Australian Politics Forum - a green future means more mines

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15655
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #45 - May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm

lee wrote on May 23^rd, 2022 at 4:07pm:

Theories aren't facts.

Darwin's 'evolution' and Einstein's 'relativity' are widely accepted by scientists (though evolution is disputed by OT religious fundamentalists)

Quote:

"“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.” - Richard Feynman

Plenty of scientists say AGW CO2 is correct, though the rate of change in the phenomena is disputed.

Quote:

Consensus is about politics not science. But then the IPCC is political. InterGOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change.

Addressed above. Consensus is reached on the disputed rate of change caused by an accepted AGW-CO2 effect.

Quote:

Which part had never before been experienced? Smoke in Sydney? Grin

Bushfires down the GDR? Grin

Yes horrifying, all the way from Victoria to the Queensland rainforests , burning at the same time, in the GDR.

Quote:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_major_bushfires_in_Australia

You really should do some research. Roll Eyes

Show us another time when the entire GDR from Vic. highlands to Qld rain forests was burning at the same time.

Quote:

See there you go again denying natural variation.

https://climate.nasa.gov/internal_resources/2337

The variations you are talking about - including pre history - are irrelevant to the trend line since the industrial revolution.

Quote:

So according to your theory it must have been a reduction in CO2 after WW2 that caused cooling. Roll Eyes

There has been no cooling - decrease in the upward trend line - since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Quote:

COULD they? What is the mechanism by which that is achieved?

1. Nationalize the criminal fossil polluters.

2. Cover Oz deserts with solar, surround the coast with wind farms, build another couple of Snowy 2's, and interconnect all this with maximum house-top solar. Get off your ass and start now.

Hint; the Fed Govt. can spend the necessary funds into existence, if the greedy, conflicted private sector won't invest their own funds, because all the resources (plus teaching trades as required) are available for the government to purchase.

But of course there are some private investors ready to join in, if the government sets out the rules for the transition. Labor might just be able to do this.

Quote:

You mean like the poisoning of land in China mining neodymium?

Correct, except the Indian coal-ash problem is a much bigger problem. Any mining operation can be cleaned up with the necessary expenditure (huge in the case of Indian coal ash) - which the private sector tends to run away from...

Quote:

But it is good you realise your alarmist language. Roll Eyes

.

Not mine; I loathe energy poverty and destruction of health caused by the greedy, price gouging fossil industry. But from others: here is a tweet today from an insider:

BREAKING:
@Shell safety consultant Caroline Dennett has resigned over Shell's disregard for climate change risks. 🔥🔥🔥

"We must end all new extraction projects immediately and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, and towards clean renewable energy sources." #StopJackdaw

Quote:

Another weather event. Crops have failed many times over the years. And now what is not banned but export limited. DO keep up.

Exported limited by the drought, that's right. The globe needs to start investing in drought mitigation (one way or another) - or starve.

Quote:

10-15%? "We'll all be rooned." Grin

By that - and war, yes.

Quote:

You have refuted nothing. A BIG

0

I can and will confront your ideological blindness at every turn.

Quote:

BTW - What 10 year drought? 2017 -2019 is only 2 years. Gilding the lily again. Grin

The drought after the 2011 Brisbane flood disaster, repeated recently.

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 24^th, 2022 at 11:37pm by thegreatdivide »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21516
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #46 - May 25^th, 2022 at 12:57pm

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Darwin's 'evolution' and Einstein's 'relativity' are widely accepted by scientists (though evolution is disputed by OT religious fundamentalists)

And? Are you positing theories are facts? Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Plenty of scientists say AGW CO2 is correct, though the rate of change in the phenomena is disputed.

And still not PROVEN.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Consensus is reached on the disputed rate of change caused by an accepted AGW-CO2 effect.

Really. If there is a consensus on the "disputed rate of change" why do the climate models vary from about 5.8C/doubling down to about 2.0/doubling? That's a 250% spread.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Yes horrifying, all the way from Victoria to the Queensland rainforests , burning at the same time, in the GDR.

