Climate change wankers
@AndyM…assume you fully understand not only the process but the outcomes of the climate change science - thats fine, since we are not all expected to. Thats for others to explain to us the complex science and convince us of the probability and reliability of their outcomes. Ok, next phase, what do you propose should be done about it. The role of the Chief Scientist is exactly that role - to advise the government of such matters. If you agree, then spend time to understand where our currently technologies are at. Where our current engineering solutions are at, Where the understanding of the science of these solutions is at. As Dr Finkel suggested maybe in 50 years or more (at least several decades), we will have suitable 'clean' energy sources which (we hope) will solve the problems suggested by this climate change debate. Hence the Royal Commission in SA. But for many of the 'doom' believers of climate change, it cannot be so critical. Im more interested in the solutions. Not sure why party politics was mentioned above as it is not relevant really. At this stage, I do not believe we have the knowledge of this space earth to the detail where we are predicting temperature increases of such magnitude 100 years from now. Regardless, we won't be here but we are supposed to provide solution(s). If you have the solutions then sure - all aboard.
By way of pre-empting shatnersbassoon:
braudulio wrote:By way of pre-empting shatnersbassoon:
Brings a tear to the eye...
Tony, simply putting a price on pollution so that the market economy can do its job accurately would be a big start.
Edit *more* accurately
@tb I'll keep hammering this point because it's the reality of not only the climate change situation but it's the reality of living on this planet. People in developed countries, individuals, you and I need to take a drastic cut to our lifestyles first and foremost, if we don't one way or another it will be forced upon us. Energy is just a single component of this, resources inculding food and water imo are going to be more important in the overall equation. Change your consumption habits, change your diet, grow a garden.
So a survey out today says only 28% of Liberal voters believe climate change is caused by human activity.
It saddens me to think we share this planet with such delusional self absorbed morons who refuse to open their eyes to the facts. Most of the doubters on this thread don't even understand the difference between climate and weather and if they posted their comments on a serious scientific forum would be shot down in flames by people a lot smarter than all of us put together.
Tim:
"No one in their wildest imagination, including economists and business people, ever imagined the possibility of a technology revolution so extreme in its productivity that it could actually reduce marginal costs to near zero, making products nearly free, abundant and absolutely no longer subject to market forces."
"He believes there is a paradox operating here, which is that over consumption results from our fear of scarcity, so will go away when we know we can have what we want.
"Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake."
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/07/radical-new-...
We already know that money has a diminishing marginal return after the basics of life are covered, the technology is coming to cover those basics at or near zero marginal cost via extreme efficiencies.
braudulio wrote:By way of pre-empting shatnersbassoon:
there's a line in here somewhere linking Tony Barber, family feudin', and ICE!
...and wasn't the current little host a weather-dude to boot?!
uncanny!
you do the meth, erm math!
C'mon Fella's lets stick to the topic/ meme ......
Don't worry though , I've saved you some time .
I've homogenised , re-created and corrected the errors , you'll notice a little " lift " in the outcome.
mk1 wrote:Tim:
"No one in their wildest imagination, including economists and business people, ever imagined the possibility of a technology revolution so extreme in its productivity that it could actually reduce marginal costs to near zero, making products nearly free, abundant and absolutely no longer subject to market forces."
"He believes there is a paradox operating here, which is that over consumption results from our fear of scarcity, so will go away when we know we can have what we want.
"Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake."
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/07/radical-new-...
We already know that money has a diminishing marginal return after the basics of life are covered, the technology is coming to cover those basics at or near zero marginal cost via extreme efficiencies.
That's a great article mk1 thanks for posting, these are the sort of ideas that need to be explored in this discussion for sure. The current paradigm of circular arguments about energy production will lead to nowhere fast. as mentioned in the article it will depend on a few important plays like net neutrality but it will also depend on how well we treat particular resources in the near future. If water resources are further degraded (and there are others) then this is nothing more than wishful thinking.
tred to stay out..and I will but
Benski you are a shit dribbler, every comment is an essay, you may know your idealism but you have spent the last 3 pages at least arguing with sheepie.. but you have no prac..another typical over educated socially immature scientist..all theory no prac.
What exactly have you stated? Fucking dribble..What part of you dribble is actually usefull? to the real world? thermaldynamics?
Farrk off..another essay of trying to prove you beat sheepie?
No offence mate, if your so smart and know your shit you got mowed or sucked in.
