Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
To follow that up:

Scomo, there is no way anyone with a sane mind can pin the current bushfires on him, at least not in a climate sense. Any policies he puts in place will only start having an impact in 10-20 years time, and they won't be the decisive factor in things like bushfires. The only blame he can be proportioned is for his policies on vegetation and preventing bushfires in that sense, if he even has control over those things. I get that the Firies are exhausted and angry, but unless they're pissed off about the bushfires that will happen in 50 years time as a direct result of climate inaction, they're anger is being misdirected. It's like people forget that things like Ash Wednesday happened, or that bushfires have been a thing forever.

Greta, this whole story is just sad. There is no way someone her age gets these ideas / beliefs without being brainwashed. Even if everything she is saying is completely correct, those influencing her should be letting her worry about pimples, boys, and why her friends are so moody all the time. Instead, they're happy for her to be exploited on an international stage to push an agenda.
Again, right up there with you until you derailed! I cannot believe you don't believe a 16 year old can think for themselves! Thunberg is a young adult and totally capable of her own thoughts and views. She has access to the internet, she can read. At the same age one lass sailed solo round the world! There's very little sad about Thunberg I think. She achieved worldwide fame at 16, is it your suggestion that a group of agenda pushing adults were behind her BEFORE she achieved this fame? If so, how could they know she would become so famous? Are you saying that she was trained to parrot things on the off chance she would become world famous?

I largely agree with you but I can't agree Thunberg can't think for herself. Nobody could know what a phenomenon she would become so her speech were her words.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
The "cloud" factor is almost irrelevant. Our climate modelling is incomplete as there are factors such as these that can't be included because of our limitations in computing power, but it is not such a factor that it renders our models useless. As it stands, natural climate change occurs, but over thousands, millions of years. There is no precedent that we can find that it has ever happened as drastically fast as it is now. And there is no way that throwing clouds in to the calculations can have such a huge impact in the modelling as to suggest that what we are experiencing is natural, not affected by humans.

What is 100% fact is that there are people muddying the waters on both sides of the argument in order to push their own agenda. Somewhere in the middle would suggest that while the world won't end in a decade or two, it is possible a tipping point will be reached in that timeframe that means our damage can not be reversed, and will certainly affect humanity greatly in the future. The ones lobbying against this are simply wanting the status quo for their lifetime, so they can enjoy the profits of their damaging industries, or the votes to keep them in power, at the expense of humanities long-term survival.

Someone here once claimed that Jesus' sacrifice is not that special, that a lot of people would gladly give up their lives to say the world. Something a clear-cut may well be true. But it seems to me that very few people will take even a slight hit to the quality of their lifestyle to save the planet.
Just one thing Morks, can you leave out the religious stuff please? It only confuses a tough issue and has no place in this thread. Besides, jc only gave up a long weekend, not a life.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,618
2,358
Again, right up there with you until you derailed! I cannot believe you don't believe a 16 year old can think for themselves! Thunberg is a young adult and totally capable of her own thoughts and views. She has access to the internet, she can read. At the same age one lass sailed solo round the world! There's very little sad about Thunberg I think. She achieved worldwide fame at 16, is it your suggestion that a group of agenda pushing adults were behind her BEFORE she achieved this fame? If so, how could they know she would become so famous? Are you saying that she was trained to parrot things on the off chance she would become world famous?

I largely agree with you but I can't agree Thunberg can't think for herself. Nobody could know what a phenomenon she would become so her speech were her words.
1BDFDC27-FA12-4AE7-851B-9509805E547D.png
 

kooly87

QCup Player
886
1,179
Serious question for those who are opposed to taking any drastic action to reduce our consumption of resources until there is 'better science' to support it.:

If the climate change believers are right, and we choose to take no immediate and drastic action, then we are probably talking about the total destruction of the planet as we know it, humanity and all life on earth, or both.

If we took that same drastic and immediate action and the climate change believers were proven wrong, what is the worst possible outcome or result for humanity and the planet then?

I think when you weigh up those two outcomes, any potential harm or risk to society in doing absolutely everything we can as quickly as possible seems very minor indeed.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Serious question for those who are opposed to taking any drastic action to reduce our consumption of resources until there is 'better science' to support it.:

If the climate change believers are right, and we choose to take no immediate and drastic action, then we are probably talking about the total destruction of the planet as we know it, humanity and all life on earth, or both.

If we took that same drastic and immediate action and the climate change believers were proven wrong, what is the worst possible outcome or result for humanity and the planet then?

