In 1988 James Hansen addressed the US Senate warning of the danger of climate change. Ostensibly the world took notice in the Earth Summit at Rio and the establishment of the UNFCCC (UN Framework Convention on Climate Change) which meets in the Conference of Parties for two weeks in early December each year. It gave us the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. However, as I indicated in Four graphs that matter in the climate emergency: bonus edition, the effect on rising CO2 emissions is invisible:
-
Greta Thunberg, the girl who can’t quit, said:
- The emissions are increasing and that is the only thing that matters.
This is what was shown for July 01, 2019 at Muana Loa:
The Guardian has gone further with Why are people striking? The climate crisis explained in 10 charts.
Google tells me that life expectancy in Australia is 82.5 years at birth, above the OECD average of 80.6 years. On average people born now will be alive in 2100.
Some senior scientists, for example, Johan Rockström, newly appointed director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told The Guardian that
- in a 4°C-warmer world: “It’s difficult to see how we could accommodate a billion people or even half of that… There will be a rich minority of people who survive with modern lifestyles, no doubt, but it will be a turbulent, conflict-ridden world.” Rockström is one of the world’s leading researchers on climate “tipping points” and “safe boundaries” for humanity.
In those circumstances the equatorial regions of the planet could become uninhabitable, and much of rest desert.
We badly need to recognise that we are stealing our children’s future. We can say we are sorry, but sorry only matters if we are willing to make restitution, to restore the future we have stolen.
Andrew Gliksen has seen no evidence that anyone in political office is addressing the situation with the necessary urgency. I can say that much is going on at the subterranean level within Labor, but we’ve just had an election where the climate emergency got sidetracked into peripheral issues. Policy review takes time, especially when you’ve, as Mark Butler said, had your backside handed to you by a muppet show.
Nothing positive can be said about the Scott Morrison government’s overall effort where Morrison will be in New York, but Australia in one country banned from speaking at UN climate change summit in ‘unprecedented’ rebuke.
There is no point in him going, and he doesn’t want to. The point of the meeting is that countries were always expected to increase their effort in 2020, whereas Morrison has made it perfectly clear that the present policy, based mainly on accounting tricks, will remain.
The leaves the independents and Greens. Gliksen says:
- In the Australian parliament this leaves the Greens and a couple of independents to worry about climate and the environment. Unfortunately the Greens, hoping to become a dominant “left wing” party, have significantly diluted their efforts on behalf of the climate with a wide range of progressive issues, oblivious to the fact that should efforts at mitigation and adaptation fail, so would all other worthwhile causes. Neither have they shown too much interest in explaining the science to the public.
It appears homo sapiens’ contradictions are catching up with it. The prospect of a hothouse Earth, presided on by ignorance, lies and greed, is rapidly emerging.
That may be a bit unfair to Zahli Steggall, who has just got her knees under the desk as it were.
Who then can blame the young, the Extinction Rebellion and others for hitting the streets?
Here is the School Strike link as to where to go. Numbers matter.
LEAN (Labor Environment Action Network) will be there. Unfortunately I have to be elsewhere, but I’ll get a first hand report from my dearly beloved partner in life.
Update:
It’s quite important to know exactly what people want when they protest on the streets. Apparently School Strike 4 Climate arte quite precise, although I had to Google and found the answer at The Guardian:
The Australia students have three demands for governments.
1. No new coal, oil and gas projects, including the Adani mine.
2. 100% renewable energy generation and exports by 2030.
3. Fund a just transition and job creation for all fossil-fuel workers and communities.
The third point is a new feature for the Australian movement and particularly important for these strikes.
The strong presence of workers at these strikes is about trying to end the pitting of climate action and the needs of the economy against each other. Instead, the young activists want constructive action to support workers in carbon-intensive industries as economies transition to net zero emissions.
I’ve just updated the post after hearing the students’ demands on the radio:
It’s quite important to know exactly what people want when they protest on the streets. Apparently School Strike 4 Climate are quite precise, although I had to Google and found the answer at The Guardian:
The Australia students have three demands for governments.
1. No new coal, oil and gas projects, including the Adani mine.
2. 100% renewable energy generation and exports by 2030.
3. Fund a just transition and job creation for all fossil-fuel workers and communities.
The third point is a new feature for the Australian movement and particularly important for these strikes.
The strong presence of workers at these strikes is about trying to end the pitting of climate action and the needs of the economy against each other. Instead, the young activists want constructive action to support workers in carbon-intensive industries as economies transition to net zero emissions.
Some students will fail exams because they went to the climate strike instead of sitting the exams. The attitude of some schools and pollies who are trying to say that kids would be better off going to school instead of campaigning for a future is a symptom of what is wrong.
I would suggest that none of them would turn a hair if the day off was because of a visit by the Queen, celebrating invasion day or….
Same.
Good advice for those who wish to protest and change the world.
On a more somber note one wonders how many of today’s protesters will die or be seriously disadvantaged as aresult of climate change. On the evidence available at the moment one can only suspect that it could be big mobs, very very big mobs. And that is only looking at what might happen to humans.
John, that last link doesn’t go anywhere.
I heard a young person say (10 years old I think), school is for the future. What’s the point of preparing for the future if there is no future?
Organisers were well-pleased with the reported 300,000, more than double last year.
They say that the people most changed by such rallies are the people who go to the rallies. As such it may energise the ‘movement’. Getting the hard heads in a position to make decisions to change is another matter.
My wife went, as she was on town for her regular Friday choir practice any way. Basically they walked across Victoria Bridge to Musgrave Park, where some speeches followed. She said it was hard to hear, but what she heard did not please her. It was the Aboriginal group who got dudded by the Adani mine paying out on the Palaszczuk government.
OK, but it’s debatable that the Qld Government had all that much to do with it. It was a federal matter, and the Environment Department who signed off in the end is meant to be acting as an EPA would in other states, independent of government.
Clearly it would be better if Qld had an EPA to avoid confusion.
And the event was sup[posed to about more than Adani.
