Really...? How do you know this?
Oh, that's right, just your opinion, sorry...fair enough.
But my opinion is it may not be ugly it could very well turn out to be very very beautiful. Why not? God or he/she/it will make things right Im sure.
Australia's Hottest Summer on Record...
- Thread starter HiEquity
- Start date
Really...? How do you know this?
Oh, that's right, just your opinion, sorry...fair enough.
But my opinion is it may not be ugly it could very well turn out to be very very beautiful. Why not? God or he/she/it will make things right Im sure.
I hope you're right.But my opinion is it may not be ugly it could very well turn out to be very very beautiful. Why not? God or he/she/it will make things right Im sure.
But my god - Nature - doesn't take any prisoners.
What happens when the world has 10 or 15bill of people on it? How do we feed them all? And make no mistake; the majority of those will be living the life if less, while the few won't be.
https://www.google.com.au/publicdat...m=true&dl=en&hl=en&q=current world population
or this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World-Population-1800-2100.svg
What will be the behaviour of humans be when it is apparent the food can't sustain the level, or the water...then you'll see ugly.
Hell; I've even seen folks have punch-ups over parking spots...one guy murdered his nephew over whose turn it was to use the XBox.....
That's just it. Natural Selection will take over and the population will not get to 15 Billion. The sick and hungry will die. Problem solved!
PS, Wikipedia isn't usually the best source to quote for serious debate before Happy Hour.
Ah - but I found this a brilliant doco from a reliable source. A real eye opener
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth/
http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/how-many-people-can-live-on-planet-earth/
It's funny that, given the vast majority of the Australian public clearly don't believe in climate science or the scientific method, that both major parties who must represent around 80% of the vote, have policies to impose a 5% reduction in emissions on Australia by 2020. And the third party (the Greens) want to go even further than that.
Either they're all idiots or they know something about the Australian public that we don't...
BTW, for the person who asked about standardising weather readings, to take just one example, all weather instruments, although installed calibrated, are out of calibration by the time they finish service in the field. So their readings have to be corrected by the amount of drift in the sensor in the meantime, usually assuming a linear degradation in the meantime. "Raw" readings will be clearly incorrect if this is not done. But of course you will know this if you actually read the reports and associated referenced documentation...
BTW, I don't remember anyone making any predictions in this thread...
Either they're all idiots or they know something about the Australian public that we don't...
BTW, for the person who asked about standardising weather readings, to take just one example, all weather instruments, although installed calibrated, are out of calibration by the time they finish service in the field. So their readings have to be corrected by the amount of drift in the sensor in the meantime, usually assuming a linear degradation in the meantime. "Raw" readings will be clearly incorrect if this is not done. But of course you will know this if you actually read the reports and associated referenced documentation...
BTW, I don't remember anyone making any predictions in this thread...
True on both counts. Well said.
Yeah, if Turnbull was prime minister he might have been silly enough to bring in some sort of carbon tax, but what's that matter, he got booted out because of his CO2 views.
Whats the bet that if Tony Abbott was prime minister he'd have done nothing. He'd have said,.....
"Oh, the GFC has hit, and no one else is doing anything, so we'd better not stuff our industries with a carbon tax".
And of course, except for some wealthy leftys in the city, no one would have even complained.
Anyway, does the liberals still have that pledge of 5% reduction? I reckon it's been dumped. I just spent some time trying to find the libs current carbon policy, and all I can find is pledges to get rid of the stupid carbon tax within 5 seconds of getting elected.
See ya's.
You're being obtuse HiEquity with this comment.
You are technically correct, that no-one in this specific thread (short at this stage) has mentioned predictions - except myself - but then every single conversation on this subject ever held has always focussed on the question of - "so what does that mean for the future and what policy response should that entail".
There is absolutely no point whatsoever in studying the past and current climate indicators if not to use that data.....in conjunction with what the masses feel comfortable with combined with what the economy can withstand....to attempt to predict future climate patterns and therefore formulate policy on the subject.
