Not understanding the consequences of what you do should make you less confident about doing it, not more. Only a moron would argue the opposite.

Although they cannot bring themselves to say it, several of the lunatic climate "skeptics" here seem to have an assumption that the greater the uncertainty we have regarding the impact of GHG emissions on the climate, the more confident we should be in our ability to get away with polluting the atmosphere.

So, they feverishly try to sow doubt doubt over the ability of the scientific community to predict whether it will be raining in western Sydney on this night in 40 years time, all the while completely missing the point that the more doubt that exists, the more cautious we should be.

And in reality?

"Precautionary principles are the foundations for policy when it has to deal with weakly understood causes of potential catastrophic or irreversible events, and where protective decisions require certain and costly policy interventions that may not solve the problem that they are designed to correct."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/earth-and-planetary-sciences/precautionary-principle

Climate models - They don't predict accurately. They don't do clouds well. They don't do sea surface temperature well.

They are mere computer games .

And what are these things that cost a lot of money and don't do things well? Renewables, apart frmo Nuclear for a start. They are costly. But don't even mention the subsidies for them.

Carbon Capture and Storage? There are no large scale methods in place - nor planned.

Everyone knows Google. They were going to go completely renewable. The result?

"According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;

    “At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …

    Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”

    http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

So Google engineers couldn't do it. Hands up those who can.

Although I love one caption -

"Yet because CO 2 lingers in the atmosphere for more than a century, reducing emissions means only that less gas is being added to the existing problem. Research by James Hansen shows that reducing global CO 2 levels requires both a drastic cut in emissions and some way of pulling CO 2 from the atmosphere and storing it. "

James Hansen lied. The turnover time for CO2 is less than 10years, according to most scientific studies.

Thanks for the demonstration Lee. Just like I said.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:03pm:

Thanks for the demonstration Lee. Just like I said.

I can't help it if you can't quote the Precautionary Principle correctly. I wonder why that is? Something to do with your serial lying probably. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Quote:

I can't help it if you can't quote the Precautionary Principle

It's not a person Lee.

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:19pm:

It's not a person Lee.

No petal. it is Climate Establishment at science direct as the link said. You are a person, a lying person but a person none the less. That you can't quote from texts is certainly a problem for you. ;)

So I am a liar because I did not give the definition that you prefer? Are you really that thick?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 7:44pm:

So I am a liar because I did not give the definition that you prefer?

No petal. Merely a liar through the three threads. You made up your own Precautionary Principle and treated it as real. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are full of crap Lee.

Do you realise that what you quoted is not even a definition of the precautionary principle?

We can't take the risk with our environment -
that's why we need to go all out into research
for large commercial Thorium reactors.
Clean, cheap, safe - cannot melt down - walk away safe -
unlimited energy for the next 10,000 years.

https://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1519823686/0#0

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 9:22pm:

You are full of crap Lee. Do you realise that what you quoted is not even a definition of the precautionary principle?

You really are that dumb?

You have heard of Science Direct? Nah, probably not. You don't do science. ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are full of crap Lee.

Congratulations on finding their website. I appreciate that must have been a challenge for you. Do you realise that what you quoted is not even a definition of the precautionary principle?

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:39pm:

Not understanding the consequences of what you do should make you less confident about doing it, not more. Only a moron would argue the opposite.

But we do understand the consequences of what we do, by studying nature and not climate models which at this stage of the game climate models are no better than a donkey kong game.

We have been measuring the temperature of the Earth with satellite data, radiosonde data and the rest for a while now and we have a good idea of what is going on.

The models have been exposed for running too hot and as you will notice they continually bring down their forecasts the further we go into the 21st century.

Because we should be hitting certain plateaus if we are to believe and follow what the models are saying, yet we have not hit these model plateaus since the models predicted what the temperature would be by the end of the 21st century.

Obviously you failed maths and cannot understand what a simple graph looks like so let me explain it to you its like a roller coaster that goes up to the crest of the tracks and then descends down into the valleys giving you butterflies in your tummy.

Now you see that REDLINE there that is what the models are saying.

You see all the other lines that is what has been measured in nature by various methods for the last few decades.

BTW FD this is not my work its the work of climate scientists that do not agree with the AGW theory.

https://i.ibb.co/KGfdt0y/RSS-TLT.jpg

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/warming-in-the-tropics-even-the-new-rss-satellite-dataset-says-the-models-are-wrong/#comment-255582

HadCRUT4 surface temperature index

The HadCRUT4 surface temperature index produced by the,

a. Hadley Centre of the UK Met Office and the,

b. Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia show the following trends

1878 to 1911…………….cooling

1912 to 1941…………….warming

1942 to 1964…………….cooling

1965 to 1998……………..warming

1999 to 2011………………cooling

Warming rate from 1908 to 1938………0.13°C per decade

Warming rate from 1983 to 2013………0.17°C per decade

Satellite data shows 2002 to mid 2015………..cooling

Warming pause ends late 2015 with El Nino event starting late 2015

The UAH analysis of satellite data gives a warming trend from 1979 to 2020 of 0.14°C per decade

The IPCC global circulations models (computer models) predicted a warming trend of 0.27°C per decade

That’s just under twice the warming we have experienced in the real world by observations of nature the last 40 years.

https://friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=3

Satellite data from 1979 to 2016 suggest a warming by the year 2100 of 1.07°C.