Samantha Bee on a major contributing factor to our current situation.
Mother Jone’s worldwide pictures of the climate strike.
And how many students are there in Australia, over 3 million.
So less than 10% if they were all students, which they weren’t.
About the greens vote average.
A bit of a yawn really.
Grumpy Old Jumpy (GOJ): The polls say that a majority of Australians support climate action. But this doesn’t mean a majority of Australians would turn up for climate march. The people who march are the tip of the iceberg.
300,000 is an impressive number for any issue march. Even more so when this was part of a world wide protest.
Are you going to organize the “we want more coal fired power stations” marches just to put the kids in their place?
From zoot’s link – “Something drastic has to happen” Roger Hallam BBC Hardtalk.
I haven’t had time to watch it all yet.
My bet is the protests will build year by year. I know the Coalsheviks are a hard case, which is why they must be defeated.
After the monumental outrage now we get greasy glibness again.
If it is not pathological with these climate barbarians, what is it then? Senility, immaturity or are they idiots as per the original Greek meaning?
Nailed it Ootz!
James Hansen tells us that for every degree of warming sea level rise will be 20m on average, given time to reach stability.
To concentrate Jumpy’s mind I’ve had a look at how that plays out in Mackay, according to Firetree flood maps:
Of course Jumpy and the rest of us may be long gone, but that is our legacy, or worse.
Deluded Marxist Greenie, blood red socialist and former chief of defence forces, Admiral Chris Barrie said on The Drum “I saw today a picture taken of some coal being passed around at the Nationals’ evening… The Nationals seem to think climate change is a joke, and they should take heed of the kids who marched last Friday.”
Talkback Archdeacon and superior moral compass in dealing with women, Alan Jones dismisses the young climate strikers “ … you’re selfish, badly educated, virtue signalling little turds … wake up, grow up and shut up until you’re sure of the facts before protesting.”
Senator Abetz, God fearing and of staunch nationalistic stock, on the banning of climate barbarians in The Conversation: “Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedong couldn’t have put it better themselves. They’d be so proud … To so superciliously and arrogantly deny a voice to an alternative point of view is reminiscent of totalitarian regimes.”
Like advocating suicide, selling your grandmother and eating your children is a legit alternative point of view in civil society.
Brian,
That’s a very interesting graphic that I’ve seen before.
And to ease your mind, I don’t need my mind concentrate, I’ve see seen and heard all the dire predictions.
It just that there’s nothing you or I can do to change the inevitable.
Best thing we could do for our future generations it convince them to be in the top 10% of folk prepared for it.
No amount of demented vicious bile like ootz pedals will change anything either.
Jumpy:
One young Swedish girl can at least can be given credit for trying and convince others that it is worth trying instead of lying down like you are and hoping that SUMWUN else will fix things with a bit of help from the coal industry.
It seems Jumpy has reached Stage 5 of Climate Denial.
Or John, one Swedish girl with emotional and psychological issues has been frightened half to death and pushed into the limelight by her notoriety seeking actor parents for income opportunities.
That could the situation right ?
All the while reducing emissions by nothing.
You do know 2 of her minders on the yacht trip down here flew back making the co2 footprint more if you count the carbon emissions of the yacht trip + flights ?
Look, SUMWUN is not you, Brian, zoot/Mr Hyde, ootz or myself, it’s the dude that innovates an energy solution that the market overwhelmingly chooses over FF energy.
Bitching, moaning and name calling ain’t gunna gedit sorted and the solution the market overwhelmingly chooses isn’t here yet so hunker down is the best option.
Hey zoot/Mr Hyde, quickly go and turn your lights, PC and fridge off coz they’re burning co2 !
If ya don’t then your a Climate DENIER!!!eleven!,?!!!!
GO !!
It appears I hit a nerve.
(This is where Jumpy politely suggests I achieve sexual congress with myself)
Zoot, go turn the power off if you walk your walk.
Haven’t yet ?
Planet Burner !!!!
( you haven’t the ability to find my nerves troll leave alone hit one, haha haha 🙂 )
Could anyone please tell Mr Hyde/ zoot and I where the best place to buy sham carbon offset credits from so zoot/mr Hyde can leave his fridge, PC and lights on.
I think Al Gore has a few spare.
Thanks.
Why?
As you said, there’s no point, nothing we can do, it’s inevitable, our grand children are doomed.
You’ve won!!
Someone tell me,has jumpy become a doomster?
Thats when the freewheeling glibertarians lose it. Never in their insular world would they consider to join in and collectively save our arses in the debilitating fear to participate in SOCIALISM. Like deers in headlights with world collapsing, THEIR WORLD embattled by perceived cultural warriors. Stuck in a time warp around their egos with vanishing possibility of perceiving for all of humanity to get our collective act together in view of the clearly defined adversity and capable to adapt our live so it is sustainable and advanced. NEVER – IMPOSSIBLE in their imagination, how sad and destructive!
Well, that was easy.
Now, can you please tell me why the progressive left media exclusively push young girls into the limelight ?
Here’s another one, https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-23/australian-climate-striker-15-takes-fight-to-new-york/11539354
What’s their fixation on female minors ?
Got bored with adult celebrities.
St Greta began a trend.
Always wringing their hands over “body image”, bulimia, child models etc while flogging kiddie fashion in their advertising. Hypocrites.
Don’t worry J, most journalists and editors are NOT paedophiles.
Jumpy dear, what most sensible people are fixated on is that Greta (and the rest of the kids) gets the science and the risks and opportunities associated with climate change.
It is you and your ilk getting off on her being female and a minor and have puff pastry where the faculty for observation, logic and deduction ought to be, hence don’t get the picture re climate change.
Ootz
You may have exaggerated the opposition to CO2 reduction measures. Many of the most effective involve individual actions (installation of rooftop solar, batteries; reducing annual mileage of hydrocarbon fuelled vehicles, reducing home heating and cooling). No Socialism there.
Then there are cooperative efforts, by small, local power hubs or Landcare groups, bicycling advocates, etc. I would call these “voluntary associations” rather than Socialism.
