The climate change debate continues.

[spacesailor]

A house was blown off it's foundations in Queensland. 

spacesailor

[onetrack]

My father told me a story many years ago, about he got caught in open station country, in a huge thunderstorm, about 1931, on Doolgunna Station, N of Meekatharra.

Doolgunna Station was owned by G. J. ("Jimmy") Howard and my father worked for him during the Great Depression. Dad was doing boundary riding on a horse when the storm blew up.

 

He was fortunate that there was a rare stand of fairly big trees not far away, and he galloped for it as the hail came down. As he made it to the trees, he said the hail turned into jagged chunks of ice, some of them around 4" (102mm) long.

He said his horse went crazy and he struggled to keep hold of it. He said the hail stripped all the bark off the trees on the windward side, and shredded all the leaves on the stand of trees.

He said it was the most frightening weather event he had ever endured, and he'd never seen a hailstorm like it again.

 

Here in Perth, we endured a monstrous hailstorm in 2010 that damaged thousands of cars, with many of them being write-offs, it damaged hundreds of buildings, caravans, signs, awnings and patios, and caused multiple millions in storm damage.

I was at a mates workshop and saw the storm coming, and we struggled to get the roller door shut, and keep it shut, the hail was piling up outside the door, about 200mm high.

 

[pmccarthy]

European witch hunts of the 15th to 17th centuries targeted witches that were thought to be responsible for epidemics and crop failures related to declining temperatures of the Little Ice Age.

A belief that evil humans were negatively affecting the climate and weather patterns was the “consensus” opinion of that time. How eerily similar is that notion to the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences?

The first extensive European witch hunts coincided with plunging temperatures as the continent transitioned away from the beneficial warmth of the Medieval Warm Period (850 to 1250 AD). Increasing cold that began in the 13th century ushered in nearly five centuries of advancing mountain glaciers and prolonged periods of rainy or cool weather. This time of naturally driven climate change was accompanied by crop failure, hunger, rising prices, epidemics and mass depopulation.

Large systematic witch hunts began in the 1430s and were advanced later in the century by an Alsatian Dominican friar and papal Inquisitor named Heinrich Kramer. At Kramer’s urging, Pope Innocence VIII issued an encyclical enshrining the persecution and eradication of weather-changing witches through this papal edict. The worst of the Inquisition’s abuses and later systemic witch hunts were, in part, empowered by this decree.

This initial period of cooler temperatures and failing crops continued through the first couple of decades of the 16th century, when a slight warming was accompanied by improvements in harvests. Clearly, the pogrom against the weather-changing witches had been successful!

Unfortunately for the people of the Late Middle Ages, the 40 years or so of slight warming gave ground to a more severe bout of cooling.

The summer of 1560 brought a return of coldness and wetness that led to severe decline in harvest, crop failure and increases in infant mortality and epidemics. Bear in mind that this was an agrarian subsistence culture, nearly totally dependent on the yearly harvest to survive. One bad harvest could be tolerated, but back-to-back failures would cause horrific consequences and, indeed, they did.

Of course, the people’s misfortunes were attributed to weather-changing witches who had triggered the death-dealing weather, most often in the form of cold, rain, frost and devastating hailstorms. Horrific atrocities were alleged of the witches, including Franconian witches who “confessed” to flying through the air to spread an ointment made of children’s fat in order to cause a killing frost.

Across the continent of Europe, from the 15th to the 17th centuries there were likely many tens of thousands of supposed witches burned at the stake, many of these old women living without husbands on the margins of society.

The worst of the witch hunts occurred during the bitter cold from 1560 to about 1680. The frenzy of killing culminated in the killing of 63 witches in the German territory of Wiesensteig in the year 1563 alone. Across Europe, though, the numbers of witches continued to increase and peaked at more than 500 per year in the mid-1600s. Most were burned at the stake; others were hung.

 

The end of the witch hunts and killings tie closely to the beginning of our current warming trend at the close of the 17th century. That warming trend started more than 300 years ago and continues in fits and starts to this day.

 

Source: A Very Convenient Warming: How modest warming and more CO2 are benefiting humanity, by Gregory Wrightstone, executive director, CO2 Coalition.

References:

Pfister (2007) Witch Hunts: Strategies of European Societies in Coping with Exogenous Shocks in the Late Sixteenth and Early Seventeenth Centuries

Behringer (1999) Climatic change and witch-hunting: the impact of the Little Ice Age on mentalities.