I think when you weigh up those two outcomes, any potential harm or risk to society in doing absolutely everything we can as quickly as possible seems very minor indeed.
Even though it makes apparent sense it's the uncertainty that allows people to do the head in the sand thing. The biggest polluters are paying absolute millions of dollars to promote the 'uncertainty' about the science. Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones are paid stooges in my opinion as they have ready access to the best minds in science. In fact Bolt featured Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel a while back and after that repeatedly told his listeners that Finkel suggested nothing needs to be done. Finkel was enraged and wrote an open letter to the Australian repudiating Bolt and stating his position was the total opposite!

I agree that we need to act strongly and that is simply because I accept the science. No, not unquestioningly but with great faith that the scientific community still holds dear the principles that underpin the scientific method.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,160
17,506
Serious question for those who are opposed to taking any drastic action to reduce our consumption of resources until there is 'better science' to support it.:

If the climate change believers are right, and we choose to take no immediate and drastic action, then we are probably talking about the total destruction of the planet as we know it, humanity and all life on earth, or both.

If we took that same drastic and immediate action and the climate change believers were proven wrong, what is the worst possible outcome or result for humanity and the planet then?

I think when you weigh up those two outcomes, any potential harm or risk to society in doing absolutely everything we can as quickly as possible seems very minor indeed.
As much as I hate to say it...

The negative outcome of over-reaction is a global financial crash, potentially worse. It wouldn't need to happen, but it would happen, purely because the people who currently have the most interest in continuing to run dirty, have so much wealth, power and influence. Think of how much of the world's economy runs around oil, coal, and gas. In fact, the global superpowers have amassed their wealth on these resources - America, the Middle East, Russia, China etc. The very wealthy individuals and businesses behind these resources will do everything they can to retain their grip on their wealth, and therefore their power, so it would not be happy times.

Tin foil hat times, it wouldn't surprise me if the most recent political tensions have groundings in these uncertainties. Climate Change is one of the biggest enemies the world faces. So those in power need to create a bigger enemy. They've been building up China as the bad guy for years now (not without reason it would appear though), but there are plenty of other options, ie, Russia, Iran etc. A large-scale war will not only distract everyone from the Climate crisis, but it will keep the War Machine running while also ensuring that cheap yet dirty energy is absolutely essential in order to power their armed forces.
 

kooly87

QCup Player
886
1,179
As much as I hate to say it...

The negative outcome of over-reaction is a global financial crash, potentially worse. It wouldn't need to happen, but it would happen, purely because the people who currently have the most interest in continuing to run dirty, have so much wealth, power and influence. Think of how much of the world's economy runs around oil, coal, and gas. In fact, the global superpowers have amassed their wealth on these resources - America, the Middle East, Russia, China etc. The very wealthy individuals and businesses behind these resources will do everything they can to retain their grip on their wealth, and therefore their power, so it would not be happy times.

Tin foil hat times, it wouldn't surprise me if the most recent political tensions have groundings in these uncertainties. Climate Change is one of the biggest enemies the world faces. So those in power need to create a bigger enemy. They've been building up China as the bad guy for years now (not without reason it would appear though), but there are plenty of other options, ie, Russia, Iran etc. A large-scale war will not only distract everyone from the Climate crisis, but it will keep the War Machine running while also ensuring that cheap yet dirty energy is absolutely essential in order to power their armed forces.
Yep, that was my point.

The worst outcome if we react swiftly and it was for nothing is a possible/probable economic collapse as money shifts around and some industries collapse and the lag occurs before new industries take their places. There may well be significant economic suffering and lowering of quality of life and for some people the impact of that will be huge.

I agree, that outcome isn't a pleasant one for a lot of people, particularly those who are in the middle and upper classes and especially not for those who currently do extremely well out of the status quo, including a lot of Australians.

The alternative though is that we don't react swiftly enough, the deniers are proven to be the ones who get it wrong, and we facilitate a chain of events that has outcomes ranging from the total devastation of the only home we have currently, to the complete annihilation of ourselves as a species along with all life on Earth.

So if those are the stakes, and on one hand we might be a bit poorer for a while, but on the other hand, we could literally lose all our homes and our lives, I think it becomes an absolute no brainer - we need to act decisively and we need to act now, if there is even a remote chance this could happen, before it becomes too late.
 
Last edited:

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,618
2,938
Waiting to win lotto
Yep, that was my point.

The worst outcome if we react swiftly and it was for nothing is a possible/probable economic collapse as money shifts around and some industries collapse and the lag occurs before new industries take their places. There may well be significant economic suffering and lowering of quality of life and for some people the impact of that will be huge.

I agree, that outcome isn't a pleasant one for a lot of people, particularly those who are in the middle and upper classes and especially not for those who currently do extremely well out of the status quo, including a lot of Australians.


The alternative though is that we don't react swiftly enough, the deniers are proven to be the ones who get it wrong, and we facilitate a chain of events that has outcomes ranging from the total devastation of the only home we have currently, to the complete annihilation of ourselves as a species along with all life on Earth.