You can have society-wide cooperation too (of course much wider in scope than emissions reduction purposes) e.g. volunteering for charities, volunteering for rural firefighting or beach lifesaving; charities and trusts and churches working with the poor, homeless, etc. A society can have plenty of that without choosing Socialism. For instance, all of that kind of activity, innovation and practical assistance can continue under a Liberal or Coalition government.
Strange, is it not? To run a small business or a contracting firm you need a group of skilled people co-operating to their mutual benefit …… but broaden out such actions and attitudes to a wider social sphere: a suburb, province or nation, and some folk start seeing Socialism.
It’s a long, long way from Geelong to the Gulag.
?Si?
You might, but Jumpy calls them Socialism.
Just sayin’
Exactly Zoot. That was my point above, although somewhat more cynical. Collaboration and altruism are an anathema to egocentric freedom fighters, hence the expressed attitude “there is nothing you and I can do….”. Note the absence of the inclusive ‘we’.
‘Socialism’ is normally defined as involving the socialisation of the means of production. Labor effectively gave up on that over half a century ago, although they had ‘the social objective’ residually on the books for a long time after that. Labor was the front-runner in privatising the Commonwealth Bank, telecommunications, airlines, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories etc.
Jumpy throws the ‘socialism’ tag around as a red herring. Most on the left prefer to fly under the tag ‘social democracy’ rather than ‘democratic socialism’ as a more accurate description of their position.
I heard an interesting talk about Aboriginal perceptions of the world, where the personal pronoun “I” is commonly replaced by any one of a wide range of terms, each of which positions the individual socially in a different way. I’ll try to dig it up.
Talking about I alone is rare, and advancing the self in any way above others is effectively a form of narcissism. He did not say it as such, but it makes western individualism a kind of pathology.
None of that denies that we need to work on ourselves as a project to become the best we can be, but perhaps thinks of it as increasing our capacity to advance the welfare of others.
One of the problems with capitalism is that too many of the major papers and TV stations are run by capitalists like the Dark Lord Murdoch who use these assets to run scurrilous campaigns against socialism, climate action and other things they don’t like.
In theory we could switch to socialized media but the end result of this approach can be seen in places like China.
Social media and the web provide some chances for individuals to check the data that various claims claim to be based on . On the other hand it has created bubbles where extremists can go to confirm that others share their toxic view of the world.
Me, I try and be a bit detached and try tp make up my own mind.
Some of you might notice that I sometimes think Jumpy talks sense and that it is worth at least thinking about what he has to say.
However, when Jumpy says:
you know he has lost it again and can be safely ignored for a while.
In the end all we can do is do some homework, think about what is said and make my own mind up and argue for what I believe.
Having said the above Ambi I would have to say that I am unlikely to be convinced that the future of transport is lightweight drays made from used quills. (But maybe carbon fiber quills?)
Greta Thunberg joins climate change activists filing complaint at UN summit against carbon-polluting countries.
AND:
Morrison the coal kisser was not at this conference for some odd reason.
Too busy kissing Trump’s ring (interpret that any way you want).
Que?
Bishops have rings that are kissed.
Mr Pres ain’t no Bishop.
It’s his victims that get defrocked.
🙁
The consensus appears to be that Mr J yses several political terms in quaint and unusual ways. Very distinctive.
Unfortunately rational discussion requires agreement on definitions, as a bare minimum.
Thanks Brian, for the very astute observations. Yes the sense of the world and one self varies in different cultures. Being bilingual and having lived in many different cultures it is remarkable how my personality and worldview changes depending what culture or language is spoken.
In the RC into death in custody it was acknowledged that indigenous people have a much more inclusive sense of self. Hence if the are removed from their mob and particularly when put into isolation cells they are literally besides themselves and very much prone to suicide.
There are interesting theories about how the rampant individualism came about. Some would have it that it goes right back to the invention of monotheism, famously documented in the ancient egyptian history, when Akhenaten removed himself from the political yoke of the priests by declaring that there is only one god and he himself is his representative on earth. Not only did he initiated with that declaration the birth of todays major monotheistic religions (the jews were extremely important administrators and tin Egypt at the time and took the idea with them when they left with Moses), but established the idea that one person can be a singular entity on its own. Some argue that individualisation started to become more common in modern capital society. The I in some ways is a human cognitive construct just like the one of a singular god is. Both are very hard to explain and justify in philosophical terms, but have powerful consequences in our behaviour, some good and some not so. Nieztsche’s übermensch or superhuman plays into that. Consciousness is a very tricky thing and can play mind games as well as take us into other realms, I recommend Hofstadter and Dennett’s The Mind’s I.
WRT socialism and “socialist” as an epithet is not unique to jumpy use of it, like most of his mutterings these are really widely used by certain people. Funny enough as a self proclaimed freedom lover and avowed independent thinker, his views, terminology and concept of the world very much are in synchronicity with particular ‘selfish’ and noisy shock jocks on radio, print and online. Interestingly they ‘commune’ rather more emotional rather than rationally or intellectually. Facts to them are emotionally based, wether something feels right. So they experiences wrongs deeply visceral in which they loose themselves, incapable of rational thought and responses. The sort of people who are quick (for others) to go to war, yet when real shit hits the fan they more likely to lose the plot.
It is the sort of people we have to come to terms with wrt climate change. At some stage risk management practices will have to acknowledge that these sort of people cannot or will not change their mind. So humanity has to find a way to address the risk these people pose in a mature and responsible way. We have to find a human way of muting the obstinance the jumpys of this world and moving on … rapidly.
Aaand there we have it.
After all that diatribe of nonsense, untruths and self nominated moral supremacy, the real agenda.
Banning, censorship and good old fashioned communist unpersoning on ideological grounds.
I’ve been working all day so I miss most of the welfare recipient dross. And there’s to much to adequately address in the few hours I can make available so I think I’ll just address two.
More non Aborigines per capita die in custody than Aboriginals. Look into the stats.