And it has happened before. Laying it at the feet of CO2 is ingenuous. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Show us another time when the entire GDR from Vic. highlands to Qld rain forests was burning at the same time.

You didn't look did you?

"1974 – 1975 summer fire season

(defined as October 1974 to February 1975 in Queensland only) 1974-75 Australian bushfire season[d]

New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia

117,000,000 290,000,00"

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

The variations you are talking about - including pre history - are irrelevant to the trend line since the industrial revolution.

1940 to 1980 is not pre-history. That's about 40 years. Remember the WMO says Climate is the average of 30 years. There is too much variation for any trend. Roll Eyes

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

There has been no cooling - decrease in the upward trend line - since the beginning of the industrial revolution.

Oh you denier you. Didn't you hear about the global cooling scare? There are plenty of scientific papers that said it.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

1. Nationalize the criminal fossil polluters.

What would that do emit under a national basis? Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

2. Cover Oz deserts with solar, surround the coast with wind farms, build another couple of Snowy 2's, and interconnect all this with maximum house-top solar

Oh yes. You favfourite like a dog returning to its vomit. "Every situation has an engineering solution". Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Hint; the Fed Govt. can spend the necessary funds into existence, if the greedy, conflicted private sector won't invest their own funds, because all the resources (plus teaching trades as required) are available for the government to purchase.

IF renewables, which you say are so cheap, why is this not happening right now? I mean we have the technology. Perhaps it is like Warren Buffet says - "the only treason to build wind farms is the subsidies"

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Correct, except the Indian coal-ash problem is a much bigger problem.

Another one of your ridiculous statements with no verification attached. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

BREAKING:
@Shell safety consultant Caroline Dennett has resigned over Shell's disregard for climate change risks. 🔥🔥🔥

"We must end all new extraction projects immediately and rapidly transition away from fossil fuels, and towards clean renewable energy sources." #StopJackdaw

Yes. Did they stop the drills? Stop the sales of the leases? Anything?

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Exported limited by the drought, that's right.

Yes. And it has happened before. Read about some of the Indian famines. Roll Eyes

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Famine_in_India
thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

The globe needs to start investing in drought mitigation (one way or another) - or starve.

Nope. The greatest problem is transport. Read about the amount of wastage in India alone.

https://www.chintan-india.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Food%20waste%20in%20In...

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

By that - and war, yes.

It happens in Australia also.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/24/bad-weather-set-to-wipe-b...

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

I can and will confront your ideological blindness at every turn.

Now all you have to do is confront your own blindness at every turn. Grin

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

The drought after the 2011 Brisbane flood disaster, repeated recently.

Strangely BoM don't mention that one. Merely 2017-2019.

http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/drought/knowledge-centre/previous-droughts.shtml

So once again you make stuff up. I guess you need to shore up your beliefs. Roll Eyes

Back to top

IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #47 - May 25^th, 2022 at 12:59pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Plenty of scientists say AGW CO2 is correct, though the rate of change in the phenomena is disputed.

And still not PROVEN.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Consensus is reached on the disputed rate of change caused by an accepted AGW-CO2 effect.

Really. If there is a consensus on the "disputed rate of change" why do the climate models vary from about 5.8C/doubling down to about 2.0/doubling? That's a 250% spread.

thegreatdivide wrote on May 24^th, 2022 at 11:23pm:

Yes horrifying, all the way from Victoria to the Queensland rainforests , burning at the same time, in the GDR.

And it has happened before. Laying it at the feet of CO2 is ingenuous. Roll Eyes

Jesus Christ you are dense. AGW is proven scientific fact and has been for all of this century

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21516 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #48 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:04pm FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:59pm: AGW is proven scientific fact and has been for all of this century Then you should have no trouble pointing to at least ONE peer-reviewed paper saying so.
Back to top	IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #49 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:08pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:04pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:59pm:

AGW is proven scientific fact and has been for all of this century

Then you should have no trouble pointing to at least ONE peer-reviewed paper saying so. Wink

Only one? HAHAHAAA!!!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's not a paper, but it's obvious that if NASA is defending it, they are confident it's true

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21516
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #50 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:27pm

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:08pm:

Only one? HAHAHAAA!!!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's not a paper, but it's obvious that if NASA is defending it, they are confident it's true

So which paper? Or don't you have one? It is a wonder you didn't trot out there 97% schlock.

