The climate change debate continues.

[Yenn]

Mix it with water and you can cool your beer with it.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Mix it with water and you can cool your beer with it.

 

I didn’t know that.

 

 

[Marty_d]

Interesting article.  Hadn't known about Robb's treacherous actions before.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-24/10-years-of-climate-change-inertiaand-the-role-of-andrew-robb/11726072 

 

 

[Bruce]

I sort of knew that the greens sabotaged any action, but I didn't know just how bad they were.

 

How could the greens say they wanted an impossible deal or nothing? Why didn't they get what was possible at the time and then keep arguing for more?  Don't they understand the concept of "least worst" ?

 

I blame the greens more than the liberals. At least the liberals are predictable.

 

 

[Methusala]

Interesting article.  Hadn't known about Robb's treacherous actions before.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-24/10-years-of-climate-change-inertiaand-the-role-of-andrew-robb/11726072 

 

Thanks for posting. I just posted the link to the thread 'NSW 737 fire bomber..'

 

 

[Methusala]

And more hints of catastrophe...(sorry)

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-25/marine-heatwaves-threaten-oyster-industry-great-barrier-reef/11726630

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Interesting article.  Hadn't known about Robb's treacherous actions before.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-24/10-years-of-climate-change-inertiaand-the-role-of-andrew-robb/11726072 

 

There’s more.

 

 

[octave]

Two interesting articles.

 

Hydrogen future

 

Hydrogen can cut emissions and boost exports

 

 

[pmccarthy]

An overwhelming majority of theologians agree that  we will all go to hell within ten or fifteen years. They base this on endless research of biblical texts. The only way to save ourselves is to change our evil way of life and to sacrifice things of great value to us. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Where IS that 'sarky' emoticon?

 

 

[Yenn]

I would like to start by sacrificing my local member of parliament.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

This video is a useful summary of why I don't accept the "science"of climate change. I find this scientist credible and honest. There are many posts attacking him, you can find them, but that is true of EVERY scientist who disagrees with the dogma.

 

 

 

 

[octave]

1 hour ago, pmccarthy said:

 

This video is a useful summary of why I don't accept the "science"of climate change. I find this scientist credible and honest. There are many posts attacking him, you can find them, but that is true of EVERY scientist who disagrees with the dogma.

 

 

 

Disagreeing with the current thinking does not necessarily make you right.  I can find Doctors who believe they are are persecuted for disagreeing with the vaccination "dogma" or to put it more correctly the scientific consensus.

 

 

[octave]

I really don't see the point in trying to change the minds of the minority.    What I do these days is to perform what I see as a positive action whenever I converse with a denier.  So far this thread has encouraged me to actually get around to having a large solar system installed in the next few weeks.    I have changed banks to one that does not invest in things I do not wish to invest.   I have changed power companies and started investing in tech companies that are working to improve things.   I also attempt to post links to positive news.  Convincing the 5% is not necessary. The way we generate energy and move ourselves around IS changing and this is unstoppable.

 

 

[octave]

Here is an interesting clip on the work Gates is doing re funding research.

 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I see the challenge as changing the minds of the majority. I would be irresponsible if I didn’t try. 

 

 

[octave]

I see the challenge as changing the minds of the majority. I would be irresponsible if I didn’t try. 

 

Peter in order to succeed it is not individuals minds you need to change but the minds of the respected scientific organisations. What you or I believe is not particularly relevant.  My advice to anyone with questions would be to go to the scientific bodies that are respected, that share their raw data that produce data and conclusions that are corroborated with other respected sources.    This is as opposed searching for an individual who claims to have knowledge that is at odds with the peer reviewed scientists whilst ignoring their connections with companies that have a lot to gain by resisting change. By the way even many of these companies admit that there is a problem.  Shell acknowledges it as do many other fossil fuel companies.

 

The notion convincing people one by one will achieve anything is a little optimistic.  Convincing me is meaningless, convince NASSA convince CSIRO convince Bom convince the universities convince Academies of science convince the CEOs of mining companies 

 

 

[octave]

So a positive story.