How exactly is a social democrat different to democratic socialist with regard to economics, individual rights, environmental outcomes, health or education ?
And John, please don’t truncate my comments.
Particularly the start of a sentence and the next line to make it a statement rather than an alternative possibly.
That’s an old blog tactic to change context and it’s not productive.
I did in fact research the issue from multiple angles by looking at the parents bios, running their names on various book sellers and generally wondering around the net asking what sort of parental motivation could put this little troubled child in this situation.
Give that sort of background research a go yourself please and see if I’ve “ lost it “
Jumpy, reign in your emotions and see if you can find and understand the word and signifier ‘human’ in my sentence. Think about it what would be a humane way of moving forward, mitigating the immense risk all humanity is facing. Any chance of you engaging the neurons in your frontal cortex to fire rather than just in your reptilian brain? I would call ‘up against the wall’ inhuman, what about you. I envisage a solution where nothing but your frail ego will get hurt and your distorted view of reality get shattered. There is huge odds this will happen anyway, but I’d rather see that happening before it is too late for everyone.
“I miss most of the welfare recipient dross”
Well I never.
You have no idea what financial circumstances any posters here have. And it’s none of your beeswax in any case.
Don’t fall for that vulgar Marxist sleight of hand, Mr J.
You know: where you presume to know, based only on a person’s “class position”, what her opinions and beliefs are.
You presume too much, sir.
Impertinence based on no evidence.
Ootz, my emotions and ego are both fine and easily self regulated. I do wonder about yours at times. A combination of chronic illness medication and high dementia age zone bodes not well in that regard.
If I were a praying man I’d send a few your way.
Be rested in your mind that a satisfied smile is on my face with every comment I contribute.
Mr A
I’m applying statistics and reason, the amount of non welfare recipients that can constantly blog comment throughout the workday, every workday, is very tiny.
Methinks you protest too much there.
But perhaps not, perhaps change my mind rather than the constant tactic of the impertinent presumptions I get here.
Anywho, work tomorrow, bed beckons.
Have at it whilst I sleep the deep sleep of an untroubled conscience.
Zoot: My suggestion is that Darwinian success is optimized by a mix of individualism and collectivism. Too much individualism means that too many individuals go out into places where lack of knowledge of the places they end up in and lack of long term allies may reduce their chance of survival.
On the other hand, people who stick together and inbreed have better chance of survival in the short term but may over the longer termall be killed by a local disaster or weakened by inbreeding.
The Aborigines I was familiar with got the balance in a number of ways:
1. They were exogamous. The young women were married to men from neighboring tribes and normally went to live with these tribes. After a number of generations the genes from one group could work their way to groups way beyond the original group.
2. Some men steal other men’s wives and travel a long way from home to avoid punishment and keep the woman they stole.
3. Most Aboriginal societies have stories about some cultural hero who traveled a long way to the place where his descendants now live. There are also stories that tell of long journeys where the cultural hero taught the people along the way new stories and ceremonies. (Some songlines go a long long way.
Mutual obligation societies are not all good news. For example, my wife knew this woman who was not related to anyone in the Aboriginal village who was obliged to share food with her or her kids. As a result they were hungry a lot of the time. (Aboriginal people normally share with the people they are obliged to share with.) By contrast, our outback mateship culture is about helping anyone who desperately needs help. (I suspect the mateship system arose because there were all these men struggling t live in Australia who had no family that was obliged to help them. Australian families would have lived by “blood is thicker than water” until our welfare system got working sort of properly.)
Payback was part of the obligation system. It provided a strong disincentive for someone who was tempted to kill someone. However, apart from the risk of going to jail, payback runs the risk of starting a long string of of paybacks that can weaken both groups involved. At one stage I had a Lalara man working for me who had killed a Wurramara man. The Wurramara elders tried to stop payback by sending the young hotheads off to Cape York till they had cooled down. They also did other things like giving useful advice to John Davidson re allocating jobs to the Lalara man in a way that reduced the risk of payback. In the end, the Lalara man still died of payback but there was ongoing payback as a result.
Zoot: I think we need to be careful to understand the advantages and disadvantages of both individualism and collectivism.
Mr J,
I do not receive a pension.
I worked for decades, now retired.
Also an early riser having been trained by teenagers needing to catch the school bus at 7.20am.
“Statistics” don’t wash with me, chum.
You perhaps may be falling for the “sociological fallacy “. If ‘the statistics ‘ tell you that 70% of A have tendency B, how can you know whether someone is in the 70% or in the 30%?
You cannot.
Suppose 90% of B believe C. That still leaves many thousands if B who don’t.
C’mon Mr J.
Simple logic.
You can understand it if you want to.
Mr J gets most of his opinions and “facts” pre-digested and ready assembled from the web sites he visits. His research skills are nowhere near as developed as he would have us believe.
For example his dismissive account of Greta Thunberg is copied almost word for word from numerous Twitter comments I have seen. The original is probably on some alt.right cesspool, although I admit there is a remote possibility the twits all came up with the same phrasing spontaneously.
Democratic socialists are out of fashion. I can’t remember meeting one.
Scott Morrison does not want kids to have ‘anxieties’ about climate change after Greta Thunberg’s speech.
I am so pleased that Scott Morrison will work hard to prevent kids understanding just how difficult their future will be if leaders like Scott Morrison are leading the rush to climate action.
Perhaps he will offer the kids free anti-depressants?
ScoMo should listen to what Prof Anne Samson said.
Kids have a right to know what is in store for them in the future, and to be involved in what might contribute to change. many will know any way, and adults pretending everything will be lovely is patronising and stupid.
ScoMo probably thinks God will fix it.
Since jumpy turned up on C+ and previously on LP many years ago under the pretence “to learn something”, we were offered nothing else than stalling with ridicule, baiting and every argument under the sun of why the science and us ‘socialists’ were wrong. All the while proclaiming:
Let’s cut to the chase jumpy, since we here are all wrong, how about you prove to us that you are right. So here is a pertinent question to you:
What overarching argument and evidence have you got, that rising CO2 emissions are of no concern to us and to future generations?