You and Blindboy sit behind your computer screens and beat off over the next graph or model.
All scientists are based on their own beliefs and are biased in their opinions..hell even your own think that!
I could teach you more about the climate that any book can..you and blindcock.
If you care to stop playing world of Warcraft or Halo and want to hang out in the driest state on the driest continent on earth and tell me what the climate is doing then you invite is neverending!
other than that ..this forum is just a good way to let of steam
tim foilat wrote:mk1 wrote:Tim:
"No one in their wildest imagination, including economists and business people, ever imagined the possibility of a technology revolution so extreme in its productivity that it could actually reduce marginal costs to near zero, making products nearly free, abundant and absolutely no longer subject to market forces."
"He believes there is a paradox operating here, which is that over consumption results from our fear of scarcity, so will go away when we know we can have what we want.
"Millennials are already seeing through the false notion that the more we accumulate, the more we are autonomous and free. It seems they are more interested in developing networks and joining the sharing economy than in consumption for consumption’s sake."
http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/nov/07/radical-new-...
We already know that money has a diminishing marginal return after the basics of life are covered, the technology is coming to cover those basics at or near zero marginal cost via extreme efficiencies.
That's a great article mk1 thanks for posting, these are the sort of ideas that need to be explored in this discussion for sure. The current paradigm of circular arguments about energy production will lead to nowhere fast. as mentioned in the article it will depend on a few important plays like net neutrality but it will also depend on how well we treat particular resources in the near future. If water resources are further degraded (and there are others) then this is nothing more than wishful thinking. I won't take many Fukushima's to make sure of that.
The whole article was fantastical.
And that wasn't a compliment.
well that was a big day on the swellnet forum yesterday finished off by barley's incoherent comment at 10.42pm. barley you really shouldn't logon after a night on the piss .......... some notable contributions during the day tho, no not talking about you Tones, you're more predictable in your commentary than fishing for flathead .... bahahahhhaa .... it seems a few more are on to your ways these days boyo. hey sheepy, want to pick a vicco weather station to prove your case than pick weeaproinah, wettest place in vicco in the otways. loving your work benski, keep it up. grown men quoting frozen ???? wtf.
barley wrote:tred to stay out..and I will but
Benski you are a shit dribbler, every comment is an essay, you may know your idealism but you have spent the last 3 pages at least arguing with sheepie.. but you have no prac..another typical over educated socially immature scientist..all theory no prac.
What exactly have you stated? Fucking dribble..What part of you dribble is actually usefull? to the real world? thermaldynamics?
Farrk off..another essay of trying to prove you beat sheepie?
No offence mate, if your so smart and know your shit you got mowed or sucked in.
You and Blindboy sit behind your computer screens and beat off over the next graph or model.
All scientists are based on their own beliefs and are biased in their opinions..hell even your own think that!
I could teach you more about the climate that any book can..you and blindcock.
If you care to stop playing world of Warcraft or Halo and want to hang out in the driest state on the driest continent on earth and tell me what the climate is doing then you invite is neverending!
other than that ..this forum is just a good way to let of steam
Barley, you're really not very bright, and apparently a prick as well.
You couldn't teach a dog to sit.
Thanks for patiently being the butt of the jokes on this forum.
AndyM wrote:Barley, you're really not very bright, and apparently a prick as well. You couldn't teach a dog to sit. Thanks for patiently being the butt of the jokes on this forum.
Every global village needs an idiot and Barley's got the gong.
Warooka mindset
I cant fucking lose..please explain how all you climate change uni educated humans are helping save the world? Love to hear it!!
Please tell me your six years of taxpayer-funded education has infact helped the earth from over heating?
floyd wrote:grown men quoting frozen ???? wtf.
Was just trying to get to the level of the target audience, apologies if it went over your head.
And who are you calling a grown man?
@barley, think you'll find Antarctica is the driest continent on earth. But hey what would I know, I got some of that edumakachin when I was a little tacker and I think it muddled up me noggin.
braudulio wrote:floyd wrote:grown men quoting frozen ???? wtf.
Was just trying to get to the level of the target audience, apologies if it went over your head.
And who are you calling a grown man?
Worked for me, I was a blubbering wreck!
