I guess so, but we could do without wars too!
Printable View
I guess so, but we could do without wars too!
Agree 100%, much better not to have them.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
I was in our local Green Shed yesterday and there was no less than 20 pallets of generators and fire pumps lined up, many with their pay and pickup receipt on them. The staff member I was talking to said he was sick of handling them and were selling like hot cakes
I was in the local steel merchant who also do rural fencing supplies as well and they were sending gear out by the semi load, said they were flat out and will have trouble keeping stock up to the demand.
I imagine that would be the case for numerous items. A lot of work will be generated from others misfortunes.
Some comments made to Firies during S#*t Saturday: "Well, you took your sweetarse time getting here." " Why don't you use your own water?"
"Please leave now, your lights are upsetting my chooks." " Can you go down the bush and save my pergola, my kids were married under that."
"Don't drive that dirty big thing on my lawn." "Why would you want to get a flat tyre now, in the middle of all of this?" "Have you guys seen my cat?" "My dam water is required for my camellias." And the list goes on. Some folks just don't seem to get it.
I was there for half of October and most of November. Long story ...Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Some mornings I'd wake and not be able to see the zoo which is only about 500 m from the flat's balcony.
That level of misunderstanding and the inability to prioritise is very disturbing.Quote:
Originally Posted by rustynail
Just moving on from there to the level of mis-reporting that is encouraged by some elements of the press:
"Deep in the burning forests south of Sydney this week, volunteer firefighters were clearing a track through the woods, hoping to hold back a nearby blaze, when one of them shouted over the crunching of bulldozers.
“Don’t take photos of any trees coming down,” he said. “The greenies will get a hold of it, and it’ll all be over.”
The idea that “greenies” or environmentalists would oppose measures to prevent fires from ravaging homes and lives is simply false. But the comment reflects a narrative that’s been promoted for months by conservative Australian media outlets, especially the influential newspapers and television stations owned by Rupert Murdoch.
And it’s far from the only Murdoch-fueled claim making the rounds. His standard-bearing national newspaper, The Australian, has also repeatedly argued that this year’s fires are no worse than those of the past – not true, scientists say, noting that 12 million acres have burned so far, with 2019 alone scorching more of New South Wales than the previous 15 years combined."
This is particularly disturbing
"And on Wednesday, Murdoch’s News Corp, the largest media company in Australia, was found to be part of another wave of misinformation. An independent study found online bots and trolls exaggerating the role of arson in the fires, at the same time that an article in The Australian making similar assertions became the most popular offering on the newspaper’s website."
The full story is here:
How Rupert Murdoch is influencing Australia’s bushfire debate
It is no wonder that at a time of confusion and despair we become misinformed as well.
Regards
Paul
Pleased to announce, we have had a couple of days with light rain. The donkeys have reverted back to their original colour and they are once again on "speaking" terms.
There was a time when the Murdoch newspapers, The Daily Telegraph and the Australian, were useful, but most people now can afford toilet paper.
There was apparently one responsible person at Newscorp, but couldn't take their disinformation campaign and left.
News Corp employee lashes climate 'misinformation' in bushfire coverage with blistering email | Media | The Guardian
Climate Change is real. It’s been happening since the Earth was first formed.
Agreed. The challenge is whether we can survive that change.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
Regards
Paul
From Tuesday evening:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
...and sure enough, there's a new fire in the Blue Mountains, north of Faulconbridge - thought to be started by a lightning strike
Like Bushmiller, I agree, but that statement seems to indicate that mankind has nothing to do with severely hastening it?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lappa
Perhaps it might be clearer if we referred to Man Exacerbated Climate Change or Human Induced Rapid CC.
Maybe forcibly putting newspapers into the Fiction and Fantasy sections of the library would represent what they truly are.
No better than a fantasy novel.
Perhaps a change in federal law would see it change - FORCE articles to carry appellations - FACT, FICTION, OPINION and simply ADVERTISEMENT*.... in bold, at the beginning of EVERY article.
The masthead must carry the percentages -
FACT - 6%
FICTION - 40%
OPINION - 40%
ADVERTISEMENT - 14%
People can then be deliberately misinformed... wilful ignorance is not illegal, but the spreading of deliberate misinformation as fact surely should be a crime.
* Anything they were paid for.
You forgot an "Alternative Facts" category.
Nar. Just 'Climate Change' will do.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
It doesn't matter 'who started it,' what does matter is A: recognising that it is, indeed, a matter of serious concern and B: pulling our fingers out and collectively doing something about it.
Any other response will give us all a life-lesson of Darwinism in action.
I can see mankinds tombstone now: "He saw the train coming but couldn't be bothered moving."
This is only somewhat anecdotal, and the weather up here has always been subject to some pretty wild swings. It's been known to snow here at least once during December, and certainly I had a fire going all day Xmas & Boxing days in around 2012. Not uncommon in summer to have a hot day followed by a relatively very cold one (say 33° and then 18° the next day).