BTW your above “It just that there’s nothing you or I can do to change the inevitable.” will not do, it is defeatist and does not fit with your activism against established science.
Jumpy is in elite company.
None because it is.
And I don’t care if that answer will do or not.
But when you say “ future generations “, are those already conceived yet not born part of that concern ?
Thanks jumpy. Second down from the list of sociopath traits – Manipulative and Conning.
In other news – Climate change emergency declared by South Australia parliament, first state to do so.
If I understand him correctly, Mr J opines that Australia and other nations should reduce their C emissions, but should do so
* without taxation measures or subsidies
* by waiting for the magic of capitalism to bring forth entrepreneurs who will sell new kinds of vehicles, homes, agricultural methods, etc
* meanwhile redeploying the climatologists, chemists, physicists, meteorologists, palaeontologists, metallurgists, etc who rabbit on endlessly about atmospheric methane and CO2, because the science and observations are either well-known and adequate or are a complete and utter crock and a scam perpetrated on a public that should know better, and would, if only they had the benefit of his knowledge of climate, building, engineering, economics, finance, and political machinations; all of which he is happy to share when he is not sleeping the sleep of those of good conscience or out there in the real world battling red tape and making a decent living as one of the few agile and stalwart independent entrepreneurs and employers of skilled labour to be found anywhere north of the Murray River, and whose own workforce – though they be cajoled at tea breaks by their fearless employer – even they are not convinced of his wisdom….
It would make you weep.
Mr A, on what evidence is your understanding based, that “Mr J opines that Australia and other nations should reduce their C emissions..”? I thought he is from the ‘CO2 is good for plant growth’ brigade.
Apparently it is also the slogan of the reactionary mob against the school strike movement.
Thanks to aunty we now have a Greta Thunberg Helpline for those troubled by a climate science literate 16 year old female.
Ootz, when the ABC announces that Mark Humphries is coming on I usually turn the TV set off. Can’t stand the guy for some reason.
Last night I switched over to ABC 24 where they were having a panel discussion on the topic, usually chaired by Ellen Fanning, who had to fill in for Leigh Sales, who seems to be increasingly the occasional host of 7.30. I don’t mind that because all the fill-ins do a better job.
Last night it is worth noting that the 7.30 Report, supposedly a current affairs program, did not have a single item that could be called current affairs, preferring important matters like whether there should be an AFL team in Tasmania.
Mr A
Spot on with the first and second (*s)
Way off with the third.
Redeployment of the scientists because they are in consensus about the problem, a better use of their talents would be to research alternatives to fossil energy rather than perpetually measuring.
I’ve stated this just recently, no need to trawl back to 2015 find another correct thing I’ve stated.
If your car was overheating you wouldn’t turn to the experts to monitor the amount of overheating, you pay them to design and manufacture a fix.
Ootz
Will you take Jumpy’s affirmation as truthful or must I go back searching through his comments?
Mr A
Ambi – better check first if Jumpy was referring to the scientists who falsified data to give the impression of global warming/climate change. They’d just fake “alternatives to fossil energy” the same way they faked a climate crisis.
Jumpy:
I would have that even you, after all the effort you have put into debunking climate change (or parroting others) would understand that the sort of expertise needed to fix the climate problem is different from the expertise needed to work out just how bad climate change is going to be and understand the details of what is happening and why.
Mr A, best not rely on Ootz at to what is truthful.
His track record is terrible.
Yapping chihuahua zoot is worse.
I’m sure we’re all waiting to here of the heroic activism he’s undertaken since declaring his intent, will and ability.
More likely it was just piss and vinegar for “ likes “
Anyway, on what i said about scientific redeployment, what do ta recon about the logic of the idea ?
John
Not at all.
We see plenty of scientists outside their areas of expertise claiming climate scientists credibility.
Very versatile these geniuses are for sure.
Just redirect these 97% towards a cure rather than rediagnosing the illness over and over and over and over again.
( oh, I never debunked climate change, only the predictions of a few catastrophists )
Jumpy: I am at least smart enough not to try and tell you what plasterers like yourself should be doing.
You should take a slightly less arrogant approach when it comes to R&D which is one of the patches I have spent a lot of time on.
Sure some people can make creative jumps from outside their field but you also need the data that modern science is getting better and better at producing.
I like your analogy jumpy, except in our situation the driver is not taking any heed of the overheating indicated on the dashboard, not slowing down and let it cool down to prevent further damage, his foot firmly down on the accelerator. What you suggest we do?
BTW Australia was leading in research on alternative energy like photovoltaic up to when Howard got in. Not only got r&d incentives cut but research funding too, which lead the leading research institute to
From then on…. read and weep.
ROFL. I’m being lectured by the “libertarian” who is too timid to live according to his heartfelt principles and instead hides in a rural village whining about what the horrible guvmnt is doing to his precious freedoms. Talk about piss and vinegar.
Bullshit. You told us at great length that the BOM was falsifying the data and global warming was a furphy.
I’m assuming in Jumpyworld bullshit is still called bullshit?
John, the number three down the list of sociopathic traits is – Grandiose Sense of Self.
I’ll summarise jumpy’s main arguments on Brian’s post and detailed argument of The Urgency of Now, for the benefit of the debate.
First
Second
Yet when asked What overarching argument and evidence have you got, that rising CO2 emissions are of no concern to us and to future generations?
His answer is :
.
For the benefit of the group I’ll list the ad hominems of ootz in place of an argument. Just this thread though.
greasy glibness, pathological, climate barbarians, Senility, immaturity, idiots, freewheeling glibertarian, sad and destructive!, you and your ilk getting off on her being female and a minor, incapable of rational thought and responses, Any chance of you engaging the neurons in your frontal cortex to fire rather than just in your reptilian brain?, your frail ego, Manipulative and Conning, Grandiose Sense of Self and sociopath a few times.
Ootz, I don’t know what’s causing this nastiness but I do hope you can get past it.