So we don't have to spend billions of dollars of tax payers money on the stock exchange and giving 10% of this money over to the United Nations to try and keep the temperature to under a 2°C warming by end of 2100.

This will happen all by itself.

This warming is not out of the natural range of warming that is to be expected, coming out of the little ice age.

https://i.ibb.co/XZ7NR25/UAHLT.jpg

many moons ago............ :-*

Warming by the end of this century

IPCC computer models in 1990 projected warming by 2100 of………......................................+2.78° C +

Observations in nature the last 30 years suggest warming by end of this century 2100 of..... +1.01° C

https://i.ibb.co/6Jbwdxt/m14.png

freediver wrote on Apr 28^th, 2021 at 6:39pm:

Not understanding the consequences of what you do should make you less confident about doing it, not more. Only a moron would argue the opposite. Although they cannot bring themselves to say it, several of the lunatic climate "skeptics" here seem to have an assumption that the greater the uncertainty we have regarding the impact of GHG emissions on the climate, the more confident we should be in our ability to get away with polluting the atmosphere. So, they feverishly try to sow doubt doubt over the ability of the scientific community to predict whether it will be raining in western Sydney on this night in 40 years time, all the while completely missing the point that the more doubt that exists, the more cautious we should be.

Indeed. Needless (?) to say, it works both ways.  There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Like so much else, it is politicised out of all proportion by agitators and activist with axes to grind, axes largely unrelated to the climate itself. Carbon dioxide is confused with air pollution and even water vapour (know-nothing media plonkers love to illustrare 'carbon pollution' with cooling towers billowing steam).

Most climate predictions by experts over the last 50- 100 years went unfulfilled. Strangely, however, they continue to boldky make gloomy predictions. They evidently do not know the consequences of their prescriptions for action since their predicted consequebces for no action are not materislising.

Not understanding the consequences of what they are advocating should make them less confident about proscribing them, not more. Only a moron would argue the opposite.

Quote:

There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails.

Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 8:31am:

Quote: There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else.

What have economists got to do with the principles of science....?!?!

One of the things they don't look at is people in poverty. The developing countries have people in poverty diminishing by reliable energy.

https://ourworldindata.org/uploads/2019/11/Extreme-Poverty-projection-by-the-World-Bank-to-2030-786x550.png

Of course there will be those who will say it is not a response to reliable energy.

freediver wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 8:31am:

Quote: There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else.

Well,  it's all sorted then, nuffin' to see here. The science and the economics are settled.

Sorry? What IS the settled science and settled economics, you ask?

Oh, well, that's  just such an ignorant question, beneath for any climate doom goblin to stoop to answering it.

Cuppa?

---

Ajax wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 6:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2021 at 8:31am: Quote: There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else. What have economists got to do with the principles of science....?!?!

Because the consequences of climate action are economic.


Quote:

Sorry? What IS the settled science and settled economics, you ask?

The settled science is the impacts of ongoing GHG emissions. The settled economics is the cost of reducing GHG emissions: a tax is the cheapest way to reduce GHG emissions, and the cost is capped at replacing our electricity supply with a renewables based system. That is, the cost of renewables and appropriate storage is the maximum cost of climate change avoidance.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2021 at 6:20pm:

That is, the cost of renewables and appropriate storage is the maximum cost of climate change avoidance.

So just how much storage should there be? One day, 7 days?

Australia 265TWh (that's 726,000 MWh/day) of electricity. 79% of it fossil fuelled. In 2019.

Quote:

So just how much storage should there be? One day, 7 days?

The government should get out of the way and let it happen. How much storage we *should* have depends on how much people actually value peak electricity. At the moment people are charged the same amount regardless of the real price. The "problem" would likely disappear with more rational pricing.

It also depends how you define storage. A peaking gas fired power station with 500 years supply of gas could be counted as storage for example. As could a hydroelectric facility, even if it is not pumped storage, if it can consume water at a faster rate than enters into the dam. As could an electric car plugged into a two way charger. As could a hot water system. People will find all sorts of creative ways to store energy as soon as the need arises.

