Global Warming

[KnightersRevenge]

Given the 97% meme is bogus, this somewhat weakens the message.

Nah, your love of false dichotomies does that. The science is not controversial. The pointless debate over "97.1%" is a red herring. The vast, expansive, multitudinous conclusion of the research by those who have the done the hard work all points in the same direction. Why do you find that hard to accept?

 

[tigersnake]

Given the 97% meme is bogus, this somewhat weakens the message.

no its not, but don't stop believin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcjzHMhBtf0

 

[tigersnake]

Nah, your love of false dichotomies does that. The science is not controversial. The pointless debate over "97.1%" is a red herring. The vast, expansive, multitudinous conclusion of the research by those who have the done the hard work all points in the same direction. Why do you find that hard to accept?

I can answer that KR: Because the truth in this case brings the traditional hydrocarbon energy-intensive high-consumption endless growth model of capitalism into question. There are 2 ways to react, 1. how can we best respond and change? or 2. Shoot the messenger, deny and undermine, and hope any ill effects that may happen will happen when you're dead and gone.

Basic

 

[Azza]

or 2. Shoot the messenger, deny and undermine, and hope any ill effects that may happen will happen when you're dead and gone.

Or if you're a major player in the oil industry, trust that your money can protect you from the negative consequences, while every other poor bastard cops the crap.

 

[Giardiasis]

no its not, but don't stop believin'

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VcjzHMhBtf0

For someone who puts so much importance on the scientific method, you'd think you would apply a tad more scrutiny to the 97% nonsense.

 

[Giardiasis]

I can answer that KR: Because the truth in this case brings the traditional hydrocarbon energy-intensive high-consumption endless growth model of capitalism into question.

Hydrocarbon energy, or any other sort of energy source used by society has no mandated production under capitalism. It does not involve an actual command to produce anything, in contrast to communism which does. Here is a good definition of capitalism:
"Capitalism is an economic system characterised by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Modern Capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses."

If hydrocarbon energy is the source of power production, then this simply reflects what consumers want. If wind power was what consumers wanted, then it would be the dominant source. Capitalism does not care what is produced, all it cares about is that prices and barriers to competition are left alone from intervention.

Suggesting capitalism asserts endless growth is a strange comment. I'd wager you don't understand what growth actually means.

 

[tigersnake]

For someone who puts so much importance on the scientific method, you'd think you would apply a tad more scrutiny to the 97% nonsense.

Oh I've applied scrutiny, a good 20 years of it. I used to debate it, but there is no point anymore, hence the p!ss taking link.

(to be fair, it can be anywhere between 90% and 98% depending on your definition of support.

 

[tigersnake]

Hydrocarbon energy, or any other sort of energy source used by society has no mandated production under capitalism. It does not involve an actual command to produce anything, in contrast to communism which does. Here is a good definition of capitalism:
"Capitalism is an economic system characterised by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market. Modern Capitalism is essentially mass production for the needs of the masses."

If hydrocarbon energy is the source of power production, then this simply reflects what consumers want. If wind power was what consumers wanted, then it would be the dominant source. Capitalism does not care what is produced, all it cares about is that prices and barriers to competition are left alone from intervention.

Suggesting capitalism asserts endless growth is a strange comment. I'd wager you don't understand what growth actually means.

Wager all you want. Note the use of 'traditional capitalist model'. As I've said before, capitalism may well be the best mechanism to get us out of this mess, I believe it is. But, as I've said a thousand time G, it rests on vested interests releasing their grip and allowing the market failure of free air pollution to be addressed. You are definately partly correct, consumers need to get informed and take responsibility, I agree. But you can't understate the ability of powerful vested interests to fight a very effective rear guard action. Capitalism needs to get innovative, smart (digging stuff up burning it isn't) and green, its starting in spite of amazing barriers being put up by the stale old dinosaurs, We're getting there.

Your particular view where everyone has equal power is ludicrous to me.

 

[tigersnake]

Abbott removing CC from the G20 agenda has made is an international laughing stock

 

[Giardiasis]

Wager all you want. Note the use of 'traditional capitalist model'. As I've said before, capitalism may well be the best mechanism to get us out of this mess, I believe it is. But, as I've said a thousand time G, it rests on vested interests releasing their grip and allowing the market failure of free air pollution to be addressed. You are definately partly correct, consumers need to get informed and take responsibility, I agree. But you can't understate the ability of powerful vested interests to fight a very effective rear guard action. Capitalism needs to get innovative, smart (digging stuff up burning it isn't) and green, its starting in spite of amazing barriers being put up by the stale old dinosaurs, We're getting there.

You could find this interesting http://mises.org/daily/3930

Your particular view where everyone has equal power is ludicrous to me.

Pardon?