If I were a religious type I’d throw a few prayers your way.
And all of that was in context, I fully expect zoot to do an out of context montage of words I wrote.
Daylight is always followed by darkness.
Jumpy please take some of your own medication dished out to John above.
Don’t take it personal, I am using your contributions here to illustrate the level of debate we are having with the jumpys of this world and their rational or rather lack of it. Also, I do not expect for you to change your mind nor debating tactics, but I find it important to tease out and document the flawed rational of the jumpys of this world for all to see in future.
How would you describe your arguments, debating style and motives given the summary above and the risk implications as outlined by Brian in the OP?
Ootz
My argument stands on its content, you haven’t even tried to address the content.
You’ve attacked my character, my psychology, my “ ilk “ and my honesty, anything other than my argument.
Now, it’s I’m off to a 21st do for quite some time, if you would like to address any of the points in the summary you’ve put together we can discuss them in a civil manner tomorrow.
And John did edit the context out of my comment by truncation if you scroll up to see.
It may have been accidental so I asked nicely. I’m a little disappointed because John would normally be open and honest.
Jumpy:
Went back to have a look. Couldn’t find any truncation that would have made any difference to what I was talking about.
You have got yourself in a state of mind where the modern equivalent of a Bex and a good lie down would seem to be in order.
Ootz, way back at 10.23am, you summarised and included this.
Your question, “What overarching argument and evidence have you got, that rising CO2 emissions are of no concern to us and to future generations?”
Mr J responded
“None because it is.”
* * * *
Far be it for me to step in where angels would be exceedingly wary of setting foot,…… but I interpreted his answer in this way:
I) I have no evidence or argument that they are of no concern
because
II) they are actually of concern to us and to future generations.
* * *
I went looking for the past comments by Mr J, where I thought he had advocated lower use of hydrocarbon fuels, greater use of renewable energy, reduction in coal burning. Couldn’t find them, but had this vague impression he had written such things……
“We come in peace for all mankind.”
Thank you jumpy for the kind offer, the forever optimist I am trust that your offer is in good faith. I do prefer to conduct discussions or debates in a civil and productive manner. However jumpy, we have been at this juncture before, several times actually, and it did not take long for you to fall into your usual uncivil conversational style. Before you accuse me of the same, please take note, I have the habit to adopt the conversational style of my interlocutor if all others fail, so if you are civil here I will interact with you courteously and polite whether we agree on a topic or not.
Further, it would be productive to lay down and agree debating rules. One of such, I would be keen on to stick to, is that arguments have to be supported with valid and reliable evidence or references. Rhetorical statements are meaningless and don’t cut it when science is involved, such as in the topic at hand here. Also, no fogging, gish-gallopping, deviating off-topic and other unproductive fallacies (you can get yourself acquainted with them here). Finally, given the topic, here is a handy reference how not to sound or act like a sociopath. I am happy for you or others to uphold me on these too, as I am not infailable and like to improve myself and my debating skills.
I suggest we take one of your arguments or statements I summarized above rather than all three. Given Brian’s OP, the urgency of now, I suggest we settle on debating on the overarching
But I am afraid that your reply “None because it is” does not adhere to standard debating rules. Thus I invite you to respectfully answer my question and elaborate on your argument. Look forward to an interesting and civil debate with you
Yours sincerely Ootz
Ootz, those lists are very open to interpretation and manipulation but I’ll give them a try if you do.
As for,
Mr A’s reading of my answer “ None because it is “ is spot on.
The standard debating rules with regard to your question do not apply because I do not disagree.
Common ground that need not be rehashed, the end to “ denier “ claims, no more “ Hitler said a thing similar, therefore…. “.
Also your,
is fine no matter the source right ?
Having established that Jumpy is convinced rising CO2 emissions are of concern to us and to future generations, I would appreciate an explanation of what now concerns him about these emissions. (i.e. does he accept they drive global warming?)
And what does he now say about his earlier claims that global warming/climate change is a lie resulting from BOM employees falsifying the figures?
Hmmm. Crickets (not that I expected anything more)
To recap:
1. Greta Thunberg says rising CO2 emissions are of concern to future generations.
2. In part, Jumpy’s ad hominem response is
i.e. Greta is just a puppet and therefore not to be believed.
3. Jumpy now claims to agree with Greta.
Sorry, but I don’t believe this particular leopard has changed its spots.
Have a look at this post at Phys Org, which talks about who Greta travels with (her dad, for starters), that she writes her own stuff, but talks to leading scientists like Johan Rockström, Stefan Rahmstorf, Kevin Anderson, Jean-Pascal van Ypersele, Glen Peters and others.
Thank you Brian.
That’s a good profile, and more E…Vid…Ence (not that any is needed) of the vacuity of Jumpy’s “arguments”.
You only have to read the bullying bile being put out by the dark Lord Murdloch, the people who work for him and those quote the bile with conviction to realize how unsettling Greta is to those who are not committed to climate action.
Sorry for being late, but I have been busy (working actually, if that matters – big delivery tomorrow)
Thanks jumpy for getting back to me and confirming your answer as per Mr A. And a thank you to Ambigulous for the disambigu(l)ation of jumpys answer.
Also zoot, we should give jumpy space and credit for changing his mind. Everybody should be able to change their mind, I would like to be given the space to change my mind in the face of overwhelming evidence.
So jumpy, having established that you agree with, rising CO2 emissions are of concern to us and to future generations, we should move on to your next arguments I highlighted and you agreed to debate civilly.
Again I am not clear in what you are saying, because to some extend you contradict yourself, like in one statement you say “there is nothing you and I can do” in the next two you have two “best thing/option” of actions. It would help if you could clarify that, thanks.
