Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Roylion]

These are all widely agreed upon points, but what relevance is this to the levels of hysteria that we are seeing in the media and political systems?

I'm not commenting on the levels of hysteria in the media (who have their own agenda in seeking readership and page clicks) or political systems (who depending on what soide of politics they inhabit have their own agenda.

The IPCC is a bureacratic/politically driven organization, that utilizes shoddy science models & oversights and should be ignored RL.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data. So it is the main authority on the current climate science position held by the "consensus" of climate scientists via the periodic assessemnt reports.

In regards to the assessment reports, lead authors of IPCC reports assess the available information about climate change based on published sources. According to IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to peer-reviewed sources.

Anyone familiar with the basic structure of the IPCC knows that it's split into three working groups to assemble the assessment report:

- Working Group 1, which is straight-up climate science;
- Working Group 2, which studies the environmental and societal impacta of AGW; and
- Working Group 3, which focuses on mitigation techniques. .

Have they even gotten around to releasing their climate prediction model software to the public yet?

No idea. I'm commenting on the conclusions of their last published fifth assessment report in order to answer an asked question.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I'm not commenting on the levels of hysteria in the media (who have their own agenda in seeking readership and page clicks) or political systems (who depending on what soide of politics they inhabit have their own agenda.

THis is basically what the debate has been all about. The abuse of the data for ulterior purposes.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options. The IPCC was established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and was later endorsed by the United Nations General Assembly.

The IPCC does not carry out research nor does it monitor climate related data. So it is the main authority on the current climate science position held by the "consensus" of climate scientists via the periodic assessemnt reports.

In regards to the assessment reports, lead authors of IPCC reports assess the available information about climate change based on published sources. According to IPCC guidelines, authors should give priority to peer-reviewed sources.

Anyone familiar with the basic structure of the IPCC knows that it's split into three working groups to assemble the assessment report:

- Working Group 1, which is straight-up climate science;
- Working Group 2, which studies the environmental and societal impacta of AGW; and
- Working Group 3, which focuses on mitigation techniques. .

No idea. I'm commenting on the conclusions of their last published fifth assessment report in order to answer an asked question.

Yes, I know all that RL. I would dispute it being the "main authority" among the actual scientific community. It's the significant over-representation of bureaucrats in the IPCC which are a cause for concern.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is an intergovernmental body of the United Nations that is dedicated to providing the world with objective, scientific information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of the risk of human-induced climate change, its natural, political, and economic impacts and risks, and possible response options.

That's what it says in the manual, but Ottmar Edenhofer...

 

[mcnulty]

The draft IPCC summary posted above is freely available, non-alarmist and as far as I’m aware there isn’t a single scientific organisation of national or international standing that dissents from it’s scientific position.

That so much static surrounds it is a damning on both sides- and something that will have future generations scratching their heads.

 

[Ron The Bear]

The draft IPCC summary posted above is freely available, non-alarmist and as far as I’m aware there isn’t a single scientific organisation of national or international standing that dissents from it’s scientific position.

That so much static surrounds it is a damning on both sides- and something that will have future generations scratching their heads.

FWIW the summary for policymakers is only half of it. The rest is in 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis' at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Everyone at the IPCC is on the same page. Contrary perspectives just don't get published; they're career suicide. And from these reports comes the insistence that drastic action must occur "or else".

Greta in September: "These numbers do not say anything about the aspect of equity... which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale. That means that richer countries need to get down to zero emissions faster, so the people in poorer parts of the world can heighten their standard of living."

In other words, we have a climate emergency and it's up to us ("the west") to sacrifice while certain nations can continue enjoying life. This echoes the words of Edenhofer to a tee. Essentially the IPCC is the UN.

It's either an emergency requiring action across the board, or it's not.

 

[GoGeta]

And the advocates wonder why many people are skeptical about the climate change movement...

Classic alarmist chicken little retorts, with no substance or specifics.

So the world isn't losing 150-200 species per day?
The reefs and mangroves are not being bleached and dying off?
The ocean currents and temperatures that affect the whole planets weather patterns are not changing?

Morons like you want the whole world to prove to them that a global network of scientific data is 100% foolproof.

Science is science, you either take the best current available information gathered using the best current technics, by the best minds we have to offer or you..
I dunno? come to your own conclusion based on what? Are you an expert in the various fields needed to form an in-depth opinion about the complexities of global ecosystems and weather patterns?

Want to know how I know that human impact on this planet as it stands is completely unsustainable? I use my own eyes and look around..
How many tons of ocean life can the world harvest per day? Farming is total degradation of the land and the world does it on a massive scale..
Natural environments can handle a lot and adapt but they can't handle bucket loads of invasive species combined with land clearing, degradation and destruction of waterways while trying to cope with changing weather patterns.

Do you often camp? Bushwalk? spend much time over the decades out in forests and national parks? Do you read a variety of literature, from Scientific articles on species decline to hunting and fishing pieces noting the changes over time to specific regions witnessed be individuals on the ground?

Where does your knowledge/expertise that so surpasses the worlds collective scientific data compiled over the last 70 years+ come from, upon which you base your ideas and beliefs?

In a world made by men that is now totally driven by economics (and so it seems is most of its human population), where does the basis of a global conspiracy on the human impact on our planet involving thousands and thousands of individuals over many decades, who's job it has been to collect and compile information about different areas of our planets ecosystems and weather patterns come from?