[nomadpete]

2 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

the current oft-repeated mantra that Man’s actions are controlling the climate and leading to catastrophic consequences

Well that is a statement that I haven't heard, except from conspiracy theorists who also believe contrails and microchips are controlling the weather.

 

I have heard (and believe) that human activity is CONTRIBUTING to a changing climate, with the risk of accelerating changes to the point of spoiling all our fun.

 

 

Further, I  cannot see any logical connection between witch hunts of the dark ages (based purely on religios zealotry, uninformed hysteria and paranoia), and documented shifts in climatic activity.

 

 

 

Edited 7 hours ago by nomadpete

[facthunter]

The Greenhouse effect is well known and the change of CO2 Level is also Known. Ocean acidity is well documented also as are Rising sea temps and retreating Glaciers. Insurance companies KNOW. Oil Companies Internal  Memos PROVE they also KNOW. You cannot combust as much fossil fuel as we have done without CHANGING Climate. The" Debate". (why use a combative term) Why not have a search for the truth of the Matter? The evidence is more and more obvious and known by anyone who keeps records or cares to search. I wish it  WAS a CON. but it's unfortunately NOT.   Nev

[spacesailor]

The US of A is going going explode another nuclear device!.

How many cubic metres of air will it consume. 

wIll it lower the protective atmosphere dome ! .

will we get more solar radiation,  that may ' scorch ' our Earth , ( not Trump's ) .

spacesailor

[old man emu]

What annoys me about the clamour being raised is that Australians are being accused of major contribution to the problem. Sure, we provide the coal and natrual gas, but it is to the Northern Hemisphere which has a human population maybe six times greater than the Southern Hemisphere and who use so much energy heating and cooling their local environments (houses and workplaces).

 

Sure, Australians add CO2 to the atmosphere, but we also capture a lot in the form of agricultural produce. Add to that, we still have thousands of square hectares of non-agricultural plant material that is cycling CO2 as it has done for millions of years. I don't like being called an environmental rapists when relative to those in the Northern Hemisphere, I'm and environmental voyeur.

[Marty_d]

This is the most misnamed thread ever.

The reason is, it's not a debate.

The science is settled. Only a few misguided/supported by the fossil fuel industry clowns still try to deny it, and they have about as much credibility as cult leaders who "calculate" that the world is ending in 2000 / 2012 whenever.

Everyone's allowed their own opinion but don't confuse it with fact. The magical thinking that climate change isn't real is like the "medical" practice of blood-letting - it has no basis in reality and is a harm-causing alternative to proper treatment of the problem.

[old man emu]

46 minutes ago, Marty_d said:

This is the most misnamed thread ever.

What the thread's title is, is an example of what Humpty Dumpty said,

The individual words have their own unique meaning, but taken together, they create something with another meaning. Maybe you could think if some long German words which are combination of individual wods to make a word with a different meaning, for example: Haus + Tür + Schlüssel = Haustürschlüssel (house + door + key = front door key, literally house door key).

 

So, "climate change debate" means a discourse in which Everyone's allowed their own opinion. It is another matter whether or not that opinion can be substantiated by fact.

[Jerry_Atrick]

Ok.. let me get this right.. the ant-climate change lobby can't win the argument on facts and peer reviewed science anymore, so they are pushing contrast and compare to medieval witch hunts by papal or monarchy decree, at a time when there was little peer review of the basis of those decrees.. let alone science?

 

Is that now the argument?

 

Says it all, really.

 

Oh wait! Hold my beer, etc! The witch hunts are back: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-10-31/anti-renewables-campaigns-fuel-community-division-in-regions/105938440?utm_source=abc_news_app&utm_medium=content_shared&utm_campaign=abc_news_app&utm_content=other

Edited 3 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

My objection to wind generation is based on aesthetics. Simply put, I think that these objects destroy the vista. Solar panels are less visually intrusive.

 

HOWEVER, I can see pros and cons for both in an agricultural landscape. Wind generator poles are similar to tree trunks. If one wanted to cultivate plant crops where the generators were located, then one could easily drive around the pole as one does with trees. That can't be done with a field of solar panels. But one can graze sheep and goats where there are panels, and the panels can benefit the stock by providing shade. The panels also seem to alter the micrclimate beneath them, creating better conditions for the growth of fodder plants.

[facthunter]

Large wind generators are graceful and the Product cheap. Would you prefer the dust from open cut Coal mines that People in Newcastle get and IF you want POWER you need POWERLINES to get it to you.  Nev

[Jerry_Atrick]

1 hour ago, old man emu said:

My objection to wind generation is based on aesthetics. Simply put, I think that these objects destroy the vista. Solar panels are less visually intrusive.

