Australia G20 Meeting - The World Is Facing A Global Job Crisis

Do you understand how a plane flies? No one does all the science. Lots of scientists, focused on their specific field, find supporting evidence to paint an overall picture. Scientists collaborate and explore how these their findings are linked. It's published, people read it, and people who understand the big words try to dumb it down for us so they can get their face on TV. Arguments for and against are politicized, where the we have the choice between ignoring the problem so economies can continue, or face being taxed as the solutions. In "choosing sides", the facade of democracy is maintained while the usual suspects cash in either way. Cash or conservation are your 2 choices. Truth is it's too late anyway. Bring on the apocalypse so he with the biggest stack wins.

 

Having lived through the 1970's and having heard how in 1973 when the first man made pseudo oil crisis hit that the world was going to run out of oil in less than 30 years and many other apocalypses pardon me for taking a huge yawn.We are still hearing the same stories by the tree huggers while they protest about fracking.

Kind Regards
non recourse

 

Interesting that you are using religious terminology. Kind of telling really.

 

I suppose it isn't science's fault if some men apply it's discoveries to
bad ends.
Science is just mans quest for new discoveries.
Its mans best way of knowing what's going on.

Except , of course, for the Murdock press (looking after the rich and powerfuls' interests.)
People who will make profit at any cost to ordinary people.
And other people who will believe anything printed in the gutter press.
They are the ones that really know whats going on.

 

The Murdoch press are evil scientists?

 

No, and I don't claim to either. But I see planes actually flying. I don't see any apocalypse and all I am presented with is graphs made by computer modelling that so far haven't met reality. Plus a lot of dishonesty, and quite frankly a rehashed biblical revelations story that any religious believer would be proud of.

And as regards democracy, anyone who has done any serious thinking about the issue knows it, itself, is a farce. You don't get to truths by making a consensus. Democracies thrive on fear. Communists, terrorists, illegal immigrants, deadly viruses, global warming, blah, blah, blah... Anything which justifies more control and more plunder of people's money by the political elite and their cronies. GW is just the latest manifestation.

I'll wait until the scientists, both the skeptical and the believers, have hashed this thing out between them. Govt takes enough money and starts enough mad financial schemes based on unproven or even false theories. Just look at all the economic chaos they create. Maybe you could hold off awhile just this once until solid facts are in? Please don't use the line of "it will be too late then". I first heard of GW as a child in the late 80's and at that time they were predicting serious consequences by the early 2000's. Well, we are here now and things don't look any worse to me. They are in the business of prediction. They have to be right at least some of the time or what use is the theory?

 

If an aeronautical engineer said "Don't get on that plane, it's damaged and will almost certainly crash", would you say "Your data and studies only produced a model which might be wrong, so I'll try flying on it and see what happens"?

The only way you're going to know for sure if they're right is about 20 seconds before it slams into the ground.

 

Bad analogy . Engineers "know " things scientists dont Their opinions would be based on real world testing & actual examples of test results from lateral/ torsional/ compression/shear /crash stress tests done under controlled conditions with all state of the art measuring equipment . When you somethings parameters you can come to conclusions simply. .Its easy to put in real data & come to a conclusion . Im a bit of a closet engineer & a builder as u know so dealing with known data is different than assuming something .

 

Scientists and engineers design and build aircraft. They know what they are talking about. No-one designs and builds the Earth's climate system. Scientists flounder about trying to understand it. The fact that every single one of their models is wrong and errs markedly to the high side shows that they are guessing. Poor analogy.

 

Ignore the theoretical modelling. Look at survey data relating to ice melt at the poles - http://www.awi.de/en/news/press_rel...c_and/?cHash=338b8af2b71b3b4c21de17ad7c3780c4
That's modern day data using modern day tech. Even this is debated because naysayers look only at the surface and don't look any deeper.

This is supported by CSIRO measurements of mean sea level using 20 years of satellite data - http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html


3.2mm per year, big whoop. It's not a dramatic enough change to notice unless you are studying it, but just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not happening.

I'll assume that historically high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is something both sides agree on, even if some say it's not caused by humans. This is supported by ice core samples going back thousands of years, and recent measurements using modern technology. Most are unaware of how the ocean absorbs excess CO2, modifying the water pH, and upsetting marine ecosystems, especially corals and shellfish (buy pearls quick!)

http://marinesciencetoday.com/2014/03/12/ocean-acidification-the-devastating-truth/

One upside to high atmospheric CO2 is that plant life thrives on it, so it can be safely absorbed and held in organic matter (living or dead). Trees especially love it, as evidenced by Duke University (and others) - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/08/980814065506.htm
This means that there is a way to keep CO2 in check, regardless of whether or not we caused it, by promoting tree growth and avoiding deforrestation. Who's going to pay to plant trees they can't harvest though?

As for "peak oil", it is irrelevant. It's a single use resource. I'm not going to dispute that 40 years since peak oil was mentioned we are still using it liberally, or that price manipulation for a myriad of reasons is commonplace. Over the last 40 years though, we've managed to develop technologies that increase fuel efficiency and allow better yields from lower quality reserves. This has given us some time, but the cost of production is increasing due to the extra work of refining lower quality reserves. Relying on it as heavily as we do indefinitely is foolish, regardless of the supposed environmental issues.

Frakking has it's issues, but if you want to trade cheaper power for more expensive food, that's your right. Just be aware that gas reserves can be extracted once, but farmlands will continue to produce (assuming the soil isn't ruined).
http://arstechnica.com/science/2011/12/how-the-epa-linked-fracking-to-contaminated-well-water/3/

Fortunately, some scientists are aware of the need for both energy and potential environmental issues surrounding it. Carbon Energy Limited (ASX:CNX) has developed technology allowing a safer alternative method called keyseam - http://www.carbonenergy.com.au/irm/content/our-technology.aspx?RID=214 which minimises surface and groundwater disruptions.

Sadly, most people have chosen a side, and close their ears to the other side's information. Most people are either incapable or unwilling to self-educate, instead relying on lobbyists information to support their opinion. In the midst of this ignorance, lies are propagated by both sides in an effort to capitalise on the situation.

 

Apologies for off topic, it happens.

 

Yes, let's all agree to disagree and get off the climate topic.