The Australian politics thread

[Craig]

I'm not surprised that Copenhagen failed at all, it was a load of crap to begin with.

[Matt79]

Would say the massive economic and hence political vested short term interests in ignoring the consequences of our (in)actions had more to do with the lack of a result than the ideas being crap tbh.

[Craig]

I'm no scientist and I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I would encourage someone to do so, but how is it possible to stop temperatures from raising a maximum two degrees like the politicans wanted to do in their little chit chat in Copenhagen? Last time I checked I thought that was controlled by the sun, and that is something we don't have a dial for to control how hot or cold it gets. What if the temperature raises for example raises three degrees, what are they going to do? Cop out and say they can't control nature? Why is the highest (widely accepted that is) temperature recorded in Australia, in Cloncurry is 53.1 °C, recorded in 1889, before we had cars, planes, computers etc.? Why in the 1970's there were concerns of a Global Cooling period? Whilst it was never actually scientifically proven, from what I have read that is, that there was a global cooling period, as in the plant cooling, articles appeared in popular media to suggest that it was the case. Newsweek had an article in 1975, and it stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.". It appears to me that the earth goes through global temperature cycles.

As for the Coral off the Great Barrier Reef, that has been around for millions of years right? And that would of adapted when the temperature raised or there was a reduction in temperature, right? So why has it survived so far and will suddenly die if the sea temperature raises? And why didn't the coral die off in the 50's, 60's, 70's when big industry was taking off?

FTR I don't see myself as "skeptic" or a "realist", or anything like that, nor do I have any ties to any political party, and I do care for the environment. I'm just an individual who wants to learn to make the most informed decision I can, not what Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama's spin doctors tell me.

[Ausage]

Originally Posted by Craig

I'm no scientist and I'm happy to be proven wrong, and I would encourage someone to do so, but how is it possible to stop temperatures from raising a maximum two degrees like the politicans wanted to do in their little chit chat in Copenhagen? Last time I checked I thought that was controlled by the sun, and that is something we don't have a dial for to control how hot or cold it gets. What if the temperature raises for example raises three degrees, what are they going to do? Cop out and say they can't control nature? Why is the highest (widely accepted that is) temperature recorded in Australia, in Cloncurry is 53.1 °C, recorded in 1889, before we had cars, planes, computers etc.? Why in the 1970's there were concerns of a Global Cooling period? Whilst it was never actually scientifically proven, from what I have read that is, that there was a global cooling period, as in the plant cooling, articles appeared in popular media to suggest that it was the case. Newsweek had an article in 1975, and it stated "The evidence in support of these predictions [of global cooling] has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.". It appears to me that the earth goes through global temperature cycles.

As for the Coral off the Great Barrier Reef, that has been around for millions of years right? And that would of adapted when the temperature raised or there was a reduction in temperature, right? So why has it survived so far and will suddenly die if the sea temperature raises? And why didn't the coral die off in the 50's, 60's, 70's when big industry was taking off?

FTR I don't see myself as "skeptic" or a "realist", or anything like that, nor do I have any ties to any political party, and I do care for the environment. I'm just an individual who wants to learn to make the most informed decision I can, not what Kevin Rudd or Barack Obama's spin doctors tell me.

It's not the spin doctors you should be listening to. The politicians have only gotten behind global warming because it has penetrated the public conciousness on the back of a broad agreement for the phenomenon from within the scientific community.

The question isn't whether or not the Earth is warming. It is. The only issue that is seriously debated is whether this period of warming is a natural one, or a period caused by the increase in carbon emissions due to humankinds activity on the planet. The theory in laymans terms (and as a layman I'd appreciate any corrections to my understanding of the issue, SS?) is that the Earth is under the influence of a greenhouse effect, which is a proveable, reproduceable phenomenon. Co2 is a gas that can create a greenhouse effect, and the increases in temperatures correlates with how much the level of man made carbon emissions would increase temperatures under said greenhouse effect.

AFAIK the main point of contention is how much reducing our emissions would affect the rise in temperatures. Would cutting emissions by 50% lower the projected rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees? Would cutting them by 20% lower them to a 3 degree rise? That's much more difficult to predict, so there's alot of argument around just how much we should do to fix the problem.

[howardj]

No point in having a follow-up conference at the end of next year in Mexico.

According to Emperor Rudd - Copenhagen was our one chance, to act now.

The world has missed that chance, and now we're all doomed.

Or will he come up with a new artificial deadline...

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Ausage

It's not the spin doctors you should be listening to. The politicians have only gotten behind global warming because it has penetrated the public conciousness on the back of a broad agreement for the phenomenon from within the scientific community.

