do the greens need a lesson in economics? news.com.au article

[topcropper]

Hey, no worries.

I don't even really think I'm a true denier. Science tells us CO2 will warm the planet. I'm just sick of the exaggeration from the believers who have a vested interest in the outcome being bad. Agricultural production will be increased from a CO2 filled warmer, wetter planet, it's a no brainer and we've been seeing this for decades now as every second season in most food commodities breaks a record. 40 million tonnes of extra food gets grown in the world each and every year, and a lot of that is due to a warmer wetter planet with more CO2 in the atmosphere. I don't care what any scientist says. And I have no vested interest in this happening as farmers are the only losers from increased food production.

I just like to follow up claims myself, and 15 years ago when Flannery was ranting and raving about drought being the new normal, I reckoned something didn't add up, and it didn't. I just call it as I see it.

See yas.

 

[wategos]

Califfornia has just had its warmest winter ever and is about to run out of water (in less than 1 year) after a record drought. The state could see economic collapse and mass emigration as they have no backup plan.. The UK also is experiencing record weather, the warmest on record. Global warming and resulting climate change is definitely happening all over the planet, it surprises me how many people do not believe it is happening.

 

[willair]

We'll you know what they say about unqualified opinions and @rseholes, everyone's got one.

The idea that decisions about global warming should be made based on feelings and layman's opinions instead of science is of course ludicrous but this is the Internet I suppose so par for the course.

Academia is full of people like that, and if some of the laymans ladies got off the old wooden milk box outside the coffee shop and unlinked from the media sheepherders and had a look out in the bush they might see a different picture..

 

[topcropper]

Califfornia has just had its warmest winter ever and is about to run out of water (in less than 1 year) after a record drought. The state could see economic collapse and mass emigration as they have no backup plan.. The UK also is experiencing record weather, the warmest on record. .

Yep, this is the exaggerated alarmist garbage I'm talking about from believers. What a joke? Perhaps a million hectares of crop may not get water in Callifornia, but economic collapse and mass emigration?


See ya's

 

[spludgey]

Yep, this is the exaggerated alarmist garbage I'm talking about from believers. What a joke? Perhaps a million hectares of crop may not get water in Callifornia, but economic collapse and mass emigration?


See ya's

It might have been a slight exaggeration, but if they run out of water, what are they going to do? Building a desal plant or an interstate pipeline would take way longer than a year.
So if you were renting and you were facing the prospect of living somewhere with an intermittent water supply, wouldn't you move? I would.

People that don't believe in climate change aren't skeptics either, they're being selfish.
Do you really think that the 97%+ of climate scientists want to be right? I'm certainly a believer in climate change, but I'd be ecstatic if I was wrong!

 

[wategos]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884085
Without water jobs dry up as well. Without jobs, people leave.

 

[topcropper]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101884085
Without water jobs dry up as well. Without jobs, people leave.

?Direct costs to agriculture total $1.5 billion (revenue losses of $1 billion and $0.5 billion in additional pumping costs). This net revenue loss is about 3 percent of the state's total agricultural value.
?The total statewide economic cost of the 2014 drought is $2.2 billion.
?The loss of 17,100 seasonal and part-time jobs related to agriculture represents 3.8 percent of farm unemployment.
?428,000 acres, or 5 percent of irrigated cropland is going out of production..

This in an economy slightly bigger than Australia's. Yep, typical drought. It's no economy buster. And no one will run out of domestic and drinking water, ever. Irrigation of crops gets cut first and always will.

If you look at historical rainfall, it's just a drought. The world is a big place. There will always be a few places in drought at any one time and currently California is one of them.


See ya's.


See ya's.

 

[topcropper]

It might have been a slight exaggeration, but if they run out of water, what are they going to do? Building a desal plant or an interstate pipeline would take way longer than a year.
So if you were renting and you were facing the prospect of living somewhere with an intermittent water supply, wouldn't you move? I would.!

I suppose someone who is a bit more intelligent than Flannery was able to look at the historical rainfall figures and see quite clearly that what's happening in California is simply a drought and not a long term downtrend in rain. If there was an obvious downtrend, water desalination would have been implemented decades ago, because it would have been obvious decades ago of the downtrend.




California has an amazingly good supply of water. California also grows an incredible amount of irrigated crops. And huge amounts of water are released for environmental needs. No one is going to not get water in their homes. If water is getting in short supply, It's because it's been over allocated to irrigators.

