about which people freely admit ignorance, there would be no "debate". Climate change science, including formulae which are still valid, provable and in use today, dates back to 1896. It's not a matter for debate or new discoveries, it's fact. No one with any scientific credibility would deny it nor have they presented any evidence to support such a position.

As others have rightly said, this is all about money and the need for significant change, It's cheaper and easier to do nothing. It's notable that he same shock jocks who were a part of the cash for comment scandal are the same team poo-pooing climate change.

Can someone please move the brick wall a little closer to my head?

mick

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

It's cheaper and easier to do nothing.

---

It might be cheaper in the VERY short term Mick, but in the longer run it'll be a helluva lot more expensive if we don't start acting with gusto soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

Can someone please move the brick wall a little closer to my head?

---

Sure :banghead::bricks: Take yer pick.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Glider

As others have rightly said, this is all about money and the need for significant change, It's cheaper and easier to do nothing.
mick

---

This is the full context of what I wrote. I was not advocating doing nothing merely opining on the viewpoint of those who oppose action.

mick

Yes, that was understood, I'm just saying...

This makes one think...

Australian 12-monthly mean temperature anomalies since 1911

Imagine solar panels on every roof.

Local battery storage. Elevated water storage where feasible for pumped hydro storage.

A trillion Kwh spare for desalination plants... And send it to the farm land.

Fields of wind turbines... Some our to sea.

Recycling of every scrap. Metal, glass, paper, bio....

Biodiesel and methanol distillaries using hemp.

PlyScrapers made with local materials, local fabricaria for DIY and cheap initial housing for all.

Plant vast timber forests. Replenish the rain forests.

It's a dream. I'm in love with it.

Looks like Solar Paint might be worth reading about too.
solar paint - Google Search

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Simplicity

Just sticking my uneducated head,in.
Has anybody mentioned tree planting.?
For example ,we have 25 million people living here give or take a few.
If and yes I know it’s a long shot if , the government provided each individual with 4 trees at a cost to the government at say $1 a tree (assuming they get mega bulk discount rate)
We each plant our four trees (100 million trees planted)cost 100 million,

---

who remembers Bob Hawke's ONE BILLION trees by 2000?


anybody?


100 million trees is but a drop in that ocean.



BTW, the cost to Government would be closer to $10 per tree if everyone were to be given 4 trees. You know, you can't get in the way of private enterprise (AKA the consultant industry) turning a decent profit.
Buying in bulk would more likely cost about 20 cents per tree, it's the consultants that add the rest of the cost.

Garbage! Total garbage!
There will be a presentation shortly to our illustrious government demonstrating the use of perishable waste to make electricity. A mini plant is currently under construction so the boffins can see it happen first hand.