Climate Change Rally - Melbourne

[Bear Dale]

Bob, you have every right to worry yourself about anything you want. I have the right to enjoy every day that I have left on this planet as worry free as I care to be.

Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned.

Same as most likely those kids will do when they get out of their leftist university years and have 20-30 years of being in the highest tax bracket there is in Australia.

[bobt]

Unless, of course, the blame is directed at the Australian government, obviously. That’s entirely logical.

There are two distinct types of "blame". Blaming others for creating a problem achieves very little given that the past has proven to be very hard to change. Blaming Governments for not acting to rectify a problem is entirely different.

- - - Updated - - -

Bob, you have every right to worry yourself about anything you want. I have the right to enjoy every day that I have left on this planet as worry free as I care to be.

Sorry mate, but I'll continue to fly around the world, drive a V8, use a wake boat, jet ski, go to the snow in winter, BBQ meat, use electricity like its free, burn 5-6 tonnes of wood to keep warm in winter, use the A/C on any hot day and night and be a 21st Century consumer and spend and enjoy the money to the fullest that I earned.

Same as most likely those kids will do when they get out of their leftist university years and have 20-30 years of being in the highest tax bracket there is in Australia.

Bear, no suprises there - in fact I'll continue to do a lot of those things myself. I'm not planning on going without many things along my way to the the end. However, I will also advocate policies which allow me to do all that and clean up the planet at the same time. Power from solar energy and wind farms makes all our electric gadgetry run just the same, but without the pollution. The best of both worlds! Doing without plastics which stuff up our wildlife and get into the eco system won't disrupt my lifestyle either. The key message here is not about deprivation at all. It's about making sensible changes. A win/win situation.

[nardes]

As a young lad, a Policeman caught me smoking cigarettes behind a derilict house and advised me on the perils of smoking. Even though the Policeman admitted to smoking himself, his advice stuck with me, so I never took up the habit.

It does seem hypocritcal for a smoker to tell a young lad not to smoke, but I am forever grateful to that Policeman for his intervention in preventing me from going down that path of addicition.

In my example, it payed me to listen to the message and not judge the messenger's habits.

Cheers

Dennis

[bobt]

In my example, it payed me to listen to the message and not judge the messenger's habits.

I've learned that I can learn something from most people - even my kids! Too many people have closed their minds to too many ideas. They've just stopped listening. It's a shame.

You did well not taking up smoking. I was a 50 a day smoker, and it was the hardest thing ever to kick that habit.

[Mark L]

This is widely circulating since the 'strike' and I must wonder how many of the school kids would have turned up if the 'strike' had been in the school holidays. These kids use more power per child than 10 of us ever used growing up.

To all the school kids going on "strike" for Climate Change.

You are the first generation who have required air-conditioning in every classroom.
You want TV in every room and your classes are all computerised.
You spend all day and night on electronic devices.
Your buses are air conditioned, you have Netflix, YouTube and Instagram.


More than ever, you don't walk or ride bikes to school but arrive in caravans of private cars that choke suburban roads and worsen rush hour traffic.
You are the biggest consumers of manufactured goods ever and update perfectly good expensive luxury items to stay trendy.

Your entertainment comes from electric devices.
Furthermore, the people driving your protests are the same people who insist on artificially inflating the population growth through immigration, which increases the need for energy, manufacturing and transport.

The more people we have, the more forest and bushland we clear and more of the environment is destroyed.
How about this...
Tell your teachers to switch off the air-con.
Walk or ride to school.
Switch off your devices and read a book.
Make a sandwich instead of buying manufactured fast food.
No, none of this will happen because you are selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little have it alls, inspired by the adults around you who crave a feeling of having a "noble cause" while they indulge themselves in Western luxury and unprecedented quality of life that no other generation has ever had.”

Lets flick the off switch on all the coal fired power stations for a week & see how everyone copes.

So the young one said "how do we generate the electricity we need for the things we're used to in a better way that isn't adding to climate change."