Lot of vitriol, lot of fluff. Interesting to see how some suggest to change one's way of life. Good luck telling that to the Chinese or Indians. But it's telling that there are no constructive solutions. I can fully understand if anyone was unable to follow Benski's contributions but then we have Dr Finkel to assist. It is noted that Benski himself also was unwilling to contribute to 'solutions'. Unfortunately this topic has become 'religious'. If you truly think you need to do something, then get your self solar panels and a new car. (I hear VWs are going cheap).
tonybarber wrote:Lot of vitriol, lot of fluff. Interesting to see how some suggest to change one's way of life. Good luck telling that to the Chinese or Indians. But it's telling that there are no constructive solutions. I can fully understand if anyone was unable to follow Benski's contributions but then we have Dr Finkel to assist. It is noted that Benski himself also was unwilling to contribute to 'solutions'. Unfortunately this topic has become 'religious'. If you truly think you need to do something, then get your self solar panels and a new car. (I hear VWs are going cheap).
Tones, if you had trouble following Benski's posts I sincerely suggest you put aside a couple of hours per week and sign up for an adult literacy course.
I really mean this, it'll change your life.
Benski said it plain and simple, he's not here so much for the issue, he's here to defend the science - and the science is extremely defensible.
If you think that relates to religion i.e. "faith", then you need to do more night courses than I first suggested, maybe take a logic course as well.
.
..
C'mon Aussie c'mon, c'mon
And we off to a flyer today ....
braudulio, you're right, on one level we never grow up but who says we have to?
tonybarber wrote:Lot of vitriol, lot of fluff. Interesting to see how some suggest to change one's way of life. Good luck telling that to the Chinese or Indians. But it's telling that there are no constructive solutions. I can fully understand if anyone was unable to follow Benski's contributions but then we have Dr Finkel to assist. It is noted that Benski himself also was unwilling to contribute to 'solutions'. Unfortunately this topic has become 'religious'. If you truly think you need to do something, then get your self solar panels and a new car. (I hear VWs are going cheap).
Tb, um India and China aren't developed countries, please make some attempts to read the posts and understand them. I'll repeat for you, people in developed countries need to address the nature of their consumption, by choice or by circumstance this will happen. These notions seem as difficult to understand for you old fellas as it is for you to understand the changing nature of economics addressed in the article mk1 posted. Consider this, how can an economic system that relies on constant growth continue indefinitely within a system of finite resources?
floyd wrote:And we off to a flyer today ....
braudulio, you're right, on one level we never grow up but who says we have to?
no one says we have to grow up floyd, certainly not me.
but if you (not necessarily you personally) behave like a bunch of squabbling kids arguing over whose colouring in is the best then that's how you deserve to be treated.
Timo...there over 200 million people living in a modern China consuming way more than us 'old fellas'.
If we are to reduce CO2 then maybe China and India with over 800 coal stations (from an estimated) 1200 can help. This debate is emotional as we can see so let's see if some answer pop up. Benski is happy to explain the science and it's process. Sheepdog does not want nuclear - fair enough. I would suggest dams - water plus power.
Tb, that is a strawman argument. People in developed countries consume (not just energy) at a greater rate than people in undeveloped countries.
Secondly, these countries,are very much on the way to reducing their co2 outputs, but this is one part of the equation, I'm specifically talking about general consumption.
Dams, as in hydro electric and water storage sure these are important, important in regions where rainfall are adequate, horses for courses, damming the murray/darling system for instance has bee a distasteful and continues to be not only from an environmental perspective but also from an agricultural perspective.
Nuclear relies on a finite resource and is dangerous. Large tracts of land and ocean have been damaged and are unusable as well uninhabitable, proliferation of nuclear is increasing the likelihood of repeating these situations. Nuclear waste is not being dealt with, it stockpiles in areas away from high populations, this isn't a sustainable industry.
A key to a real solution is a price on pollution. At the moment the market system fails because negative externalities are not embedded in the price of the item. So the market does not get a true price for the good, which is "apparently" one of the foundations an effective, functioning, market. It's interesting how much the government works on creating effective markets (ACCC) but recoils on this topic. It's been a hugely divisive issue in Australia but the economics are fundamentally sound.
Blowin - 3 points to consider:
1. Once digitised, an item is replicatable essentially for free (zero marginal cost)
2. Computing power, the foundation of digital technology progress, doesn't move linearly but exponentially. The wider implication of Moore's law is that if something is digitised it can spend years improving slowly below the standard of existing technology before breaking out very quickly.
3. The race is on to digitise everything.
May be fantastical, and who knows what the outcome will be. Only time will tell!