 

Billionaires invest in renewables providing ‘enormous opportunities’ for Australia’s economy

 

Australian mining magnate Andrew "Twiggy" Forrest has invested in Sun Cable, a company that will soon be one of Australia's largest solar farms.

 

This is the plan by Mining magnate Andrew Twiggy Forrest and Mike Cannon-Brooks to finance and build a huge solar facility in central australia and a power cable link to Singapore.  Exporting energy. 

 

 

[pmccarthy]

The renewable stories are great. USA is reducing its reliance on coal, using oil and gas instead. That is also good because it reduces pollution ( though not necessarily CO2). I am all for these changes. But let’s not scare people by saying that the world as we know it will end because of CO2, or that it is causing massive warming, because these things are not true.

 

 

[Yenn]

Twiggy Forest has invested in a solar farm. Did he do that because he thinks it will be good for the environment and better than the mining he is already invested in? Or did he do it with a view to making a profit from his shares? From what I know of him, probably a bit of both.

 

We have always been told that science is an exact art. The scientist comes up with a theory, that can be tested. If his theory is correct, the tests will prove it. All is good until tests cannot prove it, which is when it is no longer a scientific fact.

 

I haven't seen much testing coming up with repeatable results.

 

My view is that whether or not global warming is happening, it would not hurt to reduce our reliance on fossil fuel.

 

I would like to see every household producing and storing their own electricity and having a connection to the grid, for those times when they cannot collect and store electricity.

 

 

[octave]

I would like to see every household producing and storing their own electricity and having a connection to the grid, for those times when they cannot collect and store electricity.

 

 

 

This is becoming more and more viable each day.   I did live off the grid for 21 years but back then the technology was expensive and the only thing that made it economically viable was the enormous connection fee we would have had to pay due to the remoteness of the property.

 

Now we live in suburbia and we have just organised for a solar system to be installed.  We use a touch over 4000 MW per year and the system we are installing is predicted to produce around 6200 MW per year.    We did look at getting a Tesla powerwall but at this stage it would not quite be economically viable although given the trajectory of battery prices over the last few years we expect we will add a battery at some stage within the next few years. Perhaps what will happen before then is we may buy an EV an utilize EV to house technology.

 

I think power generation companies are going to have to adapt to some new realities.  I read a prediction that claimed that we are heading to a situation where power will be able to be generated AND STORED at home for a price that is lower than the grid transmission costs, that is excluding the cost of the power company generating the electricity.   At this point power generating companies will have a big problem with there business model.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Conversations That Matter

 

Thanks for the link, PM.

An interesting discussion, and no doubt comforting for those who would love to continue our wasteful and destructive lifestyle- but where was the contrary view which they claimed to always allow?

 

I find the style of William Dapper to be likeable and he makes some good points. I have no doubt that many researcher's work is tainted by "groupthink". 

 

I was more interested in what he left out: the other greenhouse gases like methane, which are poised to make a big, perhaps catastrophic difference to global climates.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/27/climate-emergency-world-may-have-crossed-tipping-points

 

 

[willedoo]

Not sure of the accuracy, but I was reading some estimates of power consumption in the U.S. on Thanksgiving. It worked out to 350GW of electricity to roast 46 million turkeys on the day. An estimated 88 percent, or 287 million Americans eat turkey on Thanksgiving, but only 46 million cook them. So the end result was much lower overall power consumption on Thanksgiving because the remaining 241 million freeloaders are at someone else's place eating their turkeys and not at their own home using power.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

That is the sort of freakonomics statistic that I enjoy. A contrary conclusion to what you expect.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

https://electroverse.net/extreme-november-cold-engulfs-russia-lows-of-54c-65-2f-recorded/?fbclid=IwAR1YcyqY0luIgzFj0vR1FHH5wtdiw-b_Kyqzebhcv_l50eqq-MGA5C1LHEQ

 

Like all other extreme events, this proves nothing about climate change but is consistent with what we expect from a solar minimum.