People that don't believe in climate change aren't skeptics either, they're being selfish.
Do you really think that the 97%+ of climate scientists want to be right? I'm certainly a believer in climate change, but I'd be ecstatic if I was wrong!

Why are non belivers selfish? As I said before, I'm not sure what I am, but I've had a gutful of the ridiculous exaggeration of what's happening. The warming is either currently stopped, or else happening much much slower than anyone predicted. Some of the recent winters in the Northern Hemisphere have been shockingly cold of late.


See ya's.

 

[spludgey]

Why are non belivers selfish? As I said before, I'm not sure what I am, but I've had a gutful of the ridiculous exaggeration of what's happening.

Because denying this Inconvenient Truth makes life simpler for them and worse for billions of people today and in the future. And that's disregarding the impact to flora and fauna.

It's a little bit like right and left politics in general. People that vote right generally vote for what's good for them and their kind, whereas people that vote left are voting for what's good for those that aren't well off.

So sure, rich (in global terms) people like you and me will be alright for the foreseeable future, so let's just ignore the whole thing because it's easier.

The warming is either currently stopped, or else happening much much slower than anyone predicted. Some of the recent winters in the Northern Hemisphere have been shockingly cold of late.

Thanks for conclusively proving your ignorance of science.
Just as an example, every single month for the last 30 years has been above average in global temperatures.

 

[Shadow]

Thanks for conclusively proving your ignorance of science.
Just as an example, every single month for the last 30 years has been above average in global temperatures.

That depends on the timeframe you use to calculate the average. I assume you're taking the average only for the period where temperatures were mostly lower than they are now (last hundred years or so), in which case obviously recent temperatures will be higher than the average because temperatures were on a rising trend until the late 1990s.

However if you go back a bit further and look at the Medieval Warm Period, Holocene Optimum etc then you'll see that current temperatures are actually lower than temperatures reached several hundred years ago.

There is nothing alarming about current temperatures. Nothing bad has happened as a result of the warming that occurred up until the late 1990s. In fact, the human race has thrived during this period. Colder temperatures are worse for us than warmer temperatures. You alarmists should really try to relax and stop panicking over nothing!

worse for billions of people today and in the future. And that's disregarding the impact to flora and fauna

In what way have billions of people, or flora and fauna, been adversely affected by the small rise in temperatures (less than one degree) that occurred over the 100 years or so until the late 90s? Has there been any negative impact at all? The human race has thrived during this period. Food production has soared.

 

[BayView]

Because denying this Inconvenient Truth makes life simpler for them and worse for billions of people today and in the future. And that's disregarding the impact to flora and fauna.

It's not that we deny it per se; we deny the hysteria, the perceived level of increases/impact/destruction, and the percentage of influence by humans.

It's a little bit like right and left politics in general. People that vote right generally vote for what's good for them and their kind, whereas people that vote left are voting for what's good for those that aren't well off.

Disagree.

Many Labs would tear down the rich - not applaud them. Libs don't tear down the rich, and they still want to help the disadvantaged.

Libs also are sympathetic to the plight of less well off and disadvantaged, but their mindset is different in terms of the generality of creating a society where everyone should contribute, everyone should be rewarded for contributing and not rewarded for not contributing. Basic and general of course, and I don't know a single Lib who is not in favour of helping the ones who can't help themselves - we just dislike helping the bludgers and hangers-on, and those who are against the ones who have a crack, try to better their life and those around them. Reward for effort, incentive to get ahead, to create jobs, etc.

LIbs don't hate the Boss like Labs; the Libs admire the Boss, and want to be like him/her.

Libs are less likely to be victims and are more likely to be doers, Labs are more likely to be victims who hate the rich and want everyone to have the equal amount; despite their effort (or lack of).

So sure, rich (in global terms) people like you and me will be alright for the foreseeable future, so let's just ignore the whole thing because it's easier.

It's got nothing to do with easy or hard. It is about the hysteria, the spin, lies, and the ultimate affect we humans actually have on anything to do with Climate or Temperature.

Thanks for conclusively proving your ignorance of science.
Just as an example, every single month for the last 30 years has been above average in global temperatures.

It has been shown that the temps haven't increased in the last 2 decades, it has been shown that we haven't run out of water; we now have too much in many areas (yes; there are areas which desperately need rain, but this is the land of droughts and has been for thousands of years), yet in both cases GW has been blamed for the cause.