Old dog.... You write ;
"Most of the doubters on this thread don't even understand the difference between climate and weather"
Climate............
Oxford dictionary - "The weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period:
our cold, wet climate"
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/climate
Cambridge Dictionary - "the general weather conditions usually found in a particular place"
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/climate
Merriam Webster Dictionary - "a region with particular weather patterns or conditions: the usual weather conditions in a particular place or region
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/climate
So please enlighten us to the specific difference between climate and weather, apart from the fact that all major dictionaries of the world state that climate is just basically the noun to describe prevailing WEATHER conditions over a period of time........ Eg Tasmania's climate is a lot colder than the Northern Territory...... Climate and weather are intrinsically linked......
"So please enlighten us to the specific difference between climate and weather"
"climate is just basically the noun to describe prevailing WEATHER conditions OVER A PERIOD TIME"
Question = answered
tim foilat wrote:Nuclear relies on a finite resource and is dangerous. Large tracts of land and ocean have been damaged and are unusable as well uninhabitable, proliferation of nuclear is increasing the likelihood of repeating these situations. Nuclear waste is not being dealt with, it stockpiles in areas away from high populations, this isn't a sustainable industry.
....so what?....let it stockpile. the 'stockpile' you speak of is actually quite small physically - that's just the nature of nuclear. we can do this for a period (not forever of course & so yes its not strickly sustainable) and who knows, maybe (likely) we find a way of properly dealing with the waste into the future. as they say , necessity is the mother of invention.
as for nuclear being "dangerous". well considering that fukoshima was the first major accident in nearly 30 years I reckon that not too bad a record. and these are older technology reactors too. granted there has been more frequent smaller scale accidents resulting in individual loss of lives, so we cannot discount the risk & all risks can be managed. but now china is already investing in safer fission fuels and reactor technologies that limit the ability for runaway reaction & have less than 1/2 the waste products. thorium is the name that pops in my head. its new though and needs investment to get it up.
to be honest, unless Australia adopts nuclear as an interim soln while we continue to move away from fossil fuels to renewables then we as a nation will economically fall behind and Australia will be a shit place to live. does "sustainability" trump everything else? I dont think so. nuclear has to be considered as a stepping stone for a period of the next 50 to 100 years while we find ways to economically become "clean", and of all countries that could safely support nuclear, surely we are one. not to mention that we have about 30% of the worlds nuclear fuel sitting right here in SA.
nuclear proliferation will continue to grow worldwide....not because people 'want it' but because we ' need it'.
There isn't really any difference between the cost of large scale solar, wind and new nuclear or new coal anymore. The generation costs are actually cheaper for wind and large scale solar, even without a carbon cost on coal. BUT battery storage is a bitch.
Battery costs are being redifined right now. Its clear that wind and solar costs have dropped far quicker than anyone anticipated 5-10 years ago and batteries are about to do the same. The idea that we need a stepping stone via nuclear for 50 years was popular 5-10 years ago but is outdated due to improvements and efficiencies in wind and solar (thank you China!)
Edit: I have no real issue with new nuclear but the landscape is changing fast, it might only be 10 years before we can compare nuclear to "renewables + 20% margin" IE. would a nominal mark up on renewables be worth paying to avoid nuclear?
so happy what do you think about the idea that australua starts the nuclear fuel cycle by selling stuff they dig out of the ground. therefore we ate responsible for storing the waste from the end of the cycle.
ie. the waste that we really have no idea what to do with for hundreds of years while it becomes a little bit more safe, should all be ttransported around the globe back to oz, then transported thousands of kilometres rto the SA desert to be stored at billa kalina or whereever?
sounds like an incredibly energy intensive dangerous system to me, not to mention expensive
what sort of batteries are you talking about mk1....are we talking about home-off-the-grid solar setups, or are we talking about something else?
why would Australia have to be responsible for storing ALL of the waste from the nuclear fuel it exports and other countries use up? I don't go for that at all and I don't understand why that should be the case. is this some sort of philosophical question ?
Not sure what will come of it Happyass, just know the industry is being shaken up from a production point of view (Tesla) and also from a chemical component point of view (potassium-ion springs to mind). Mix that with smart grids (local or regional/national) automatically offsetting over and under supplies and there's the possibility for some big changes.