As to your questions re references, I would argue sources do matter, hence my mentioning of valid and reliable. Given that the subject of risk management is at the heart of the OP and your arguments we choose to discuss, it is crucial that arguments can ultimately be supported in a scientific manner where validity and reliability of knowledge is the foundation. However, since this is a public forum I am open to a working definition for the purpose here, with one proviso that it can’t be just rhetorical validity and reliability, it has to have a scientific basis eg. backed by systematic research. Here is my suggestion for:
Validity – how close and accurate does the source back up the argument? How often have the findings of the source been replicated successfully?
Reliability – how widely is the author/publisher been active and acknowledged in the topic of the argument that it is being used to support. What is the professional reputation of the author/publisher?
Ootz I take it that Jumpy is on his usual schtick that governments are worse than useless, so in the end all we can do is wait for the capitalists to fix the problem.
On the personal level your best chance is to be rich.
Brian, I have some sympathy for your your presumption of jumpy view. But considering his appearance of being on the road to Damascus and in the spirit of civility, I will reserve my view on this until he clarified his arguments I highlighted above. For the time being I celebrate that we are not engaging in the usual wild west shootout style. It is not only much more pleasant but it may also improve our arguments and view points as well as the debate in general.
Yes and no, I would argue it depends on how you define best chance and rich. Given our understanding of evolution and natural selection coined by Spencer’s famous survival of the fittest, it is more complicated (there is that word again).
Ootz I will be more than happy if Jumpy has changed his stance on our climate emergency and I await with interest his future conversation with you. However, I am by nature skeptical and I am yet to be convinced.
Be assured I applaud your efforts to engage civilly with him.
Ootz, to be clear, I didn’t say one would have a better chance if one is rich. I think that is what jumpy was saying, rich being the top 10%, from memory, I can’t be bothered checking.
I was interested in hearing recently Johan Rockström, new CEO of the Potsdam Institute, and Frank Stilwell talking to Phillip Adams both saying we won’t solve this climate thing unless we conquer the problem of socio-economic inequality in society.
Neither of them elaborated on what they meant.
At the same time, some of the rich are in fact prepping for a cataclysm to come, by digging holes and planning whole towns underground. See Richard Fidler talking to Bradley Garrett in Prepping for the apocalypse: bunkers, bullets and billionaires.
I hardly think that will save them in the long run, but I’d still like to know what Stilwell and Rockström are thinking.
Ootz
No need to thank me. Just 5 cents into the collection plate would be a gesture much appreciated by the Orphans.
With the plethora of potential sources, scientific validity and reputation are certainly important.
On RN this morning a report was quoted (Ernst Young??) saying short term economic stimulus is more efficiently delivered by small scale infrastructure and repair/maintenance jobs, which can also begin sooner, than by large-scale projects. And tax relief for low income folk will assist economic activity.
Strikes me that this could, if acted upon, lead to more rooftop solar installations for:
1 schools
2 hospitals and public libraries
3 houses owned by pensioners
4 houses rented by low income families
And to projects such as tree planting; and propagation of drought hardy trees and shrubs for farms, homes and public land.
All assisting in a small way to reduce C emissions on farms, and in towns.
+ + +
Here endeth the sermon.
The Rev
zoot
From the very little I have read about and seen of the autism “spectrum”, it is well recognised that some persons on the spectrum are “functioning Aspbergers “, meaning, roughly, that they can function in daily, social life (e.g. hold down a job, complete an education, speak clearly etc.) while having some personality or behavioural characteristics that may be unusual.
Such persons in Australia might well have no need of the NDIS. Depends on the individual. Of course.
Some such persons in centuries past were inventors, poets, mathematicians, eccentrics, and probably many were shunned, misunderstood or held up to ridicule.
Are we better than that now??
Ambi I heard a fellow on RN (Conversations perhaps?) who made a compelling case for the argument we are all “on the spectrum” to some degree and at various times.
Meanwhile here’s a few people with autism that the rabid right might like to patronise in the same way they are attacking Ms Thunberg.
That’s quite a list of Aspie over-achievers, z man.
I take note, that both jumpy and Greta are railing against governments.
A good and pertinent discussion. It is important to distinguish between a pop-psych and a clinical psych view and understanding of a particular mental illness/phenomena. Pop culture is generally about ‘branding’ things, where in clinical psych it is seeing and treating clearly defined and measured patterns of behavior.
Although not an illness as such, the IQ , which was originally a test that would allow for distinguishing mentally retarded children from normally intelligent, but lazy children, is a good example. The IQ label in broader culture has different meaning to the clearly defined aspect of human behavior in psychopathology.
Our present culture is only just coming to terms with the reality of wide diversity in a range of human behaviors. Take the spectrum of Sexual behavior as expressed in LGBTQI. So with Aspergers it is also important to be able to distinguish between pop “normal” and labels vs the “Four D’s” consisting of deviance, dysfunction, distress, and danger, psych professionals are concerned with.
Lest we conduct another Mismeasure of (Wo)Man.
Well, having discussed the messenger and speculated about her personality and human characteristics, would it be pertinent at some stage, to return to considering her message?
Rev. Amb
Most Reverent Ambi of the high dray:
Nah. We have had that message from the likes of Brian for yonks and, with one noticeable exception, have accepted the need to take dramatic action.
The interesting questions about Greta are why she has been so effective at mobilizing concern and why the attacks from the likes Lord Murdloch’s empire and his Mackay mouthpiece have been so vitriolic and full of panic.
Hopefully their panic is a sign that they understand the truth of what she is saying and simply want to suppress this truth..
Ootz, my
I don’t think I need any evidence to state China is the biggest emitter and growing fast by gross and per capita measures. Australia’s per capita emissions are going down as Morrison said in JDs link in the WS, US too.
What I don’t have evidence for is that I don’t trust the Chinese Communist Party with their data or intentions or pledges. They will not be influenced outside their power hungry, full dominance agenda by anyone, Brian and I included. Their emissions growth will engulf all the sacrifices the West makes. In a Sun Tzu terms a strategical win on a few fronts.
But, we do have India and Africa that need to rise out of environmentally damaging poverty. There may be hope that affordable energy of the renewable type can be developed, by a few entrepreneurs, that would overcome their own endemically corrupt governments.