That is a perfectly valid objection. It doesn't pretend that facts aren't facts and myths are facts. Even if, after considering all the facts, you prefer fossil fuels, that is totally valid, too. Who is anyone to argue with personal opinions - these are value judgements.  I may not agree with your value judgement and express why, but my value judgement is no more valid than yours. But if you are justifying your opinions by misstating facts, or by following mob rulle, well, expect to be challenged, because you are signalling your judgement is based on flaws. That goes for everyone. Many times I have had to eat humble pie (and many times more I will have to), because my opinon was on flawed knowledge. Knowing the full facts sometimes changes my mind; sometimes doesn't.

 

Personally, and people will probably find it hard to believe, aesthetically, I like industrial plants and industry in general. I saw the refineries in Altona as awesome as a young fella; I loved working at the Williamstown Naval dockyards - not because I have a love of boats/ships, but the industrial complex was beautiful in a skill I will never have (engineering), and a display of human ingenuity. I have worked on power stations, processing plants, military complexes, etc and to me, they are aesthetic. I know ecologically open cut mines are ecologically devastating, but they hold an aesthetic  beauty to me despite the damage they have done. Of course, things like ash ponds in coal plants are ughly - you have to take the good with the bad, I guess. So, for me, the first time I saw a wind farm proper - driving from San Fransciso Airport to downtown SF, I was in awe at the myriad of turbines on a hill that spanned probably 50 or so acres. The hill was barren (I had seen it many times before), so what for you would be a spoilt vista - for me was an enhanced one. But that's just an opinion, and I know I am in the minority by far. 

 

The problem I have is that, as the the ABC article implies, we are starting to witness the modern day mobs with their pitchforks and scythes intending to burn land owners at the stake for installing clean renewables that will improve lives and economies, based on total misinformation and mob mentality. Recuded land values, reduced employment, higher long term costs, etc.. are all bovine excrement made up to preserve existing industries and profits. The reality is the world keeps turning; even if there was no climate crisi looming, human nature is to compete and progress and (hopefully) make life better.. these people are trying to  stop it to rpreserve their profits, come what may.

 

What is more, is the real threats to employment and what remnants of wealth remain in the middle and lower classes - you know - the ones that cry renewables will take our jobs, being technology and AI - are somehow spared this mob mentality  to be attacked with piotchforks and scythes. Could it be because mooney controls the message?

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Marty_d]

4 hours ago, old man emu said:

 

So, "climate change debate" means a discourse in which Everyone's allowed their own opinion. It is another matter whether or not that opinion can be substantiated by fact.

Excellent, I'll start up the "Earth is flat debate continues" thread, because I don't think that one is quite settled either.

[Jerry_Atrick]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Large wind generators are graceful

hear, hear!

 

Also, as a pilot, they make great landmarks, too (though perferably away from airfields). 

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Jerry_Atrick

[old man emu]

What is forgotten is that when renewable energy generators are installed on a farm, the farmer is paid rent by the generating company. Therfore one can say that by entering into the agreement with the company, the farmer is diversify farm income. What right have others to dictate landuse on a farm? Do neighbours have the right to dictate what crops are grown on a farm?

 

Let's say that a turbine has a useful life of 25 years, the farm can bank on a constant income input for that long. Isn't that what was promised in the 70s when farmers were offered rent for the establishment of pine tree plantations?

[Jerry_Atrick]

I was at a fly in many years ago at Sywell airfield, Northamptonshire. A prominent Wiltshire farmer was leasing his land to a sloar company to create a huge farm. His motivation, and I quote, "the more money, the better!"

[facthunter]

Tree Plantations are a fire Hazard. Also a monoculture where pests can thrive. Often associated with a lot of soil erosion on slopes and poison Baits to kill rabbits get to Eagles etc Soil degradation. Nev

[old man emu]

12 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Tree Plantations are a fire Hazard.

I was just using tree plantations as an example of renting land for long periods.

 

You are quite correct in saying that monoculture is not good for the land. Imagine the degradation on a 2000 hectare wheat field, and the procedures required to make good the degradation.

[facthunter]

If you don't burn the stubble and risk wind erosion, there's not a great issue with wheat. It's only planted when conditions are right to do so. Trees are a 20 year rotation Approx. Often on steep slopes where disturbed soil washes away .  Nev