Taking a science only viewpoint, ignoring the economic and social factors that play a huge role in everything, is where the scientists come unstuck every time. The economists come unstuck cos they only take into account the money side of things. The social hand wringers ignore both the science and the economy and go for touchy feely stuff.
Unfortunately, it once again comes down to the politicians to absorb all 3 competing factors and come up with some resolution - normally upsetting all 3 input groups in the process.
You could come up with various loony scenarios where the fearmongers are sated, but it would repulse 89% of the population and instantly send the economy into a tailspin that it would struggle to recover from.
Like all extreme viewpoints, the majority of folks never buy into it, and they simply are not prepared to pay extra, over and above what they already perceive to be living costs that have gone up substantially under this current Federal Govt. Asking them to cough up even more is a no go zone for them.
HE..politicians will do what they want not what the people want. That's been the way for millenium....anything new here?
Re predictions: No you didnt make any predictions but the scientists you trust and rely on do and you agree with them 100% dont you?
Anyway, like Rolf said, discussing Climate change is always going to end in disagreement as does the debate between scientists all over the world.
Re predictions: No you didnt make any predictions but the scientists you trust and rely on do and you agree with them 100% dont you?
Anyway, like Rolf said, discussing Climate change is always going to end in disagreement as does the debate between scientists all over the world.
TF - I agree with anything I see clear evidence for.
That means I don't agree with the scaremongering that has gone on in this field over the last five years or so on both sides. For a couple of decades before this, the science of the enhanced greenhouse effect was completely uncontroversial and intuitively obvious - given the fact we would all freeze to death without greenhouse gases. Back then the science wasn't as well advanced but the basics were obvious - trap more heat in the atmosphere and you will get greater overall heat, bigger extreme events and also worse cold snaps - it makes climate more volatile.
The lack of work that had been done up until that point meant scientists could only estimate the impact of our emissions in very wide ranges of error (eg sea level rise could get as high as X but it could also be as low as y, where y is a lot less than x). These days the range of error is a lot lower and we know the impacts aren't going to be as bad as was initially feared may have been the case. The fact that certain people took those high initial figures and ran away with them as truth got a lot of people scared and now the reality is turning out not so bad many are just throwing away the whole topic. So the initial shock and awe employed by some was clearly counterproductive and I have never been part of that.
OTOH, there have been people on the other side saying how a 5% cut in Australia's emissions is going to bankrupt the country and we just can't afford it etc. They were also scaremongering and people have tuned out to that argument as well.
There is a middle ground here - we can achieve substantial reductions in emissions at very modest cost. The first reductions are the easiest and cheapest to achieve after all. Doing so would both help insulate us from the gyrations of international energy prices and prepare us for inevitable future pressures to reduce our carbon intensity. It's sensible policy to start along this road in at least a modest manner, which is why both major political parties have adopted it. I'm just in the middle ground on this one - the world doesn't have to be about absolutes...
That means I don't agree with the scaremongering that has gone on in this field over the last five years or so on both sides. For a couple of decades before this, the science of the enhanced greenhouse effect was completely uncontroversial and intuitively obvious - given the fact we would all freeze to death without greenhouse gases. Back then the science wasn't as well advanced but the basics were obvious - trap more heat in the atmosphere and you will get greater overall heat, bigger extreme events and also worse cold snaps - it makes climate more volatile.
The lack of work that had been done up until that point meant scientists could only estimate the impact of our emissions in very wide ranges of error (eg sea level rise could get as high as X but it could also be as low as y, where y is a lot less than x). These days the range of error is a lot lower and we know the impacts aren't going to be as bad as was initially feared may have been the case. The fact that certain people took those high initial figures and ran away with them as truth got a lot of people scared and now the reality is turning out not so bad many are just throwing away the whole topic. So the initial shock and awe employed by some was clearly counterproductive and I have never been part of that.
OTOH, there have been people on the other side saying how a 5% cut in Australia's emissions is going to bankrupt the country and we just can't afford it etc. They were also scaremongering and people have tuned out to that argument as well.