Current nuclear waste being used up in new generation reactors is quite interesting.
mk1 wrote:"So please enlighten us to the specific difference between climate and weather"
"climate is just basically the noun to describe prevailing WEATHER conditions OVER A PERIOD TIME"
Question = answered
Exactly..... So the difference you highlight is a red herring..... one is an egg.... One is a dozen eggs.... But they're all bloody eggs, maaaate....... lol
It's good some of you are finally discussing nuclear.... The hardcore climate change advocates need to get a grip on what some in their camp are really up to.... the whole thing reminds me of Gallipoli ..... The Kumbaya brigade landing on Flannery Beach.... They don't even realize they are a decoy for a bigger mission down at Neutron Hill..........
Don't worry about the skeptics.... Don't worry about agnostics like me..... Worry about your own nuclear trojans setting us up for the most dangerous world imaginable.....
Anyhooooooo, I gotta put some more Chinese imported Fuji Xerox a4 paper in the printer and so some shit..........
Sheepi, so you are saying that because someone doesn't know the specific weight of the next egg to come out of a chooks bum, he also can't tell what the likely weight of a pack of 12 eggs is to any confidence? Or, because we don't get east victoria right for 1 month (was that the case? hard to tell what came out of that in the end), we can't tell the trend for the next "winter"
Also, did you consider the overall confidence of weather forecasting or just 1 specific prediction in isolation?
Sheepdog wrote:It's good some of you are finally discussing nuclear.... The hardcore climate change advocates need to get a grip on what some in their camp are really up to.... the whole thing reminds me of Gallipoli ..... The Kumbaya brigade landing on Flannery Beach.... They don't even realize they are a decoy for a bigger mission down at Neutron Hill..........
Don't worry about the skeptics.... Don't worry about agnostics like me..... Worry about your own nuclear trojans setting us up for the most dangerous world imaginable.....
Anyhooooooo, I gotta put some more Chinese imported Fuji Xerox a4 paper in the printer and so some shit..........
Your theory that "the carpetbaggers might take advantage of the situation therefore it's a scam and the science is crap", is a bit off, don't you think?
I'm hearing lots of talk of sustainable energy and very little of nuclear; where are you getting your info from Sheepy?
And you're basing the definition of climate change out of a dictionary? Come on mate, you're better than that.
Best rain we've had in months.
Loving it , keeps the ticks down the nasty ones and keeps me from buying 12,000 litres for $280 .
Lucky I got an extra 33,0000 l tank onsite. Great investment IMO;)
wellymon wrote:Best rain we've had in months.
Loving it , keeps the ticks down the nasty ones and keeps me from buying 12,000 litres for $280 .
Lucky I got an extra 33,0000 l tank onsite. Great investment IMO;)
Bloody nice rain in Northern NSW!
200,000+ litres, full!
AndyM wrote:wellymon wrote:Best rain we've had in months.
Loving it , keeps the ticks down the nasty ones and keeps me from buying 12,000 litres for $280 .
Lucky I got an extra 33,0000 l tank onsite. Great investment IMO;)Bloody nice rain in Northern NSW!
200,000+ litres, full!
Nice Andy good to hear :)
Thats some litres champ.
Geez you must have some good roof area as well as holding tanks.
Now that's a climate change wanker eh;)
Oooops..........
not a philosophical question happy, just anticipating where this royal commission thingy will go. while tb and co. seem to hold high hopes for the commission, my guess it will just be another millions of dollars groundhog day study.
ie. it'll find nuclear power is too unpalatable for aussie voters, so the money men will push the waste dump argument as they did 10-15 years ago. when the capitalists couldn't win the public over with promises of buckets of cash for the apparently measly burden of stockpiling the worlds nuclear waste, they said Australia has a moral obligation to make the waste safe as we dug it up in the first place. while this argument has a little merit, it also has an easy solution...don't dig it up in the first place!
jay wetheral knows exactly where this commission is heading, it won't be about nuclear power in oz, or even climate change. as sheepdog has pointed out many times, climate change is the excuse for the pigs to spruik their lucrative products. digging the stuff up, and storing the waste for thousands of years in metal containers that only last for hundreds of years...apoarently we have a moral obligation to do so
http://principia-scientific.org/supportnews/latest-news/163-new-discover...
Now to all you fruit loops. This is the end to the biggest load bullshit of all time. The government know's it (but still won't say it ), the smart people like me know it. When will you clowns please apologise to me for your un-educated attacks.
To all the man made global warmest alarmist's suck shit losers.
Now go and do something worthwhile fuckwits.