[nardes]

If these school children are willing to advocate for Planet Earth, good on them, as it seems Planet Earth is poorly represented on the world stage.

For decades we have had well-established, peer reviewed studies and investigations that have documented the ever-increasing pollution of our land, sea and air; deforestation, loss of species, melting of glaciers, ice caps, etc. If I were Mother Nature, I would be very pleased that school children were showing some interest in my health and well-being.

Cheers

Dennis

[bobt]

If these school children are willing to advocate for Planet Earth, good on them, as it seems Planet Earth is poorly represented on the world stage.

For decades we have had well-established, peer reviewed studies and investigations that have documented the ever-increasing pollution of our land, sea and air; deforestation, loss of species, melting of glaciers, ice caps, etc. If I were Mother Nature, I would be very pleased that school children were showing some interest in my health and well-being.

Cheers

Dennis

I have 7 grand children, and have been to various open days and displays they have put on at their schools. The amount of knowledge they have compared to the average man in the street is amazing. They have studied the environment, experimented and thoroughly examined their futures and the future of the planet. They've discovered an interesting thing about sand in particular - many adults have their heads buried in it !!!!

[Bear Dale]

These debates just go in circles.

Most here will have more real life experiences than the school children holding up placards saying "Ban Coal" who are still wet behind the ears and don't know all that much about the economics to run a continent the size of Australia with a population of 25m even though they may believe that they do. So lets drop the rainbows and unicorns.

Australia will export 67 billion+ Australian dollars worth of coal and around 20 billion in natural gas 2019. The coal and natural gas industries support around 200,000 jobs.

Ban coal? Are you prepared for the Health budget to be slashed and for hospital beds to close? For Social Security and Pensions to dry up? Ready to pay more taxes? A lowering in education standards? Hospital waiting lists to be much longer? Unemployment to be at never seen before rates? Higher power bills? Cut backs in Defence spending whilst our neighbours increase theirs? A decline in public housing? etc etc etc etc etc etc etc etc

Australia has avoided recessions that other countries have endured for nearly 30 years, the world's longest record. A lot of people seem to take their current lifestyle that they grew up with and are accustomed to here in Australia for granted, they think its trendy and Green to believe that they could 'go without' because they don't have an understanding of what that really means because they have never gone without and they have never traveled and just seen how we are still the lucky country compared to how most of the rest of the world lives.

What political party of any colour or flavour will last if they cut back the above? None, because the silent majority will have their say at the election booth.

[bobt]

These debates just go in circles.

At last, we have a point of agreement!

However, when faced with choices I prefer to go down the ethical road rather than that of short-term self interest. You are of course free to take the other path. That's democracy.

Interesting though, the UN has just released a report which indicates that Australia is among the worst nations in terms of acting to protect our environment. Not something to be proud of.

[John King]

Bob, the UN has become a joke, mostly run by "democracies" that most of us would call "dictatorships". Like the League of Nations before it, it is well past its use by date, sadly.

Check out how many nations actually pay their dues. Australia does ...

[bobt]

Bob, the UN has become a joke, mostly run by "democracies" that most of us would call "dictatorships".

I'd agree that the UN has become ineffective in many ways - however, in this case it is simply the conduit through which information is passed - so its competency is irrelevant. The information remains valid and is obtained from scientific agencies around the world.

I think the simple take-away here is that there are those who believe the science and those that don't. Clearly, in this group we have some who don't, and the reality is those views are unlikely to change no matter how strong the evidence. Whatever the reasons that cause some people to dismiss scientific findings, those views appear to be set in concrete. I have learned that there is little point in trying to change that mind-set despite such a huge armoury of evidence, so there's probably not much point in my producing any of that evidence here - it will be ignored regardless. However, if you can find reliable, factual evidence to bolster your views then by all means do so - I would be intrigued to see it.

Thus far all we have seen is gut feelings and a belief that our economy depends on polluting the globe, none of which have any basis in fact.