There is a middle ground here - we can achieve substantial reductions in emissions at very modest cost. The first reductions are the easiest and cheapest to achieve after all. Doing so would both help insulate us from the gyrations of international energy prices and prepare us for inevitable future pressures to reduce our carbon intensity. It's sensible policy to start along this road in at least a modest manner, which is why both major political parties have adopted it. I'm just in the middle ground on this one - the world doesn't have to be about absolutes...
Well....Id' have to agree with that HE. Moderately move towards doing something but try the best to make it the right thing for all.
Im fine with that. But not with that scaremongering you mentioned, as you already know, it switches people completely off side.
Im all for cleaning the joint up but in a fair and equitable manner.
Great, we can agree on something, thanks for your post.
Im fine with that. But not with that scaremongering you mentioned, as you already know, it switches people completely off side.
Im all for cleaning the joint up but in a fair and equitable manner.
Great, we can agree on something, thanks for your post.
My post was between 9 and 10am...my happy hour is (sadly) hours away.
My post was between 9 and 10am...my happy hour is (sadly) hours away.
Yeah, we can be as bogan as we like after 5pm.
Wow, I was expecting people to get stroppy with me for mentioning the Elephant in the Overpopulation Room!
Cheers.
Now, back to Climate Change.
You will be deprived of my dry wit for the next three days while I experience three fun-filled days on the Gold Coast with Year 8 Camp. For three out of the four activities scheduled I will be guaranteed to get wet. That's without considering the Gold Coast was experiencing flooding this weekend. I would like to turn up at school in the morning wearing a hat, sunglasses and boardies. Instead it will be more like jeans, umbrella and wellies. Just like when I was a kid. Trust young Gen Y teachers to forget that this time of year is monsoon season and there is a very high chance of rain.
You will be deprived of my dry wit for the next three days while I experience three fun-filled days on the Gold Coast with Year 8 Camp. For three out of the four activities scheduled I will be guaranteed to get wet. That's without considering the Gold Coast was experiencing flooding this weekend. I would like to turn up at school in the morning wearing a hat, sunglasses and boardies. Instead it will be more like jeans, umbrella and wellies. Just like when I was a kid. Trust young Gen Y teachers to forget that this time of year is monsoon season and there is a very high chance of rain.
Concerning overpopulation, I have also stated many times we don't need more people. Since our countries, Canada and Australia, seemto think we aren't reproducing fast enough, they keep wanting to bump it up via immigration.Let nature takes its course.
What does it mean for the countries wanting to leave their overpopulated countries? Possibly hardship until they get their numbers under a more sustainable number.
If our countries don't slow it down, we know what we have to look forward to, and it certainly won't take too many years to get to that number.
What does it mean for the countries wanting to leave their overpopulated countries? Possibly hardship until they get their numbers under a more sustainable number.
If our countries don't slow it down, we know what we have to look forward to, and it certainly won't take too many years to get to that number.
I don't think it will come to that since most reasonable Australians would support a reasonable level of immigration - not the catastrophe we have now supported by the rabid Lefties.
Overpopulation is not a black and white issue. One person in Australia, for example, is not the same as 1 person in another country, in terms of resources used and total emissions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
1 person in Australia = 4.5 people in Turkey or 3 people in France and they're pretty developed countries. It's not just quantity but quality as well. That's the part that a lot of people don't like to hear.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
1 person in Australia = 4.5 people in Turkey or 3 people in France and they're pretty developed countries. It's not just quantity but quality as well. That's the part that a lot of people don't like to hear.
Yes, your really onto something here. So if your saying we consume so much in Australia we don't really want to keep increasing our population do we? Every immigrant who comes here straight away consumes 4 times what they did compared to where they came from. So why do we let in so many immigrants then? Yep, I agree fully. Cut our immigration intake, and do something good for the world.
And with less people here, the more food and energy and other commodities we can export overseas to the poor overpopulated masses.
See ya's.
double post.......