The question isn't whether or not the Earth is warming. It is. The only issue that is seriously debated is whether this period of warming is a natural one, or a period caused by the increase in carbon emissions due to humankinds activity on the planet. The theory in laymans terms (and as a layman I'd appreciate any corrections to my understanding of the issue, SS?) is that the Earth is under the influence of a greenhouse effect, which is a proveable, reproduceable phenomenon. Co2 is a gas that can create a greenhouse effect, and the increases in temperatures correlates with how much the level of man made carbon emissions would increase temperatures under said greenhouse effect.

AFAIK the main point of contention is how much reducing our emissions would affect the rise in temperatures. Would cutting emissions by 50% lower the projected rise in temperatures to 1.5 degrees? Would cutting them by 20% lower them to a 3 degree rise? That's much more difficult to predict, so there's alot of argument around just how much we should do to fix the problem.

But I want to know they plan to cap temperature raises by up to 2 degrees. I would like some of the science guys like Corey and SS to answer my questions.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Craig

But I want to know they plan to cap temperature raises by up to 2 degrees. I would like some of the science guys like Corey and SS to answer my questions.

It's debateable.



Personally believe the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is overstated somewhat. That said, a 2 degree increase would be a massive change to our climate. Think they who went to the conference are hedging that the deniers will win.

I'm a bit out of the loop these days, though. The debate still seems to go along the lines of which scientific discipline you followed. The chemists (which I was), focussed on the micro, would say "MY GOD, ONE CHLORINE RADICAL CAN DESTROY 40 000 O3 MOLECULES! THE END IS NIGH!!" while the rock jockeys (geologists), a more macro science, would say "You guys are panicking over nothing! No way are the bazillions of equilibria in the atmosphere going to be affected by small-scale reactions. Climate n00bs.". The physicists would say "What? Who are you? Repossessors? Hey come back with my laser! I swear, my grant is coming through next week!", the biologists would say "What's carbon dioxide?" and the plant biologists would sit in the corner occasionally asking for water.

The truth is somewhere between those extremes, I think.

[Samuel_Vimes]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

Personally believe the role of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is overstated somewhat.

What about CH4?

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Samuel_Vimes

What about CH4?

I fart in your general direction.

[social]

Like some of you guys, I'm no scientist but it's pretty much a given that

a. Polar caps etc are melting leading to rise in sea levels, degradation of habitat etc

b. There are a couple of massive holes in the ozone layer that bring their own dangers

c. Weather conditions are changing in some areas (less rain/more rain/violent storms, etc)

I have no idea what is causing it but we do need to take steps to address the situation

However, chucking billions in compensation at the thirld world is not the answer as history shows that such actions will only serve to create a bigger divide between the haves and have nots in those countries

[Redbacks]

The lack of success at Copenhagen has brought the skeptics out of the woods.

Was hundreds of officials from each country going to a conference vowing to do best for "my people" and "my backyard" really going to make a deal on an issue which requires a different mode of thinking?

Our best chance in Aus for some action is an early election and the Liberals to get thumped.

[Craig]

And that is why having a bunch of politicans trying to deal with the issue is a bad idea when they have their own self interest at heart. Kevin Rudd talks a good game when it comes to global warming so he can get re-elected next year. They are just a bunch of cock sucking wankers.

[James90]

That's democracy. Find me a better system or just accept that government doing what's best for the people will invariably be rewarded with re-election.

[social]

Originally Posted by James90

That's democracy. Find me a better system or just accept that government doing what's best for the people will invariably be rewarded with re-election.

Hope you're kidding!

On the application form for a job as a politician, there are the following questions

1. Are you a good liar?

If "yes", got to question 2

If "no", dont bother as this job is not good for you

2. Will you do/say/etc anything to get re-elected and have no problems backing down on that commitment?

If "yes", go to question 3

If "no", dont bother as this job is not good for you

Etc etc

In general, politicians are pond scum with the gift of the gab

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by Top_Cat

The debate still seems to go along the lines of which scientific discipline you followed. The chemists (which I was), focussed on the micro, would say "MY GOD, ONE CHLORINE RADICAL CAN DESTROY 40 000 O3 MOLECULES! THE END IS NIGH!!" while the rock jockeys (geologists), a more macro science, would say "You guys are panicking over nothing! No way are the bazillions of equilibria in the atmosphere going to be affected by small-scale reactions. Climate n00bs.". The physicists would say "What? Who are you? Repossessors? Hey come back with my laser! I swear, my grant is coming through next week!", the biologists would say "What's carbon dioxide?" and the plant biologists would sit in the corner occasionally asking for water.

The truth is somewhere between those extremes, I think.

Made me laugh.