[John King]

Bob, I have formal qualifications at university level in science and politics, among other things. Somewhat beyond primary/secondary school levels.

I have used this training to study many claims and aspects of the UNIPCC reports since the mid 1990s. I am only impressed by how completely wrong they seem to be, when compared with raw data and analysis coming from research stations world wide.

The 1997 UNIPCC report predicted a metre rise in mean sea level and 56 million environmental refugees by 2010. Still waiting ...

The UNIPCC is a political body above all else - not a scientific body ... United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Just this morning, the New Daily (socialist workers daily?) announced that sea levels had risen by about 60 mms over the last 22 years.

1) From my knowledge of coastal survey and mapping, this degree of accuracy is not possible (3.04mm/yr ...), and

2) We have only been able to measure mean sea level relatively accurately since about 2005 ...

[bobt]

John, I'm not suggesting that you are academically challenged - far from it. However, one educated amateur compared with a legion of specialist scientists from around the globe does not, to my mind, represent a fair contest!

As I mentioned previously, hard line climate change deniers (and I take you to be of that ilk) are unlikely to change their spots as a result of anything I say or do. I could, of course, return with pages and pages of verified facts in support of the climate change issue, but what would be the point? We both know that would never be enough.

My position is simply that (a) the climate is irrefutably changing (b) those changes are a combination of factors both within and out of our control (c) those things which we could do we should do, if only to make our planet a more habitable place.

You only have to look around you at the pollution and the environmental damage world wide to realise that we can do better. If we can ... then why not? Other countries are making changes to a cleaner, more sustainable world. We can do that too if we stop being so selfish and inward looking.

[John King]

John, I'm not suggesting that you are academically challenged - far from it. However, one educated amateur compared with a legion of specialist scientists from around the globe does not, to my mind, represent a fair contest!

Bob, to quote just one of these poor misguided souls (climate scientist, Monash University - doctorate ... ) who keeps quoting Moorabbin weather station data from back in the 1950s. During that time, that weather station has moved 5 or 6 times, from Beaumaris to Moorabbin airport. These data sets are presented as one contiguous data set. This is statistically invalid. Each location has its own unique microclimate, for starters. Moving it some five kilometres from a suburban area to an open field (albeit with aeroplane exhaust fumes ... ) makes the data sets utterly separate. No indication of the state of the Stevenson Screen, or the immediate environment (needs to be grass that kept mown at no longer than 1" high, etc, etc). Had I presented such data in even first year as being indicative of anything, I would have failed that subject (statistics and research methods).

Now, multiply these failings by the number of ground based weather stations on which almost all of this data is based ... Hmmm.

As I mentioned previously, hard line climate change deniers (and I take you to be of that ilk)

The Earth's climate changes. That is a given. The solar climate model explains those changes. The humanocentric climate model does not.
How can anthropogenic climate models fail to take into account the exponential growth of the human population. It's beyond laughable, or risible - it's patently ridiculous

are unlikely to change their spots as a result of anything I say or do. I could, of course, return with pages and pages of verified facts in support of the climate change issue, but what would be the point? We both know that would never be enough.

Bob, I have literally thousands of links to primary data providers (research stations and the like). I am certainly very interested in the whole shebang, particularly the primary cause - too many humans consuming, polluting and breeding. I just will not sign up to what amounts to a religious belief, with little real world data that supports it.

Now, am I an active advocate for living cleaner, less polluting lives? Yes. I have been on two community consultative panels regarding sewerage disposal - a big problem in Australia, an environmental disaster in much of the world! I drive cars that have a cheap whole of life (cradle to grave) environmental cost. All plastics in them are marked with recycling information. Both are PZEV (Partially Zero Emissions Vehicle), that is, the air coming out of the exhaust is cleaner than what goes into the engine, and the fuel systems are totally sealed (one of the biggest pollution agents is fuel escaping into the atmosphere from the fuel system ... ). I have always been highly critical of what I term 'domestic diesels' (passenger vehicles with diesel engines). The VW and Mercedes scandals give proof positive to what I have always said about their particulate pollution levels. Commercial diesels are often (but not always) cleaner.

