CSIRO: 78 per cent of Australians believe in climate change

MICHAEL BRISSENDEN: A five year study of Australians' views on climate change has found 78 per cent believe it is happening, but there is a surprising level of volatility in personal views.

The CSIRO study found only 28 per cent of Liberal voters believe human activity is responsible for climate change, compared to 58 per cent of Labor voters.

But one of the report's authors, Zoe Leviston, says many respondents changed their opinion over different surveys.

Dr Leviston spoke to Francis Keany in Canberra.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2015/s4344787.htm

Indonesian Forest Fires Have Been Burning Since August

Millions of acres of pristine, irreplaceable and invaluable Indonesian forest has been reduced to smouldering blackened ash, as 100,000 fires rage through the island region.

The sheer size and scale of the fire crisis is difficult to properly comprehend. Some of these fires have been burning since August, torching forest eons old and blanketing Papua, Singapore, Kuala Lumpur and countless islands of Indonesia in thick grey hazy smoke.

Earlier in October, Indonesia's Forestry Ministry reported 4.2 million acres of forest had been burnt out, a figure which is sure to have risen since first reported.

Carbon emissions from the fires, at their peak, surpassed emissions belched out by the entire United States of America. More than half a million people have reported respiratory problems.

Results on the Pollutant Standard Index have reached toward 2000, on a scale where a reading above 300 is considered "hazardous." The cost to the region's economy? A bill of $47 billion was considered conservative at the beginning of October.

But how does a region suffer 127,000 fires? And how have these fires in Indonesia, our closest major neighbour, gone basically unnoticed in Australia?

Basically, because money.

Indonesia is the world's largest producer of palm oil. To plant great swathes of timber trees and palm oil-producing crops, Indonesian plantation companies clear huge expanses of land. The best way to quickly and cheaply clear huge tracts of dense jungle and thick forest? Burn it.

Plantation companies in Indonesia simply set fire to trees, waiting till the fire burns itself out then racing through the blackened undergrowth to plant their crops. These fires are set each year by plantation companies, seeing huge plumes of smoke and haze settle in over the region, but this year has been slightly different.

The companies have cut canals and dried out the peat, the decaying vegetation matter on or under the forest floor, turning a valuable part of the ecosystem into a veritable tinderbox for fire. Coupled with El Nino climate factors, the fires met with the dried peat to spark a firestorm the likes of which have not been seen in Indonesia for some 20 years.

The fires have also gone underground, burning and smouldering in the subterranean peat; these fires are all but impossible to extinguish and will burn almost endlessly, unable to be reached by rains or monsoon.

Burning peat can also release hundreds of times as much carbon as a regular forest fire. Greenpeace describe the Indonesian situation as a "carbon bomb."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2015/11/02/indonesia-fire_n_8447584.html

Lib voters think these sort of things occur without human influence. !!!

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:05am:


If climate change is not naturally occurring, how did the climate change before us ape descendants started burning fossil fuels? You know, the other 99.99% of the earth's history....

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:10am:



Do you believe an massive asteroid smashing into the antarctic or mexico could be an mass extinction trigger.

If yes.
Would that mean a mass extinction couldn't occur without one.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:21am:



I'm not your wet nurse. Ask one of your carers for help.

My intuition is that climate change is real.

My intuition is that there is nothing that can be done at a political level.

My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet.

Not a problem,

as a student of self development, change is seen as a goal to strive for, chaos is to be embraced.
There will be winners and losers.

just understand that reality and prepare for it like a good boy scout .

Dont make a little cry baby movie about it getting hotter and drier,  put in the effort to adapt.

The default position of every species that doesnt adapt is failure.

If any country should welcome climate change it is australia as we have so many natural resources.
Chinese students visiting my place couldnt believe i have a river you can see the bottom of and drink the water out of.

Truly a blessing and with climate change , it will only become more valuable.

we can become the food bowl of a barren wasteland in asia and europe and be like the saudis with our rich resources of unspoilt water and land.

Bring it on 

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:24am:



Yet you want it as your evidence and since you can't supply it, it shows you bring nothing to the table besides trolling.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:25am:



Oh wise one. How is Australia to be a food bowl to asia, when we no longer have any top soil. The fertile soil loss increased due to deforestation, farming practices, and increasing extreme weather events.

Are we to export fungi grown underground. since due to the heat above ground, is now no longer inhabitable.