However, my optimism is tempered when I remember the “ climate experts “ predicted tipping points we’ve passed already. One was 400ppm, we’re at almost 410ppm with little sign of stopping leave alone reducing.
Here’s what I think would be good ( sorry, no evidence or references)
That the climate experts are a bit wrong
That socialist are a bit wrong and accept that the free market Capitalist entrepreneurs can drive the solutions.
That Capitalists are a bit wrong and Government can redirect funding and regulations, proportionate to the problem, in a way that would help them rather than hinder.
That said, who knows……..
Jumpy, China is certainly a problem. I read somewhere that 42% of the coal-fired power stations that need to become stranded assets in the world are in China.
However, we are not well-placed to lecture them, having done approximately nothing since the earth Summit in 1992.
It’s been more than thirty years and they still haven’t stepped up. What do you think they’re waiting for?
[Please note I have not mentioned the “Capitalist entrepreneurs” who have vigorously opposed any action on climate change.]
Jumpy, with respect but I am somewhat confused by your responses, as they appear to me discombobulated. But it’s maybe me.
Does your concern about China relate to which of your arguments under discussion.
If a), what evidence have you got that decarbonising economies of nations is a zero sum game?
If b), are you saying we should outsmart the Chinese?
If c), we should protect us from China?
Supplementary question are you entirely relying on “market “to provide a solution(s) to this vexed problem?
Jumpy:
Sounds like you are drifting towards something like my pragmatic approach. An approach that looks at things on a case to case basis. Can change direction on the basis of new information and doesn’t get trapped by ideologies like “private is best” or “public is best” or “we gotta have a carbon tax.”
John D
Yep.
Here’s an example: for decades now, various folk have said “public transport is far preferable to private transport ” on various grounds including
* energy efficiency
* pollution reduction.
But it remains the case, I think, that if the trains or trams or electric buses have very few passengers, the efficiency advantage disappears.
Ambi of the Overflow
Committee To Reduce The Use Of Simple Binary Opposites In Policy Discussions.
Which bit in particular do you think the climate experts have got wrong? (Sorry, but in this case you really do need evidence or references)
With all due respect (honestly) that’s the same as me thinking “it would be good” if unicorn farts were a way out of our predicament.
Jumpy, the sentence does not make sense. Are you saying that ‘socialists accept that the free market Capitalist entrepreneurs can drive the solutions?’
Surely not!
Or that they should accept…?
It might be that old conundrum, Brian: there are more , different types of ‘socialists’ amongst our fellow human beings than any of us can conceive….. and so the term needs some teasing*-out, clarification… Perhaps a classification scheme.
I can think of dozens of different types.
But it’s probably a debating cul de sac.
*not in the mood for teasing just at the minute
Amby, Jumpy keeps bring out the word ‘socialist’ with negative connotations.
I’m not a socialist, because I think we need the energy and innovation that comes from private enterprise. But we need the means of sharing sufficient income and wealth so that everyone can have a dignified life.
We also need to constrain capitalism, so that it doesn’t rape and pillage and conduct violence on the environment and all that lives upon it (well, except vermin like the ebola virus, and such).
Civilising capitalism is an important role of government.
However, we are going over stuff we’ve gone over before.
Mr A, it would appear that “teasing” is the prerogative of climate action saboteurs. Often it is associated with gishgallop type arguments to confuse and deflect in an attempt to stall debate and action.
These types are more devious then the ones from “Australia has always been hot and dry” category.
It is interesting how the climate action bashing brigade respond to the escalating changes in climate related issues. Yesterday my neighbour, a previous ardent climate change science critique, yesterday informed me about CO2 emission caused ocean acidification and consequences for the reef, because that topic was covered at a professional conference she attended. It was like we never had any previous discussions on the topic and her previous counter opinion.
I don’t give a rats if the solution to our climate emergency comes from capitalists, socialists or a sudden surge in intelligence from libertarians. I don’t care if it’s Catholics Protestants, Jews or Muslims. It doesn’t matter to me if they’re Labor, Liberal or Green.
In short, I don’t care as long as we recognise the seriousness of the situation and start acting to leave a livable world to our great grandchildren.
Ambi, my version of Marxism is solidly based in the teachings of Groucho.
Shivers, zoot…..
You implicitly denounce Harpo, then?
Splitter!!
Zoot:
Precisely. Too often climate change is used as a political weapon by all sides of politics rather than a crisis that should be attacked by us all.
BTW there are nearly 220’000 signatures on the Petition EN1041 – Declare a Climate Emergency to the Australian government. Feel free to indulge in some armchair activism by signing and sharing for your bit to ‘attack the crisis’.
I often find solace in Philosophy and History. Alain de Botton, for example, in his Consolation of Philosophy provides a good overview of how philosophers through time have dealt with profound human experiences in six neat chapters. Take chapter one on being unpopular, say as in being called a “socialist”. Based on Socrates’ life and thought, de Botton concludes:
Perhaps the more pertinent chapter in de Botton’s book, given the topic of Brian’s OP, is the one on difficulty which unsurprisingly examines Nietzsche’s life and thought. He concludes that chapter with:
Ootz
I haven’t read the book, but Simon Critchley’s The Book of Dead Philosophers (Melbourne Uni Press, 2008) looks interesting.
There’s quite a chunk of “preview” available online.
“The Book of Dead Philosophers” is something of a magic
trick: on the surface an amusing and bemused series of
blackout sketches of philosophers’ often rather humble
and/or brutal deaths, it actually is an utterly serious,
deeply moving, cant-free attempt to return us to the gorgeousness of material existence, to our creatureliness, to
our clownish bodies, to the only immortality available
to us (immersion in the moment). I absolutely love this
book.
—David Shields, author of
The Thing About Life Is That One Day You’ll Be Dead
Yo Ambi, how good is philosophy!
Following the Socratic tradition, let me ask the forum then:
“If there was a God or unlimited powerful entity, what would/should she/he/it do about human driven excessive CO2 emissions and resulting escalating climate change risks?”