You can't have it both ways, and you can't make ridiculous statements like that and expect folks to listen to you for long.

And when they are taken to task on this, they then change the statement to; "Oh, no; it's Climate Change!"

Did I say that my sides hurt?

 

[Frontier]

The Greens resist development that creates the supply that would lower rents and house prices? So they're fixing up their own problem??

For high prices, especially in Syd, I blame Nimbys and Councils

(nothing new here)

 

[BayView]

The Greens resist development that creates the supply that would lower rents and house prices? So they're fixing up their own problem??

For high prices, especially in Syd, I blame Nimbys and Councils

(nothing new here)

Yep.

I'm wondering what will happen in Sydney over the next 5 years.

It is enjoying a boom, loads of new projects and builds etc, but the economy as a general is bad - wages are not increasing and businesses are not hiring, spending down, etc.

I can see a sudden screeching halt, with supply outstripping demand; rents dropping and prices of houses stagnating...again.

Be careful.

 

[BayView]

Update;

snowing in a number of areas in Vic...no Autumn and no Summer to speak of.

And it's still May.

I accept your apologies, Alarmists.

 

[Perp]

Update;

snowing in a number of areas in Vic...no Autumn and no Summer to speak of.

And it's still May.

I accept your apologies, Alarmists.

*sigh* Do you know how absurd this sounds? It's like saying "today is warmer than yesterday therefore it cannot be autumn".

 

[perthguy]

People that don't believe in climate change aren't skeptics either, they're being selfish.
Do you really think that the 97%+ of climate scientists want to be right? I'm certainly a believer in climate change, but I'd be ecstatic if I was wrong!

The 97% consensus figure is based on dodgy data. It started out at 98%.

So where did that famous ?consensus? claim that ?98% of all scientists believe in global warming? come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered ?yes? to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That ?98% all scientists? referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered ?yes?.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/18/about-that-overwhelming-98-number-of-scientists-consensus/

I think there is ample evidence that the climate is changing. Looking historically, it always has and it is fairly safe to assume it always will. The question is: how much money should we spend fighting climate change and could the money be spent more effectively elsewhere? I'm sure you all know that the Federal Govt tried to set up a think tank to look at where money could effectively be spent tackling global issues:

"Principally not climate change, the big development issues we have around the world are poverty, health, food security and the challenges of trying to bring everyone up to a reasonable level of living," Professor Johnson said.

"The Australian Consensus Centre is designed to take a methodology of cost-benefit analysis to look at a whole range of Australian and global development challenges over the next 15 number of years to try and to work out where as a society we will get the best value for every dollar we invest."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-20/vice-chancellor-defends-think-tank-centre-at-uwa/6407560

Seems like a reasonable concept. But no, it was not. I think this quote sums up nicely how I feel about the decision to axe the centre:

What a sad day for academic freedom when staff at a university silence a dissenting voice rather than test their ideas in debate

Pretty much.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/bjorn-lomborg-uwa-consensus-centre-contract-cancelled/6456708

 

[Perp]

The 97% consensus figure is based on dodgy data. It started out at 98%.

Whatever the number is - and there's no meaningful difference between 97 and 98% - there have been many, many studies over the years that have all found quite similar numbers. Many of them are referred to in this article: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/11/yet_another_study_confirms_the_overwhelming_scientific_consensus_on_climate_change/

 

[BayView]

*sigh* Do you know how absurd this sounds? It's like saying "today is warmer than yesterday therefore it cannot be autumn".

I have the same reaction as you just did when I hear alarmists wanting the world to spend billions on programs which will make absolutely no difference whatsoever to the temperature.

And of course; when you bring this little detail to their attention, they all scream out;

"But, but; we have to do something!!"

 

[BayView]

People that don't believe in climate change aren't skeptics either, they're being selfish.

To be a CC/GW skeptic does not mean to be selfish.

What are we being selfish about?

FYI; I do a fair degree of stuff in my own little world to try and keep our planet clean and tidy and a place for my kids to enjoy later.

If you want to talk selfish;

Have a closer look at Alarmists who spend all year floating around the world in planes talking the talk.

Or, Japanese whaling boats for scientific research,

Or, filthy smokers who chuck butts on the ground wherever they are standing/parked, etc

And so on.

 

[spludgey]

To be a CC/GW skeptic does not mean to be selfish.

You're not a skeptic, skeptics question and try to find answers. Deniers don't.