 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 207
An interesting thread/discussion, Bob. You have a wonderful way to get so many good points across with a few words. Thanks.
Slightly off topic?; hopefully the side effect from the trending same sex marriage/relationships should start having an impact in the near future?Originally Posted by bobt
Threadstarter
John Clarke (AKA Fred Dagg) had a theory that we are all born with only a set number of words, and when we use them all up we die. I don't want to risk it!
It's interesting actually, there seems to be a decline in the West's desire to have kids and as John points out we do have too many people as it is. However, developing countries still manage to reproduce like rabbits, which the world could do without. However, I can't see the increasing numbers of same sex marriages impacting that any time soon. If they want kids they still get them one way or another, and they are still statistically only a blip on the radar.Slightly off topic?; hopefully the side effect from the trending same sex marriage/relationships should start having an impact in the near future?
Our two biggest threats in my view is (a) a shortage of world leaders who are prepared to make the hard decisions which are necessary if we are to overcome the more pressing issues facing us all, and (b) a willingness of the electorate to accept those decisions without focusing on short term selfishness. There is a bigger picture.
"If you want to be a better photographer, stand in front of more interesting stuff.” — Jim Richardson
Indulgent traveling to another country? Luckily you live in a first world country and were able to indulge your want to travel. Imagine if all the 7+ billion people on earth wanted to be so indulgent and wanted to fly to another country?
A December 2015 report finds that aircraft could generate 43gt of carbon pollution through to 2050, and because people want to travel by air, like yourself, airlines are building more and bigger airplanes to handle the burgeoning growth in air travel.
Theenvironmental impact of aviation, a comprehensive research shows that despite anticipated efficiency innovations to airframes, engines, aerodynamics and flight operations, there is no end in sight, even many decades out, to rapid growth in CO2 emissions from air travel and air freight, due to projected continual growth in air travel. This is because international aviation emissions have escaped international regulation up to the ICAO triennial conference in October 2016 agreed on the CORSIA offset scheme. In addition, due to low or non-existent taxes on aviation fuel, air travel enjoys a competitive advantage over other transportation modes due to lower fares.
The above contains some assumed motivations for actions taken, and the consequences of which are then generalised
to unrealistic proportions to illustrate dire consequences. It is questionable as an argument.
Note that I haven't read (kept up with) the whole thread, so can't comment on statements made by others.
CC, Image editing OK.
Threadstarter
Interesting. It seems to me that you are essentially anti-progress. You seem to be saying that we should no longer travel overseas, that we should abandon planes and go back to horse and carts? I'm not exactly sure what it is you are advocating here? Should we limit flights to the transporting of essentials only? Should we make driving a car for pleasure illegal? One of my basic precepts in life is that if someone doesn't like an idea then they need to come up with a better idea. Until they do so, then original idea remains the best option. I don't see your plan "B" here at all. What would you have us do ?
Your concerns about the environmental cost of flying seem at odds with your earlier statement "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."
I have no problem with my indulgence and consumerism, I'm surprised at your indulgence.
Comes across a bit like talk the talk but don't walk the walk.
And this is the thing I’d love most to learn from this thread. Genuinely.
You become prime minister of Australia tomorrow. The floor is all yours. What realistic measures do you take immediately to stop climate change?
You said before that John “doing his bit” is no good, so the practical, hands on option is out the door. You indicated that blocking streets with rallies so that young children can’t get to chemotherapy appointments and glueing your hands to street crossings is the way to end climate change? So you’d send boats and planes of Australian protesters to block up the streets of countries around the world that do actually have some impact on “climate change?” Spread the word?
Obviously I’d taken a bit of artistic license there, but this is a forum of the arts so I hope that’s okay. But genuinely curious what your solution is.
Threadstarter
That's an easy one. The first step in resolving a problem is to recognise that there IS a problem. This, I suspect, is where we differ.
So my first step would be to throw away that Morrison lump of coal, admit that global warming is an issue, and resolve to do whatever we can to lessen its impact. Far too much time is wasted with denial rather than acceptance, and that denial is based on political expediency rather than on any factual basis.