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2021 at 6:20pm:

Ajax wrote on May 3rd, 2021 at 6:34pm: freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2021 at 8:31am: Quote: There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else. What have economists got to do with the principles of science....?!?! Because the consequences of climate action are economic.

Human economics is man made and only exists because people co-operate with in a certain set of rules and laws.

The problem is the economy is run by a hand full of people that can only see dollar signs in their eyes.

You think economists really worry about climate or are they worried about that trillion dollar carbon derivatives market.

Once all countries jump on board the ETS or carbon tax system then CO2 and climate change will slowly die out on MSM and news.

Once all countries are paying for the air above their land there will no longer be a need to scare the sheep.


Quote:

“International carbon markets will cover billions of consumers this decade. Ask the bankers at your table whether they want Australia to clip that ticket. We’re going to help them get their share." Julia Gillard http://www.pm.gov.au/press-office/speech-business-council-australia-dinner

Quote:

You think economists really worry about climate or are they worried about that trillion dollar carbon derivatives market.

Economists frame everything in terms of how much value people place on it. The appropriate price on GHG emissions for example depends on how much value people place on having a climate free from them and their effects. This includes both the direct financial costs (insurance premiums going up) and the value that people place on the environmental impacts.

That's the economics. But at the end of the day they are also people. Economics is not a religion. You will find just as many lunatic skeptics and extreme lefties among them as you would among lawyers, doctors etc.

But they still all agree on the economics. That's why the economist that either you or Lee recently held up as some kind of hero is in favour of carbon taxes.

Also, economists do not necessarily benefit from the new markets more than anyone else. You are inventing yet another a vague, miserable, mindless conspiracy. The good ones tend to be academics. They are not suddenly going to be running an emissions bank or trading platform by virtue of having an economics degree. The people who do have a stake are shareholders in coal mines and coal fired power plants etc. That's why they are doing their best to steer the government towards a trading scheme rather than a tax, with the expectation that they will be gifted valuable emissions rights that the government then has to buy back.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2021 at 7:46am:

It also depends how you define storage. A peaking gas fired power station with 500 years supply of gas could be counted as storage for example.

How about storage because of renewables - ex hydro? You know for when the sun don't shine and the wind don't blow. ;)

As for gas petal. NO. It is a Source of CO2. ::)

Quote:

As for gas petal. NO. It is a Source of CO2.

And your point is?

freediver wrote on May 10^th, 2021 at 5:38pm:

And your point is?

You're the one crapping himself about CO2. ::)

BTW - What source for your magical mystery precautionary principle?

Your own from the sounds of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Ajax wrote on May 3^rd, 2021 at 6:34pm:

freediver wrote on May 3rd, 2021 at 8:31am: Quote: There is little to no understanding of the consequences of 'climate action', not least because there is no understanding of what the concept itself entails. Sure there is. Economists have been on this from the beginning. Both what the consequences will be and how to minimise the cost. You are projecting your own ignorance onto everyone else. What have economists got to do with the principles of science....?!?!

well, for example, if we raise the cost of energy by, say, denying the poor in india and africa  cheap coal to cook on, they will have no option but to chop down the forrests to cook dinner.

so science is usurped by economics

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

freediver wrote on May 10th, 2021 at 5:38pm: And your point is? You're the one crapping himself about CO2. ::) BTW - What source for your magical mystery precautionary principle? Your own from the sounds of it. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are the one crapping yourself every time you open your mouth.

Do you have a point or not?

freediver wrote on May 12^th, 2021 at 6:22pm:

Do you have a point or not?

lee wrote on May 10^th, 2021 at 6:02pm:

BTW - What source for your magical mystery precautionary principle?

Don't want to say, eh? ;)

It's a principle Lee. Are you disputing it's existence, or just being full of crap?


lee wrote on May 8^th, 2021 at 11:53am:

As for gas petal. NO. It is a Source of CO2. ::)

What is your point Lee, other than to be full of crap?

freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2021 at 5:57pm:

It's a principle Lee. Are you disputing it's existence, or just being full of crap?

So where did you arrive at this principle? Was it two tablets of stone? A tablet of gold that disappeared when you awoke?


freediver wrote on May 13^th, 2021 at 5:57pm:

What is your point Lee, other than to be full of crap?

So you want to cut fossil fuel burt use fossil fuel? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

You are full of crap Lee.


Quote:

So where did you arrive at this principle?

For most people it is common sense Lee. If you did not know how a toaster worked, but a bunch of boffins told you not to stick a knife in it as it might kill you, would you use your ignorance of how it worked to convince yourself to stick a knife in to get your toast out?


Quote:

So you want to cut fossil fuel burt use fossil fuel?

Yes Lee. Think about what you are saying for once.

freediver wrote on May 15^th, 2021 at 9:14am:

For most people it is common sense Lee.

For you not at all. ;)