Climate Change in Australia (Part 2)

How stupid / deliberately naive would you have to be to write this?

In case it’s just stupid glaciers don’t form overnight because a giant amount of water decided to suddenly freeze in place

bm007, a guy who no longer posts here, once either posted or pm’d me a photo, which I assumed was real, of an old dead tree that was stuck in many layers of sediment, representing hundreds of thousands of years, to disprove an old earth/universe.
I’m sure there’s a rational explanation for it, but I must admit that had my layman’s mind flummoxed and still does.

1 Like

You are impressively shameless in your “inability” to answer a simple question.

1 Like

I feel like I’m missing something here…mainly due to my judicious use of the ignore facility.

3 Likes

Self described farmer who takes his brunch hour to troll climate change doomists on footy forum. Takes all kinds to make up this deeply underwhelming club

ah so you are a denialist then.

The word “agree” is the answer, eg the fossil fuel industry ARE guilty of propaganda just like the doomsters

So who is the driving force behind this campaign? And what is their purpose?

So let’s look at the ‘what if I’m wrong’ question - for both sides.

If those seeking action on climate change are wrong, we will a little over-zealously slow down our use of non-renewable fossil fuels and encourage more than really needed the acceleration of renewable options. We might stop some land clearing tgat coukd have gone ahead without climate concerns. We might rein in economic growth that could otherwise have existed, and maybe that will result in a drop in population growth and corporate profits.

If climate change denialists are wrong, we as a species (or ecosystem as we know it) are probably toast by the time out great grandkids are trying to figure out what to do about the results of our inaction.

Given that we are on a global growth curve that - without some form of abatement - will end up with (excluding extinction before this happens) a person per square foot of dirt on the planet and no resources left, there just may be some merit in considering slowing down the carousel. Quite apart from climate impact risks.

To be fair, climate action might just be delaying the inevitable given where we seem to be, but I’d probably vote for a chance for great grand-kids above maybe having no chance, based on the ‘what if each side might be wrong’ considerations.

It might just be me, but anything else seems like being a selfish prick.

6 Likes

Yes, perpetual ‘growth’ under current capitalism is unsustainable. Changing our ways sooner rather than later makes for an easier transition. But, I don’t think most people are thinking much about their grandkids or great-grandkids in their day-to-day decisions and actions. We’re a selfish and greedy animal like no other, despite our intelligence.

4 Likes

Good post, I agree with the premise and 90% of the content. But I also need to be finicky with some particulars

We’re already past this point. Excluding desert areas and Siberians wastes, humans are directly affecting roughly 75% of total land mass on Earth. Wild animal populations are at roughly 60% of what they were in the 1970s. Combined with the deforestation and topsoil degradation that’s happening, land clearing is a problem which needs arresting outside of it’s impacts on climate change.

Economic growth was never a sacrifice we needed to make on the alter of environmental sustainability. I would argue that the more equitable distribution of resources possible with renewable energy would lead to greater economic prosperity. Everyone has direct access to sunlight and wind for just two examples. That it’s not profitable enough for big business is more or less the only major hurdle for meaningful transition and why it didn’t occur decades ago.

3 Likes

Yeah fair - I probably should have said growth in the same old entrenched interested-party controlled parts of a doomed economy. Or something.

1 Like

Then you’d be considered “biased.” :sweat_smile:

But it’s important to discuss these talking points, even if they were debunked in 2001.

Some might well argue that there is no intelligent life on Earth.

My dog begs to differ

2 Likes

2 Likes

Which campaign

Been looking into the milankovitch cycles and it seems we’ve contributed to a spike in global temperature that is much more rapid than normal.

But also based on the icehouse age we’re in and the fact we’ve been coming out of ab interglacial period, this spike in temperature might delay the next ice-age, extinction period. Obviously we need to bring our impact under control, but maybe there’s also something positive at play too.

It also seems the Earth is very good at regulating itself and adapting. After all, there have been periods where average temperature is 6 degrees higher than it is now.

It’s likely everything works out. It’s also possible the planet destroys us all within a few hundred years. I’m banking on “she’ll be right”

1 Like

if by contributed you mean contributed tens of times more than the natural effect the sun has had on the earth, 100% agree

Let’s hope you personally are there to collect in a few hundred years….