Today for example was forecast to be 36° and would have been that, preceded by yesterday at 18°. Tomorrow 19° and Sunday 15°(!). Nothing unusual about that (except for the 36°) although 15° is out there. Actually there is something pretty weird about cold - REALLY hot - cold - REALLY cold all within a 4 day stretch.
However, and this is the anecdotal part, what I'm noticing is that these wild fluctuations from one day to the next are becoming more frequent, and with wilder fluctuations.
We might usually have one or two instances in a summer.
We might usually have a small handful of days over 30°.
Just a week ago NYE was the hottest day ever here at 39.8°, which I'm going to call our first 40° day, and two days later it was 19°.
There have been at least two other fluctuations like that in the last 6 weeks:
21st Dec 39.5° (hottest ever day until last Satdy), then 13.7° the next damn day!
7 days in Dec of 33° or more, and 3 more in the first 10 days of Jan - that's pretty much unheard of here.
4 days over 30° in November which was out hottest Nov ever. No extreme swings for the month.
Putting my own personal opinions aside to look at this from a purely logical point of view, there are really two ways to look at this:Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
1. Newscorp is telling the truth, or
2. Newscorp is running an misinformation campaign.
If Newscorp IS running a misinformation campaign then why? What is the motivation and who stands to profit from it? Why would they be running a misinformation campaign if they or someone associated with them has nothing to gain by it?
Yeah, I'd be happy with that but the problem is that it gives deniers the out that they keep using to do as little as possible: "always been going on - nothing to see here."Quote:
Originally Posted by Skew ChiDAMN!!
To be completely blunt, even if this is all naturally occurring ....somehow....we still have to do something to slow it down because vast areas of the planet will not be liveable, which will be costly in the extreme. Far far more costly than knocking out use of two fuels that we are running out of anyway.
Dunno why, but I'll bet precious things that it's purely for profit. It's probably got a great deal to do with taking the opportunity to feed off the fears of the deniers. Alan Jones is a master of talking crud that people like to believe.Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
DougQuote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
I think that money, greed and self interest are the underlying factors. People with vested interests do not want to see their cash cows run dry. So the coal companies, the oil companies and anybody else who sees their livelihood threatened orchestrates a campaign to protect their interests. This inevitably results in the major players jumping into bed with each other. Why would Murdock, for example, perpetuate a biased report rather than the truth?
Money.
Why is there such an ebullient business in Canberra centred around lobbying? It is to ensure the interests of influential players are represented and where possible swayed. Note I did not mention anything about "best interest." Why, as another example, does Gina Rinehart contribute millions to the Liberal party coffers? Call me cynical if you wish, but I am fairly certain it is on the understanding that the party does nothing that will lend any credence to climate change and adverse effects it may have on the mining of fossil fuels.
Regards
Paul
Quote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
This article by Michael Pascoe gives some possible explanation of Murdoch's reason.
Michael Pascoe: How Murdoch’s myrmidons murdered climate policy How Murdoch’s ink-stained imps killed climate sanity
Tony
I debated for a long time before positing this, I'll likely regret it.
YouTube
I'm not interested in character assassinations and rhetoric, what I am interested in is both sides of a correct science based debate, without bias.
I want to hear from all scientists, especially when new findings become available, and not be shouted down by slogans because it goes against some peoples almost religious belief of the proven facts as they know them, IMHO this is an attempt to shut down all other scientific knowledge / debate as more science based knowledge becomes known and published.
We are poisoning our planet in so many way, we have polluted and virtually destroyed our oceans, forests, land, food and health, all forms of pollution have to be tackled and we need to be sure now that the decisions we cast in stone are 100% correct.
I've been looking at all scientific findings for a few years now and the above video brings some of the other data I've read together, it has in the past, and continues to raise some question (for me at least), so I try to keep an open mind. I'm not saying the current information realised by the media is flawed or misleading, but what if it's not 100% correct, is it wrong to take the time to look and listen to all science based data before attacking anyone who dares to ask a question, this seems to be the case, especially with the media gossip columnist programs now disguised as news reporting. On ALL news subjects and reporting.
AT 97 minutes it may be a while before I have the time or the data allowance to look at that (data clicks over on the 19th). Are you able to distil it down into a summary? The comments underneath it seem to indicate it appears to be somewhat in favour of scepticism, but I haven't watched a second of it, so...Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
There are certainly some groups that are of no use to anyone, and that includes that ridiculous notion that taking a caravan of protesters up to Cleremont was going to change the minds of locals who want the jobs that would be created by a coal mine. That was completely counter-productive, and IMO was the single biggest factor to SmoKo not losing the election (note I don't say he won it, because he didn't - it was handed to him). There's only one seat in it, and Qld deserted Shorten. I dunno how good or bad he would have been - we had a very similar choice of poor alternatives just like the Brits just had.Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
There can surely be no disagreement anywhere that putting less of our man made crud into the atmosphere can only be a good thing. Would anyone disagree with that?Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
I very much doubt that it is ever 100% correct (or not for very long) because it's a developing situation. What was correct yesterday may not be as correct today or next week - not because it was wrong yesterday but because the situation has changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
It's kinda like fighting a large bushfire - nobody knows where it will end up, but we know it's going to be bad. And therein lies the problem - we're out of time, according to the best science available to us, and the longer we wait, the more expensive and difficult it will be to make any kind of reasonable corrective action viable.