Snow should be white. Look carefully at the shots of Greenland, and you will notice that they have a grey coating. This lowers the albedo dramatically, causes the ice sheet to absorb much more infrared radiation from the sun (and UV and ... ). The grey colour is from particulates in the atmosphere. Almost none of these come from power stations, as they are tightly regulated, even horrible old clunkers like Hazelwood. Any relatively modern black coal power station emits almost no particulates, or CO2, SO, SO2, SO3. The photos showing great clouds being emitted from cooling towers are very misleading. Those clouds are water droplets (steam) from the cooling tower. The exhaust of the furnaces is elsewhere ... Deliberate lying? I suspect so.

My position is simply that (a) the climate is irrefutably changing (b) those changes are a combination of factors both within and out of our control (c) those things which we could do we should do, if only to make our planet a more habitable place.

Yes. climate is changing. It has since the planet's formation. Vulcanism and plate tectonics play a huge part in this. Look at what happened to the world's climate when the Atlantic Ocean came into being at the end of the Triassic. Ditto with the formation of the number of giant super continents that have formed and broken up over the aeons. When Yellowstone blew last time (it's about 30 to 50,000 years overdue for another eruption ... ), the earth took around 30,000 years to recover from it.

You only have to look around you at the pollution and the environmental damage world wide to realise that we can do better. If we can ... then why not? Other countries are making changes to a cleaner, more sustainable world. We can do that too if we stop being so selfish and inward looking.

The great mass of humanity causes the planet to suffer, Bob. I am very aware of that. We have to control our birth rate and overall population. This site scares me witless:

https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/

Note that births today outnumber deaths roughly 2.4:1 ...

I am dreadfully saddened by what we are doing to this beautiful planet, but religious mania will do nothing to limit the root cause - us.

Dear little girls travelling around the world in $50 million dollar yachts built using modern materials and technology does nothing to convince me of the wisdom of the young ...

The sadness about youth is that it's wasted on the young; the sadness of wisdom is that it's wasted on the old.

I'm not the "denier" that you are making me out to be!
Interesting that the only other context that the word 'denier' is routinely used is "Holocaust denier". Interesting from a marketing and psychological point of view.

I could go into hugely more detail, but this is a photography forum ...

I hope that you see my points.

[ameerat42]

^Don't worry about it being a photography forum, as this thread is in OOF (for bleary eyes).

[bobt]

John. I am convinced ...... that you will remain unconvinced. No doubt you mean well, and I am sure that the occasional observations from some weather stations are indeed incorrect - humans are fallible. I also agree that the increasing weight of humanity severely challenges the ability of this planet to house and feed us, although stopping people reproducing may pose a slight challenge.

I am not, however, so dismissive of our young. Having had a lot of exposure to them over my life I am more optimistic. Once we lose our faith in their ability to continue our collective progress through life, then we might as well all crawl into holes and await the apocalypse! In any event, if they are as hopeless as you make out, then who can we blame but ourselves? After all .... we taught them!

One of the primary tools used by those who refute the science, is the selective quoting of isolated and generally spurious alternate examples. Sure, some adults (and some children) do waste a disproportionate amount of resources and live lives which are not in the planet's best interests. Even in this limited forum we have seen examples of that - people who perhaps value short term indulgence over longer term communal benefit. However, there are exceptions to every rule, as you well know. However, exceptions do not negate the rule. Your claims of grey snow are not born out by my experiences, having recently been to Iceland Switzerland and Norway where the snow was pure white (creating exposure problems for my camera).

Neither your observations nor mine are relevant. They are simply the observations of two individuals rather than the thousands who have collected and analysed data around the globe. I prefer the statistical likelihood that they know considerable more than either of us.