Antarctic Ice shrinking? Nope - "NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-shee...

Wow. NASA defending retreating Antarctic ice and promoting its gain. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #51 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:29pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:27pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:08pm:

Only one? HAHAHAAA!!!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's not a paper, but it's obvious that if NASA is defending it, they are confident it's true

So which paper? Or don't you have one? It is a wonder you didn't trot out there 97% schlock.

Antarctic Ice shrinking? Nope - "NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-shee...

Wow. NASA defending retreating Antarctic ice and promoting its gain. Grin

The issue is that right wing scum are sheep. You are parroting lines you learned and didn't understand because you understand your side hates science

Back to top

IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #52 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:32pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:27pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:08pm:

Only one? HAHAHAAA!!!

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

It's not a paper, but it's obvious that if NASA is defending it, they are confident it's true

So which paper? Or don't you have one? It is a wonder you didn't trot out there 97% schlock.

Antarctic Ice shrinking? Nope - "NASA Study: Mass Gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet Greater than Losses"

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-shee...

Wow. NASA defending retreating Antarctic ice and promoting its gain. Grin

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why are NASA liars? You tell me?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21516
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #53 - May 25^th, 2022 at 1:57pm

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:32pm:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why are NASA liars? You tell me?

You finally got there. Grin

From NASA - Reference

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I guess you didn't read or didn't understand that paper. I will quote for you.

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Now for the hard part -
Part 1 - 4014/11944 = 33.6% not 97%. This is what supported some warming not thermageddon.

Part2 - 2412/11944 = 20.1% not 97%

Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #54 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:00pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:57pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 1:32pm:

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Why are NASA liars? You tell me?

You finally got there. Grin

From NASA - Reference

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

I guess you didn't read or didn't understand that paper. I will quote for you.

"Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Now for the hard part -
Part 1 - 4014/11944 = 33.6% not 97%. This is what supported some warming not thermageddon.

Part2 - 2412/11944 = 20.1% not 97%

Grin

Explain why you claim NASA is lying about maths, and you didn't just not understand it?

Back to top

IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 21516 Gender:	Re: a green future means more mines Reply #55 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:02pm FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:00pm: Explain why you claim NASA is lying about maths, and you didn't just not understand it? Because I read it. Now we know you really didn't do any STEM subjects. They say what their results were. The only way to get to the 97% was to exlcude most of the papers.
Back to top	IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #56 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:04pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:02pm:

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:00pm:

Explain why you claim NASA is lying about maths, and you didn't just not understand it?

Because I read it. Now we know you really didn't do any STEM subjects. They say what their results were. The only way to get to the 97% was to exlcude most of the papers. Grin

Read the smacking question. Why is NASA lying about math?

I didn't do any uni at all, I left school after year 11. I taught myself software development. I read a lot of books on science because I can follow them, but I have no formal qualifications. *shrug*

Back to top

IP Logged

thegreatdivide

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics<br
/>

Posts: 15655
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #57 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:05pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 12:57pm:

And? Are you positing theories are facts? Roll Eyes

As widely accepted scientific theory.

Quote:

And still not PROVEN.

But a reasonable theory to proceed with, to explain the world by observation.

Quote:

Really. If there is a consensus on the "disputed rate of change" why do the climate models vary from about 5.8C/doubling down to about 2.0/doubling? That's a 250% spread.

Nevertheless the AGW -CO2 theory remains intact,

BREAKING: In a landmark case, the high court of Massachusetts just ruled 7-0 that Exxon must face trial for deceiving the public over climate change. What happens when judges act with integrity.

Huge step toward justice. Great precedent for the planet.👊
https://reuters.com/business/energy/exxon-must-face-massachusetts-climate-change
-lawsuit-court-rules-2022-05-24/

Quote:

You didn't look did you?