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:32am:



It's you who couldn't find any evidence and then wants everyone else to bow and scrape to your demands.

Life in the real world isn't like your family home where screaming gets your mum and third dad running to your beck and call.

Show the evidence or go search for it. 

Your trolling will now be ignored.

Don't even bother engaging with them Greens. They are paid LNP astroturfers designed to derail debate.

Either way.

This does show a huge issue with the LNP, as much as people like to pretend Turnbull is a progressive the fact that 72% of Libs are in the pocket of big energy shows that have no intention ever of actually fighting climate change or moving into the green sector, the fastest growing industrial sector in the world.

What I find strange is this mass climate change denialism from these reactionaries seems to be quite unique to Anglo countries, Right wing Governments across Europe, Middle East, Asia etc are jumping on renewables. What makes Anglo countries unique in its mass denialism?

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:


Everything with context when it comes to their action

I'd be happy to discuss each example in context of their country of origin

But lets first peruse the agreement that started all this in 1991 - Kyoto Agreement. Lets look at the basis for that agreement

This is why I asked for a list of carbon emission sources and the percentage contributions of each

Where do humans rank on that list?

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:46am:


Don't care.

This discussion doesn't involve you.
Cheerio.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:40am:



Where did I say "mostly"

In fact the carbon emissions depends on the activity of the volcano

I just want a list showing the top 10 carbon emission sources and where humans rank on that list

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:51am:

Mostly is what you want to say. That has been shown as not true.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:46am:



Yet you ran away from my question. Your suggestion on how Australia will adapt to having no fertile top soil due to the increased loss of it from extreme weather caused from human activity.

You say adaption is the key. So explain. How o Australian farmers farm without topsoil?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:18am:



My point is asteroids can cause mass extinctions. Yet mass extinctions can occur without an asteroid triggering it.

When denialists look at the pre industrialised human past for proof humans caused climate change, then they are not looking at the whole picture.


Now. If we had a full out human caused nuclear war. Every weapon used. Would humans change the global climate?

Would humans cause a mass extinction?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:47am:



Pre industrialised humans were likely, not powerful enough.

Now back to the question. Would a full out human caused nuclear war change the global climate and cause a mass extinction.

Are humans powerful enough now to change the global climate?

aquascoot wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:25am:


My intuition is that we just need to prepare to live in a "changed" planet.

A planet whose food supply can support a few Billion less people will be no fun for those people who do not survive.

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:10am:


No one is saying the climate hasn't changed in the past without human intervention. They are saying that this time it appears not to be the case based on all available evidence.

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:21am:



What Kytro said.

The current and rapid change occurring now is different to previous times because of a new factor. Industrialised human behaviour.

____ wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:04am:


So according to Australia's chief scientific organisation - climate change is a belief issue, not a science issue.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:15am:


here on planet earth which i call "REALITY", this fact is just a universal law of nature.

the wells are running dry in rural india, they are having to dig them deeper and deeper and soon they will run out of water.(those wells not already poisoned with cyanide)

Have you seen emus lined up 10 deep along a fence ?all dropping dead from thirst.
its not a pretty sight.

part of our strategy with climate change should include the aim of reducing human population.
i think this is green policy as well and one of the few policies i agree with.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

That old furphy.

Climate changes when there are drivers for it, climate change does not just happen. The driver now is GHGs emitted from our factories, power stations and cars etc etc.

If you are a Lib and have no brain you STILL have to find a driver for the warming that has been happening for nearly 200 years. You cannot deny CO2/NH4 etc are greenhouse gases, that has been proved in the lab. So—what is the driver for the 200 years of warming?

72% Of Libs ~ Humans Are Not Responsible

Not surprising the Libs don't take responsibility for anything ?

Swagman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:37am:


This is the actual study.

It does not ask: "Do you believe that human activity is responsible for climate change?"

It asks if you think about climate change with these answers:

Quote:

You mean Libs leaving messes for Labor to clean up!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:


These were not forgotten, there were taken into account and dismissed as lacking evidence.

It is possible there is something that has been missed, of course and that happens to also be correlated with the human induced factors we are tracking against the climate, but so far nobody can find anything else that explains the evidence better.

'Dr Leviston stressed opinions on climate change were more closely related to deep-seated world views rather than political allegiances.