Having got over that huge stumbling block we would thus dispense with circular and unproductive arguments about what degree of climate change is man-made and what is natural and agree that whatever the situation it just makes sense to alter the way in which we operate. Renewable energy is the way of the future, and common sense dictates that non-polluting, renewable energy sources will give us a better world and a more sustainable world. Burning fossil fuels is a major source of pollution and mines like Adani are humongously damaging to our land and wildlife. So I would stop Adani cold in its tracks. One only has to look at Adani's track record to realise that it is an amoral and untrustworthy organisation with a track record of leaving a trail of destruction wherever it goes.
I would also examine each and every alternative such as solar power, wind power etc etc with a view to encouraging these new industries to grow, replacing the coal mines and maintaining employment. It has been demosntrated that these policies work elsewhere in the world, and the only stumbling block here is a lack of government support and promotion.
That's my first day in office dealt with .........
- - - Updated - - -
There is a huge gulf between taking us back to the 19th century and modifying the way we live today. We are never going to go backwards, so we need to accommodate the present and adapt to the future. That doesn't mean we stop flying - it means we develop better planes. We don't stop using electricity, we find better ways of generating it. We don't stop innovating and learning, we just apply what we know to better ways of living. Again, it's not rocket science or even radical - it's plain common sense. Your wouldn't trash your living room, so why trash your planet?
Funny how research can be (well, potentially) stymied by a PM who thought wind-generators* "ugly".
* Seeking new term, as they do not generate wind (ie, not full of beans) but energy. Not even
"wind-power generators" would do. It would have to be wind-powered generators, or something.
This is a really vexed question.
Bob, I'm an atheist.
That doesn't mean that I want to offend or prohibit the practices of those billions around the world who believe in some kind of god.
What I object to is when the atheist conference advertising for the conference held in Melbourne was successfully banned ("removed from") buses in this city.
I am forced daily to conform to laws that might seem reasonable to someone who has Judeo/Christian beliefs. I do not share those beliefs, even though I was confirmed as a Christian just before I became an agnostic (a couple of weeks later), then later an atheist (about a year later, at around 16 y.o.). I mention this to demonstrate the problems associated with the indoctrination of children prior to their reasonable intellectual ability to assess what is being told to them. I have successfully explained Einstein's Theory of Relativity to one of my (then) 6 y.o. nieces. Explaining complex ethical and world wide problems to such a child would be inappropriate, to say the least. The Jesuits adhere to that approach ... But that's really OT.
However, I am compelled to conform to those predominantly Judeo/Christian laws. Compulsion means a return to the dark ages and the death of rational thought.
Roughly 40-50% of Australians list themselves as having "No religion" as at the last census, so I'm hardly alone - not that that would bother me in the slightest.
I do not force my views on them, but I have had a poor experience with the religious respecting my views.
For me, a view of the Universe that's unobstructed by having god in the way is far more awesome, beautiful and wonderful than believing in a god with the manners and morals of a spoiled five year old.
AND, nowhere, not once, have I disparaged children. FCOL, Psychology, including developmental psychology, was one of my chosen fields of study. I just hate to see their young, trusting and enquiring minds polluted with BS at an age when they cannot distinguish between truth and falsehood. Advertising is the same. According to the research papers I have read children cannot rell the difference between news and advertising until about the age of 10 y.o. The standard deviation for this age will be moderately large. Possibly as large as 12-18 months, I cannot recall. The fact remains.
Every photograph I have seen of the Greenland ice sheets shows a grey coating. Very close to 18% neutral grey, in fact.
BTW, the length of a glacier is not a measure of its "health". Its mass is. Leaving that to one side, we know very little hard information about around 10-20% of the earth's glaciers, and next to nothing about the other 80-90%. Making sweeping statements based on this (lack of) knowledge is questionable at best.
Sorry, but I cannot keep up this rant any longer. I have a completely open mind, and have spent more than 6 months devoted to studying these phenomena 8-10 hours a day ... ). My conclusions remain the same - stop polluting the planet with humans and our garbage. Anthropogenic climate change is a distraction to keep the masses occupied while continuing to overpopulate and keep on polluting to their hearts' content.
- - - Updated - - -
Am, as every farmer can tell you, windmills are great for pumping water. Every study of wind turbines shows that they are great at generating electricity when it's not needed - e.g. 0200H ...Funny how research can be (well, potentially) stymied by a PM who thought wind-generators* "ugly".
* Seeking new term, as they do not generate wind (ie, not full of beans
"wind-power generators" would do. It would have to be wind-powered generators, or something.
This is a really vexed question.