Challenging is very different to attacking. I don't believe there's been any attacking within this thread from anyone towards another poster. Nothing wrong with asking questions.Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
It still gets back to this:
Attachment 466679
and this
Think about the ramifications of that. Think of the desert dwellers, just for a start.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Frankly I don't care whether people are scared or not of electric vehicles coming in with oil going out because it's going to happen whether the CCDs like it or not. Industry has largely made its choice there and the momentum is building fairly rapidly - probably rapidly enough I suspect. For a while - probably a fair while - electric vehicles won't be much use for longer distance offroad work, only because of not being able to recharge (the torque from elec is actually better).
In short I am personally quite satisfied with the progress of electric vehicles, but even quicker would be better. No real point arguing against it either - gunna happen. A HUGE benefit of electric vehicles will be no longer having to worry so much about the Middle East volatility. Once oil is history you can bet the Yanks will out of there like a shot.
The elephant in the room is power generation, and we have discussed that at great length in the other thread a year or so ago. Presumably what Australian CCDs are scared of is the loss of export revenue - but that decision will be made for us by the importers from overseas. We will have little to no control over the directions that other countries take regarding importing our coal.
Coupled with that, it seems to me that we have potentially enough renewable resource capabilities to go more or less coal free more or less fairly soon. Solar take-up is huge (and indeed causing its own set of somewhat temporary problems). Why? Because it's cost effective over a reasonable time, and getting better all the time.
This is where I would like to see massive investment from the Govt - in battery storage. Why? One reason is quite obvious, but we would also be able to export that technology. I don't know if it would replace the coal revenue, but if we don't do it someone else surely will and we'll be left on the shelf again with another missed opportunity.
The trouble with electric cars is not the technology of the vehicles themselves. It is in generating and distributing the required electricity to where the vehicles are garaged so that they can be charged up. Also charging stations along highways for interstate trips are a challenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
There would not be a single suburb in Melbourne where the electricity grid could support even one or two electric cars per STREET, when there are currently an average of 2-4 petrol/diesel cars per HOUSE. The grid cannot currently support all the air conditioners that people turn on in the hot weather resulting in load shedding/local blackouts.
Imagine the chaos when everyone has an electric car and the power goes off over three suburbs overnight and 20,000 cars are flat in the morning.
Not to mention that having all those electric cars before we have 100% renewable electricity in place will only result in burning coal for powering cars instead of petrol/diesel.
Already there are electric car charging stations setup powered by diesel generators.
We have a long way to go before the electric car will be commonplace.
That's exactly why we need to get battery storage happening quickly. Power sharing or sub-letting also needs to be explored.
I think most of those problems you described there can be overcome. "Teething problems" :D
Given that we know oil is gone in 50 years (yes or yes) and that electric vehicles are the most likely to succeed them, it only adds further weight to getting rid of (most) coal and having our electricity supply much more locally produced. Hydrogen power all sounds wonderful but a recent video I watched indicates that it is unlikely to win the race (cost).
As Joel Fitzgibbon said after the election "Coal WILL be part of the mix until at least 2050, so get used to it."
The point being that we don't have to eradicate coal-fired power - we just have to vastly reduce the crud going into the air, so either vastly reduce (but not necessarily eliminate) c-f power, or capture the nasties before the go up (prolly virtually impossible).
"Teething problems" :D is a bit of an understatement, but I suppose that's what you meant by adding the smilie.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Boosting up the entire national power grid to handle the increase and concurrently removing coal from the mix will make building the NBN look like a walk in the park.
Only coz Fizza dumbed it down - it should have been a much harder build! :DQuote:
Originally Posted by doug3030
Yes, that's why I'm suggesting that locally (i.e. rooftop) produced, shared and used power via better batteries will (to my inexpert mind) go a long way to charging our vehicles, and therefore largely keeping the grid out of the equation, or at least as much as possible. I dunno, maybe neighbourhood shared batteries or similar - I just think there are things we could think through. There are plenty of rooftops that are not suitable for panels - like the one here which we deeply suspect as asbestos tiles (which means nobody wants to work on it). We need an Energy Summit in the same style of Hawkey's Economic summit in 83. That was one of the best examples of Leadership I've witnessed
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,
Of course assuming we have that many trees saplings available.
With a survival to maturity rate of say 50/60 percent
Surely ,this will help the dumb humans in more than one way.
An we like trees here in one way or another.
Just a thought.
Cheers Matt.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
Environmental science for kids ????
(Or look after the place you live in!!!)
Cheers Matt
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by MandJ
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.
Hear hear! And also to say what they are afraid of.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
Hi,
An ancient curse "May you live in interesting times"
I think we do.
Regards
There afraid of the truth(an losing a s.... loaf of money)Quote:
Originally Posted by FenceFurniture
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by AlexS
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
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
Sure :banghead::bricks: Take yer pick.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Glider
mick
Yes, that was understood, I'm just saying...