 

[tigersnake]

You could find this interesting http://mises.org/daily/3930

interesting yes, logically scrambled, simplistic and lacking depth, ignores scientific consensus, but definitely interesting. Fails to address cross border issues, which is crucial to the premise of the argument, and also crucial to climate change issues (I'll leave the word policy out). If, in theory, farmers can sue coal miners, and the farmers have a win in one country, but don't in another where most of the coal mines are, there is no win for the farmers in real terms. Legal systems in different countries are different, climate change issues are cross-border, international issues.

Also, I know this is just an ideological/ philosophical divide here between us, but the courts won't cut it. Not for years, decades probably. To prove liability in court you have to establish direct link with no doubt. There has to be zero scientific uncertainty. Tobacco companies are still winning appeals in courts. Climate change is caused by hydrocarbon emmissions, as a basis for policy we know that, but as a basis for a win in the courts, theres enough doubt that it will be fought for another 50 years probably. Governments commenced anti-smoking policies 40 years ago, people are only now having the odd win in the courts, and even then the companies appeal and stall until the complaintants are dead.

 

[tigersnake]

Great to see Abbott trying to form a flat earth alliance with the Canadians

(its not a flat earth alliance BTW, they know what's going on, its a lets deny and obfuscate so we make as much money from this shitload of coal we both have as quickly as we can and hang the consequences alliance)

Makes me proud to be an aussie

 

[Azza]

Great to see Abbott trying to form a flat earth alliance with the Canadians

(its not a flat earth alliance BTW, they know what's going on, its a lets deny and obfuscate so we make as much money from this sh!tload of coal we both have as quickly as we can and hang the consequences alliance)

Makes me proud to be an aussie

The Kiwis and Poms have told him to shove his idiocy where the sun don't shine. The village idiot is realising how isolated he is on the international stage.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

The Kiwis and Poms have told him to shove his idiocy where the sun don't shine. The village idiot is realising how isolated he is on the international stage.

I would be floored to discover he gave a fat rat's clacker how isolated he is on the international stage. He's a local first and always type our PM. This international stuff is a bore, though it massively extends the range of red herring generator. Just ask the Canandians?

 

[Azza]

I would be floored to discover he gave a fat rat's clacker how isolated he is on the international stage. He's a local first and always type our PM. This international stuff is a bore, though it massively extends the range of red herring generator. Just ask the Canandians?

I don't agree KR. He seems to me to be primarily interested in power. He won't like being reminded he's a small fish in a big pond, politely (and sometimes less so) ignored on the big stage.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I don't agree KR. He seems to me to be primarily interested in power. He won't like being reminded he's a small fish in a big pond, politely (and sometimes less so) ignored on the big stage.

Furry muff Azza. We will politely disagree I guess. ;D

 

[tigergollywog]

Furry muff Azza. We will politely disagree I guess. ;D

Icebergs will be rarer than furry muffs pretty soon. shame.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Our much colder German cousins have seen massive increases their ability to generate base load from renewables in recent times. I tweeted one report that a regional area is expected to be 100% renewable soon to PM Abbott. Another report said recently that one day last week 50% of the total energy consumed in Germany was provided by renewables. It is time to bury the idea that renewable is a fad and incapable of supplying at national energy consumption levels.

http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/15/germany-reaches-nearly-75-renewable-power-use-sunday/

 

[tigersnake]

It is time to bury the idea that renewable is a fad and incapable of supplying at national energy consumption levels.

I'm with you KR, bury that bastard. Its starting to happen. As people are realising, pretty quickly now, that 'cheap' energy isn't actually cheap, and also payback is decreasing rapidly. Read an article the other day that payback for wind turbines has reached a couple of years, when the coal companies would have you believe its 20.

Its a house of cards

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm with you KR, bury that bastard. Its starting to happen. As people are realising, pretty quickly now, that 'cheap' energy isn't actually cheap, and also payback is decreasing rapidly. Read an article the other day that payback for wind turbines has reached a couple of years, when the coal companies would have you believe its 20.

Its a house of cards

I know we sing from the same (secular ;D) hymn sheet TS but I wonder what the payback would be for coal if it had to account for the total life-cycle costs? Infrastructure, energy to extract, land clearing, environmental damage? Cheap my arse. The old chestnut about what to do when the wind isn't blowing or sun isn't shining becomes a nonsense if you plan ahead and have a nationally, and in time internationally, connected grid with storage capacity. The wind is always blowing, somewhere. Sure we don't have the ability to store bulk energy but there are people working on it. The current government is de-funding scientific research just when it ought to be doing the opposite. I don't see why we couldn't revolutionise energy storage and interconnectivity and become a net exporter to the region of both the technology and the energy itself. We have some of the highest rates of solar radiation per area land mass in the world and in largely unpopulated areas.

This dog whistling administration talks about "protecting our borders". Here's an idea; become indispensable to your neighbours by supplying cheap energy and they will have a commercial interest in your security as it will be tied to their own prosperity. Why have them as a temporary client of a diminishing resource that is at odds with global trends and directly damages the climate in both the extraction and the generation cycles when you can turn them into a permenant client while doing neither?