The solution is pumped hydro, as used at Dinorwig power station (different implementation, but same principle). Australia already has much of that infrastructure in place in the Snowy Mountains scheme.
Most of the rainfall that this country receives presently dilutes the Torres Strait, Timor Sea, etc. Except for Lake Argyle, which holds some 23 Sydharbs of fresh water. It is also about 90m above every capital city in Australia. Similar schemes could easily be built on the northern side of e.g. the Selwyn Ranges.
The problem with dogma is that irt almost always refuses to even contemplate alternative solutions. If Gaddafi could build the Great Man Made River project in Libya, what's stopping us?
- - - Updated - - -
Some more sobering data for those who appear to think that anthropogenic climate change is not related to population, for some strange reason!
https://www.worldometers.info/world-...ation-by-year/
I suspect that this statement would resonate with most folks who have contributed to or read this post.
It certainly does for me; after all, when you love something (our planet, our life support system, humanity) why would you continue to harm, or even destroy it, once your mind has been awakened to how that process is currently working.
Cheers
Dennis
Dennis
Exactly, Dennis.I suspect that this statement would resonate with most folks who have contributed to or read this post.
It certainly does for me; after all, when you love something (our planet, our life support system, humanity) why would you continue to harm, or even destroy it, once your mind has been awakened to how that process is currently working.
Cheers
Dennis
I've been a non-conformist environmentalist since I was old enough to understand the ramifications of what we are doing, at around age 18 y.o. - over 50 years ago!
However, I refuse to drink the 'chicken little' Kool Aid. It's based on BS, and will not actually solve the problems that we as a species should be facing up to, but aren't ... Another religious belief will not achieve anything. After all, which religion said that man had dominion over all the Earth? Where, in that statement was the unavoidable concomitant statement that we should exercise that dominion with responsibility? Uh Oh ....
Every right has an attendant duty. Shame that they don't teach ethics in school, only religion ...
Bob obviously doesn't see it, but I am not actually disagreeing with his fundamental tenets.
Unlikely as it might appear (according to the Drake equation) that we are the only sentient life in the Universe, until we know this for absolutely certain, we have a sacred duty to conserve what we have developed. Instead, we sell 21st century weaponry to people who are living in about 800 AD. Really great stuff ...
Threadstarter
Pity that the voters didn't reject him on the same basis!
- - - Updated - - -
At last! Something on which we can agree!I have all sorts of objections about having religion thrust upon me, whether it be in politics or everyday life. There is far too much religion inserted into everyday life, when it should be practiced by those who need it privately and not used as a lobbying mechanism or a divisive distraction from dealing with facts.
I'm not sure that "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 ..." and " The sadness about youth is that it's wasted on the young;" is necessarily flattering, but I concede I may have attributed one of the other poster's comments to you in error.AND, nowhere, not once, have I disparaged children.
It doesn't take much to make white snow look grey in a photograph. You may rest assured that as of two months ago it was still brilliantly white! That's first hand rather than second hand information.Every photograph I have seen of the Greenland ice sheets shows a grey coating. Very close to 18% neutral grey, in fact.
There have been two funeral held for dead glaciers this year. Glaciers who demise was directly attributable to climate change.BTW, the length of a glacier is not a measure of its "health". Its mass is. Leaving that to one side, we know very little hard information about around 10-20% of the earth's glaciers, and next to nothing about the other 80-90%. Making sweeping statements based on this (lack of) knowledge is questionable at best.
There is an assumption here that we must only choose one of life's ills to address at any given time. Why not address both climate change, pollution and population simultaneously? Those actions are not mutually exclusive but part of a package.My conclusions remain the same - stop polluting the planet with humans and our garbage. Anthropogenic climate change is a distraction to keep the masses occupied while continuing to overpopulate and keep on polluting to their hearts' content.
Which flies in the face of the thousands of wind turbines to be seen all around the globe. One of the things that has struck me when flying into other countries (and I have flown into quite a few), is the sight of hundreds of turbines to be seen off the coast. They are there becuase they work, and more and more are being built every day. Australia is better placed than most with heaps of sunshine and miles of windy coast. We need to harness that energy as other countries are doing right now.Am, as every farmer can tell you, windmills are great for pumping water. Every study of wind turbines shows that they are great at generating electricity when it's not needed
Indeed ..... but not the only solution, so why not harness all of these options?The solution is pumped hydro
I don't recall anyone saying that it isn't related to population? Everything is inter-related. Why keep focusing on only one thing at a time? Why not attack the problems from many angles? Again, they are not mutually exclusive.Some more sobering data for those who appear to think that anthropogenic climate change is not related to population, for some strange reason!