So ..... rather than blame the children or the rapidly reproducing humans we should look at the science. We should ask ourselves what that science tells us and what those humans should be doing to rectify the situation. Your only solution as far as I can see is to hand out condoms and stop children from expressing informed opinions. Children are our future, and rather than shutting them up and condemning them we should be encouraging them to seek solutions to problems we have created.

[John King]

Bob, I really do not understand how you could misinterpret what I wrote in the manner you have.

BTW, an independent audit of the weather stations on the continental USA found that only about 5% were accurate within +/- 2°C when compared against a laboratory calibrated instrument. Irrelevant for local consumption, but extremely relevant if you want to use these as part of a global set.

I have great respect for the young, they are the future of our species. Age will cure their lack of knowledge, experience and (for some) provide the insight required for wisdom.

I also have great respect for the scientific method. While science is not always right, in the long term it is self correcting.

Even Professor Brian Cox is starting to realize that the big bang theory has some big holes in it - something I worked out around 30+ years ago.

In the interim, I will concentrate on doing my bit for a better environment, and avoid the religious mania like the plague. The latter contributes nothing, and turns people's attention away from the real problems of population explosion and environmental pollution.

[Mark L]

I also have great respect for the scientific method. While science is not always right, in the long term it is self correcting.

My unscientific observations seem to show this is true.
Most climate scientist now seem to be saying that the modeled rate of climate change has underestimated the rate of change.
I don't much care if the burning of fossil fuels is the major generator of climate change. I do think it makes more sense to be generating our energy needs via renewable energy eventually.
Up my way they want to dip up the Bylong Valley for 25 years of coal supply. This is one beautiful part of the world. Surely there's a better way.

[John King]

My unscientific observations seem to show this is true.
Most climate scientist now seem to be saying that the modeled rate of climate change has underestimated the rate of change.
I don't much care if the burning of fossil fuels is the major generator of climate change. I do think it makes more sense to be generating our energy needs via renewable energy eventually.
Up my way they want to dip up the Bylong Valley for 25 years of coal supply. This is one beautiful part of the world. Surely there's a better way.

Mark, back in 1997, the UNIPCC models said there would be a 1 metre rise in sea levels and 56 million environmental refugees by 2010. Now they are telling us in 2019, that the rise has been about 70 millimetres since 1997. That kind of discrepancy from their predictions I find rather harder than they do to explain away ...

Our beautiful property, Kianga, in the Dawson Valley in central Queensland has been an open cut coal mine for about 40 years.

Like you, I preferred it like this (late 1960s):



Unfortunately, we cannot get the electricity back and turn it back into the above ...

[bobt]

Bob, I really do not understand how you could misinterpret what I wrote in the manner you have.

I'm not sure I have misinterpreted you, but if I have then that's unfortunate. Your comments about our young have been largely disparaging, and similarly you are clearly sceptical about the global scientific assessment of climate change. It makes little difference to me whether an estimated change has proven to be inaccurate, only if it is proven to be wrong - which is not the case. Today's news makes it clear that the rate of global warming is increasing rather than decreasing, so the estimates have been underestimates rather than over estimates.

It is not a religious mania, but an increasing sense of concern based on so little action from politicians. Politicians are clearly more focused on the electoral repercussions than on the health of the planet, and that means that no significant action is in the pipeline to reduce the impact and speed of global warming.

Despite your scepticism about the legitimacy of scientific evidence, the evidence of our eyes is more than sufficient when you look at the shrinking glaciers and other visual and obvious results. It is interesting that there is currently a trend in various academic journals to ignore those who continue to deny these changes because the evidence is now so overwhelming. It is becoming about as sensible to deny the science as it is for the "Flat Earth Society" to believe that the world is indeed flat!

So although you are perhaps "doing your bit" for the environment, it would perhaps be more useful to promote the reality of climate change than to argue against what is now a self-evident fact. Environmental pollution is actually a part of the problem rather than a separate issue, and as for population control I'm not quite sure what your strategy is. The Chinese tried that one with absolutely dreadful results!