"1974 – 1975 summer fire season

(defined as October 1974 to February 1975 in Queensland only) 1974-75 Australian bushfire season[d]

New South Wales
Northern Territory
Queensland
South Australia
Western Australia

117,000,000 290,000,00"

That was usually dry areas all around Oz burning, not the entire GDR burning, including the usually wet tropical rain-forest at the same time.

Quote:

1940 to 1980 is not pre-history. That's about 40 years. Remember the WMO says Climate is the average of 30 years. There is too much variation for any trend. Roll Eyes

From 1850 to now, the trend is there.

Quote:

Oh you denier you. Didn't you hear about the global cooling scare? There are plenty of scientific papers that said it.

Not from 1850 to now.

Quote:

What would that do emit under a national basis? Grin

Enable planned exit from the fossil industry ASAP beginning NOW, rather than waiting for the private polluters to work out how to maximize their profits while pretending to transition.

Quote:

Oh yes. You favfourite like a dog returning to its vomit. "Every situation has an engineering solution". Grin

Er...energy production IS an engineering problem.

Quote:

IF renewables, which you say are so cheap, why is this not happening right now?

because we are a market economy, and the private sector is conflicted... A Shell spokesman came up with this double-speak recently: "We have to keep exploiting fossils, to make the profits to enable funding of the transition to green".

Quote:

I mean we have the technology. Perhaps it is like Warren Buffet says - "the only treason to build wind farms is the subsidies"

Buffett is invested in fossils. But yes, without nationalization, the conflicted self-interested fossil industry will argue against subsidies which would allow renewables to compete. Renewables are more expensive only until the transmission and storage infrastructure is built.

Quote:

Another one of your ridiculous statements with no verification attached. Grin

The link was provided, coal ash rectification is a major problem in poor India.

Quote:

Yes. Did they stop the drills? Stop the sales of the leases? Anything?

No. That's why Caroline Dennet resigned.

Quote:

Yes. And it has happened before. Read about some of the Indian famines. Roll Eyes

And ACW-CO2 theory says it is and will continue getting worse.

Quote:

Nope. The greatest problem is transport. Read about the amount of wastage in India alone.

A minute part of the problem. The floods in Oz and ten year droughts will need expensive mitigating policies, going forward.

Quote:

It happens on Australia also.

No kidding, and getting worse, according the AGW-CO2 theory.

Quote:

https://www.chintan-india.org/sites/default/files/2019-09/Food%20waste%20in%20In...
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov/24/bad-weather-set-to-wipe-b...

[quote]Now all you have to do is confront your own blindness at every turn. Grin

Acceptance of AGW - CO2 theory is not blindness, it is taking account of the work of scientists.

Acceptance of your self-interested "invisible hand" market economy as an adequate ideology in an environmentally constrained global economy IS blindness.

Quote:

Strangely BoM don't mention that one. Merely 2017-2019.

What. didn't the BOM see Rudd digging mud from houses in Brisbane in the 2011 disaster?

Quote:

So once again you make stuff up.

Presumably your link mentions the 'Millennium Drought also (2001-9)

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21516
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #58 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm

FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:04pm:

Read the smacking question. Why is NASA lying about math?

Oh dear. Now you think I am a mind reader. Grin

.
FutureTheLeftWant wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:04pm:

I didn't do any uni at all, I left school after year 11. I taught myself software development. I read a lot of books on science because I can follow them, but I have no formal qualifications. *shrug*

I left after year 10 but did STEM up till then and did an electronics apprenticeship. I was also a tax advisor. It doesn't stop people learning.

From their original paper -

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So they got their results from only looking at the papers that suited their purpose. That is not how science is done.

Back to top

IP Logged

FutureTheLeftWant

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6625
Gender: male

Re: a green future means more mines
Reply #59 - May 25^th, 2022 at 2:23pm

lee wrote on May 25^th, 2022 at 2:21pm:

I left after year 10 but did STEM up till then and did an electronics apprenticeship. I was also a tax advisor. It doesn't stop people learning.

From their original paper -

"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

So they got their results from only looking at the papers that suited their purpose. That is not how science is done.

This literally says they worked out who believes AGW is real by only reading papers that took a position at all.

Tax you say?

Back to top

IP Logged