It seems that AP folks are not the only ones discussing this multi-faceted topic.
None other than the great man himself, Sir David Attenborough on the ABC website:
https://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/sir-david-attenborough-slams-scott-morrison-on-climate-record/11533566
And this amazing, bright and passionate youngster at the UN:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-...e-you/11541300
Lets hope that there is some hope left.
Cheers
Dennis
Threadstarter
We are talking at cross purposes to a limited extent. Where we disagree is perhaps the most appropriate plan of attack. I believe in a holistic approach whereby we don't just focus on one aspect but all aspects. They are all inter related.John King; Bob obviously doesn't see it, but I am not actually disagreeing with his fundamental tenets.
I'm not sure that religion in schools is all that relevant as it is far less now than it once was. Personally I'd ditch it - there's enough religious indoctrination in society anyway, but that's perhaps another issue. Like you, I am a rabid Atheist!
We do need more education, but it is the general public who need educating. The simply fact that we have leaders such as Trump, Morrison, Netanyahu, Johnson and Putin illustrates quite effectively the need for the world's population to stop electing or tolerating leaders of this ilk. They are the major impediment to a better world, and yet they remain.
Leaving aside Putin, the rest are elected by voters who clearly haven't got a clue - and so educating those voters is a key part of the puzzle. Of course that gets back to where we started which is politics and lobbying. The environmental marches are simply a form of lobbying.
- - - Updated - - -
Those are brilliant links Dennis, if only we could make the world's politicians act upon that advice.
I suspect that those news articles are getting some headline space because of the recent marches, so I hope those that participated can feel good about having some impact for their efforts.
Cheers
Dennis
Bob, I would expect the colour grading in video footage to be correct. Specially aerial shots. All the other white bits were white ...
Can you really not see that HCC (now given the more officious sounding name 'anthropogenic CC' ... ) is a religious belief structure?
I'm all for science, but will not stand for BS masquerading as science.
Glaciers grow and shrink all the time.
There are roughly 160,000 glaciers on Earth, but this number varies between 100,000 and 200,000, depending on who you believe ... demonstrates just how little we actually know about our planet ...
Mourning the 'death' of 2 out of ~160,000 seems a little bit of an exaggeration of sentiment to me ...
Pity that the voters didn't reject him (Morrison) on the same basis!
Bob, you belong to a vocal minority, Morrison got in by a large margin, voted in by the silent majority, that's democracy.
If you think Labor, if or when, they get into power will be one iota different....you're dreaming.
And if you think the leftist Greens ( or sometimes referred to as the Avocado Party, green on the outside and nuts on the inside) will ever be the dominant party in Australia........that's dreaming whilst inebriated.
Threadstarter
There are various reasons some snow can look grey, but as an illustration of anything useful here ??? Perhaps not. I went to three countries a couple of months ago where I saw lots of lovely pure white snow. That evidence is sufficient for me!
Anything that people become heavily invested in can be viewed that way. It doesn't make it irrational or ill based - it just means that it's an issue someone is passionate about. Some might get passionate about overpopulation, but it doesn't make it a religion. I'm with you in terms of the prevalence of God(s) in our society, but there are many things one might casually consider a religion. Ask any Richmond supporters next Saturday!!Can you really not see that HCC (now given the more officious sounding name 'anthropogenic CC' ... ) is a religious belief structure?
I agree .... Scientology comes to mind - but not climate change.I'm all for science, but will not stand for BS masquerading as science.
Not to the extent they are currently. I'd go and find some stats, but we both know that you wouldn't accept them.Glaciers grow and shrink all the time.
I think we should agree about the value of Atheism and agree to disagree on the rest!
Reminder: Please keep the discussion polite. It is potentially wide-ranging, but please try not to stray.
Since the concept of democracy comes up occasionally, it is not helpful to criticise the stated or just
perceived political leanings of members, equally less so to prognosticate on the likely actions of future
governments. One can cite relevant, demonstrable facts, such as: "When Party X was in power they cut
funds to project Y...", etc, but lambasting members or unnecessarily lampooning political movements is
useless.
Posting Permissions