So if those are the stakes, and on one hand we might be a bit poorer for a while, but on the other hand, we could literally lose all our homes and our lives, I think it becomes an absolute no brainer - we need to act decisively and we need to act now, if there is even a remote chance this could happen, before it becomes too late.
I think you are drastically underestimating what the impact would be (and fairly naively as well).

I think there is greater risk of cataclysmic annihilation from the climate scenario, but it also exists on the alternative scenario.

Potentially we would be looking at world wide recession which would make the depression look like a relative boom (and which will most impact on the lower socio-economic bracket), increased famine with consequent civil unrest, potentially further war and conflict with the ever present risk of the deployment of nuclear and/or biological weaponry.
 

kooly87

QCup Player
886
1,179
I think you are drastically underestimating what the impact would be (and fairly naively as well).

I think there is greater risk of cataclysmic annihilation from the climate scenario, but it also exists on the alternative scenario.

Potentially we would be looking at world wide recession which would make the depression look like a relative boom (and which will most impact on the lower socio-economic bracket), increased famine with consequent civil unrest, potentially further war and conflict with the ever present risk of the deployment of nuclear and/or biological weaponry.
I'm not underestimating it, not even slightly. There will likely be pain and plenty of it. Most of it will be financial, and some of that will create actual conflict and actual pain, some of that financial and physical main may even impact me. I'm fully aware and I fully accept that, but honestly, when it is weighed up against the annihilation of our home, species, and all living things both now and in the future, those things are honestly minor by comparison.

I could lose my job, my home, my car, my savings and everything I have of monetary value, but honestly, there is nothing I own that I wouldn't give up to save the lives of my loved ones and myself and the generations after me, and if anybody out there honestly feels they wouldn't make that same sacrifice in a heartbeat, they either have much nicer things than me, much worse loved ones than me, or they're likely just a pretty shit person.

Honestly, generations before us got on boats and planes and went to actual war just because there was a chance that if they didn't, their future and their family's futures might be at stake, and here we are today with the descendants of those same generations (most vocally, the Baby Boomers, born directly following and because of those conflicts) afraid to take serious and immediate action to save our homes and our futures, mostly because there is a real chance that it might impact our share or property porfolio. Talk about insulting.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Yep, that was my point.

The worst outcome if we react swiftly and it was for nothing is a possible/probable economic collapse as money shifts around and some industries collapse and the lag occurs before new industries take their places. There may well be significant economic suffering and lowering of quality of life and for some people the impact of that will be huge.

I agree, that outcome isn't a pleasant one for a lot of people, particularly those who are in the middle and upper classes and especially not for those who currently do extremely well out of the status quo, including a lot of Australians.

The alternative though is that we don't react swiftly enough, the deniers are proven to be the ones who get it wrong, and we facilitate a chain of events that has outcomes ranging from the total devastation of the only home we have currently, to the complete annihilation of ourselves as a species along with all life on Earth.

So if those are the stakes, and on one hand we might be a bit poorer for a while, but on the other hand, we could literally lose all our homes and our lives, I think it becomes an absolute no brainer - we need to act decisively and we need to act now, if there is even a remote chance this could happen, before it becomes too late.
We do need to act, yes. It does need to be measured against the immediate damage to world economies. We must act urgently but it absolutely must be carefully considered as well. If I were King of the Planet I'd stop all military spending including wages. Yes, it would have a massive knock on effect but all the monies, from every nation that was earmarked for defence would go into r&d for clean solutions. X military would go to wind turbine, solar production and deforestation reparation, ocean waste cleaning etc receiving former wages. In short all military(worldwide) would be repurposed. The arts etc would be on their own for a decade, sink or swim. Any gov funding gone and repurposed. It'd be fun being king!
 

Ffs...

BRL Player
99
57
Here is what baffles me..what makes someone, with no scientific education, think they understand this issue enough to know its either happening or inst happening? Its like religious people arguing against evolution. Yet when they get sick, what do they do? Go to a Dr...According to NASA 97% of scientists accept climate change is both real and man made, so how about everyone grows up and starts dealing with it.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Here is what baffles me..what makes someone, with no scientific education, think they understand this issue enough to know its either happening or inst happening? Its like religious people arguing against evolution. Yet when they get sick, what do they do? Go to a Dr...According to NASA 97% of scientists accept climate change is both real and man made, so how about everyone grows up and starts dealing with it.
Hmmm, I kind of agree but what does NASA have to do with it? We all know that the overwhelming majority of the scientific community accept anthropogenic climate change but NASA is defined as follows:
NASA is defined as an acronym for the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the federal agency that is responsible for aerospace research, aeronautics, and the civilian space program.

It looks kind of kooky putting that organization up as the authority on global weather! I'm not saying they aren't interested in or aren't affected by the climate and weather but they're not an authority.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top