"Those connections or those relationships we see are explained by quite deep fundamental orientations towards the environment and humans in general," she said.

"I think it's an over simplification to say it's driven by political leanings.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-11-04/majority-of-australians-believe-in-climate...

But it makes for a good story.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 11:00am:

The view that CO2 is a lagging indicator has long been disproved. I guess denialist websites don’t publish that 

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:




When it comes to climate change every single facet has been proven and disproved 

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 12:22pm:

No.

Warmer climate so more water content in the atmosphere so bigger rainfall and more and bigger floods. Just like your example.

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:11pm:



'Box 9.2 | Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years
The observed global mean surface temperature (GMST) has shown a much smaller increasing linear trend over the past 15 years than
over the past 30 to 60 years (Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.20, Table 2.7; Figure 9.8; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). Depending on the observational
data set, the GMST trend over 1998–2012 is estimated to be around one-third to one-half of the trend over 1951–2012 (Section 2.4.3,
Table 2.7; Box 9.2 Figure 1a, c). For example, in HadCRUT4 the trend is 0.04oC per decade over 1998–2012, compared to 0.11oC per
decade over 1951–2012. The reduction in observed GMST trend is most marked in Northern Hemisphere winter (Section 2.4.3; Cohen
et al., 2012). Even with this “hiatus” in GMST trend, the decade of the 2000s has been the warmest in the instrumental record of GMST
(Section 2.4.3, Figure 2.19). Nevertheless, the occurrence of the hiatus in GMST trend during the past 15 years raises the two related
questions of what has caused it and whether climate models are able to reproduce it.'

https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf

Seems the IPCC disagree.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 2:54pm:

Only an extremely foolish person of substandard intellect would say that the trillions of tons of CO2 pumped into the atmosphere have no effect. The core is not getting hotter nor is the sun.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 1:13pm:





Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ).

Temperature after C.R. Scotese http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:04pm:

Well it is going to take like a thousand years after emissions are brought under control before the climate settles down so don’t worry. I think it is not just “lefties” want the climate issue brought under control. Govts too, apart from the shambles in power here, want to get emissions under control. I think the Chinese have seen the Himalayan glaciers  retreat and realised they had better do something about GHG emissions.

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:12pm:

The extra moisture would help with that.

The “plant food” argument deniers run doesn’t have much validity tho. As it keeps warming plants first reduce their nitrogen intake and less nitrogen = less protein. As night time temperatures rise plants start absorbing less CO2.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:






The clowns at Unskepticalscience.com have taught you well brother, if I was running a climate change scare campaign though I would have included a few beneficial positive effects just to entice the less gullible instead of the current campaign that decrees 100% of all climate change is bad, this just invites even more skeptism as the logical thinkers amongst us realise that climate change can not possibly be all bad, there has to be some winners.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:31pm:



hi PN

been working overseas

back for about 3 months then I am off again

how have you been

Kytro wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 6:28pm:


And how would that be working?  Asking the unqualified some over-simplified questions and your results are what? Accurate measurement of an ignorant opinion?

Kiron22 wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 8:39am:


And you are paid by the Russian Embassy to derail threads.

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 10:50am:



Don't be so sure. Canadian oil drillers tapped an enormous reservoir of fresh water over 4 miles down. The quantity of water is MORE THAN ALL THE FRESH WATER ON EARTH.

If it is one place, then it is in a lot more. Advanced Drilling techniques may actually solve the water problem world-wide.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:32am:


Did you mean that it is larger than the previously known "all the fresh water on earth"?

Yep, but by definition it must form part of all the water on earth, just a before unknown source and quantity.

mariacostel wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

Maqqa wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 5:53pm:

wow: seriously hardcore 

Ya got like a girl and stuff aswell buddy 

innocentbystander. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 4:13pm:

INNOCENT IS ABOUT TO EXPLAIN WHY CO2 IS THE ONLY LIMITING FACTOR TO PLANT GROWTH...


HEY, WHERE'D HE GO????????????????????????????????????????????????????

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 5^th, 2015 at 5:06pm:

RIGHT: THAT'S IT- NO MORE REACH-AROUNDS FOR ANONYMOUS TRYHARD UPPER-MIDDLE-CLASSERS 

lee wrote on Nov 4^th, 2015 at 3:22pm:

iS LEE SAYING CO2 DOESN'T COME OUT OF SOLUTION WITH RISING TEMPERATURE???