The only people who have ever disputed human impact on climate have all been living in the pockets of the anti climate movements, i.e energy companies and right wing/religious Governments. Their motives are obvious, financial or political gain.

Like this man..

 

[mcnulty]

FWIW the summary for policymakers is only half of it. The rest is in 'Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis' at https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Everyone at the IPCC is on the same page. Contrary viewpoints just don't get published; they're career suicide. And from these reports comes the insistence that drastic action must occur "or else".

Greta in September: "These numbers do not say anything about the aspect of equity... which is absolutely necessary to make it work on a global scale. That means that richer countries need to get down to zero emissions faster, so the people in poorer parts of the world can heighten their standard of living."

In other words, we have a climate emergency and it's up to us ("the west") to sacrifice while certain nations can continue enjoying life. This echoes the words of Edenhofer to a tee. Essentially the IPCC is the UN.

It's either an emergency requiring action across the board, or it's not.

Again with Greta...

 

[Ron The Bear]

Again with Greta...

And? She is spelling it out for you. It's a geopolitical economic cause.

 

[mcnulty]

I don’t listen to Greta. Just like I don’t listen to Monckton. Sensible governments will seek the advice peak scientific bodies, just as they would in medicine or engineering.

By all means policy responses can be debated, and even contested at elections, but the continual push to conflate the science with the politics (which BOTH sides are guilty of) is stupid and destructive, imo.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I don’t listen to Greta. Just like I don’t listen to Monckton. Sensible governments will seek the advice peak scientific bodies, just as they would in medicine or engineering.

Sure. Slow and steady wins the race. I voted for Morrison and endorse his approach.

By all means policy responses can be debated, and even contested at elections, but the continual push to conflate the science with the politics (which BOTH sides are guilty of) is stupid and destructive, imo.

It was conflated at the outset. It is being conflated further with the bushfires. All the so-called "deniers" are doing is pointing out the political forces behind alarmism. Unfortunately I think they are now hopelessly intertwined. Symbiotic, even.

 

[GoGeta]

I have read barely two pages in this thread and one thing is glaringly obvious. Once again it is the people with no credible information of their own putting the burden of proof onto those who are sighting the latest compiled global scientific data.

Why fall into this trap time and time again?

Let the burden of proof fall upon the deniers. Let them post their foundations of belief for dissection and analysis.

 

[GoGeta]

I don’t listen to Greta. Just like I don’t listen to Monckton. Sensible governments will seek the advice peak scientific bodies, just as they would in medicine or engineering.

By all means policy responses can be debated, and even contested at elections, but the continual push to conflate the science with the politics (which BOTH sides are guilty of) is stupid and destructive, imo.

Trusting the future of you genetic line to other human beings is foolish at best.

What if the systems people have in place for leadership and governance are systemically flawed and incapable of meeting challenges such as Human impact climate change?

 

[Corpuscles]

....that will have future generations scratching their heads.

Memo to "future generations" from Jan 2020:

Even if by some miraculous immediate turn around IMMEDIATELY China, India , USA and Australia replaced or elected their governments leader with the most radical Climate Change advocate (Bob Brown type) and Greta was made Pres of the UN

Then STILL no significant change to Co2 emissions can occur for at least 30 more years

It is economics. Everything currently relies almost entirely on massive consumption of fossil fuels.
There are no zero emissions countries on the planet!
There are no zero Co2 humans on the planet, unless they are not breathing and therefore dead!

Any attempt to speed up the process thus in so doing causing major economic impact and suffering would result in such radicals being rejected. Most people care more about personal survival .

The ONLY hope is someone develops either a cheaper better reliable universal safe non polluting energy alternative source!

Funding that could be assisted by sacking all the Climate Change Scientists and taxing anyone (like a swear jar) who says or writes anything about Climate Change who , apart from breathing, is not fossil fuel free absolutely entirely ie lives like a hunter gatherer caveman.

 

[Ron The Bear]

I have barely read two pages in this thread and one thing is glaringly obvious. Once again it is the people with no credible information of their own putting the burden of proof onto those who sighting the latest compiled global scientific data.

Why fall into this trap time and time again?

Let the burden of proof fall upon the deniers. Let them post their foundations of belief for dissection and analysis.

Well I don't have any peer-reviewed climate research of my own, if that's what you mean. I don't claim to be an expert, far from it. As said earlier, it's easier to be a skeptic, but that's not why I am. "Deniers" don't need to convince anyone.

 

[GoGeta]

Well I don't have any peer-reviewed climate research of my own, if that's what you mean. I don't claim to be an expert, far from it. As said earlier, it's easier to be a skeptic, but that's not why I am. "Deniers" don't need to convince anyone.

I would love to hear your explanation for this conclusion..

If a person chooses to take place in a debate and takes a side, surely it is within reason to expect said person to produce compelling evidence to support their claims?

 

[Ron The Bear]

I would love to hear your explanation for this conclusion..

The status quo?

 

[Snake_Baker]

It was conflated at the outset. It is being conflated further with the bushfires. All the so-called "deniers" are doing is pointing out the political forces behind alarmism. Unfortunately I think they are now hopelessly intertwined. Symbiotic, even.

Correct.

The actual data has been tossed around by the respective cheer squads so much, that it has ceased to have any meaning to the layperson.

This is not an accident.

 

[GoGeta]

This thread is irrelevant anyway.

It's a foregone conclusion that humanity will walk the only path our flawed nature allows.

As one scientist recently said, ''We are going to find out if human beings are smart enough to save ourselves from extinction''

 

[Goosecat]

The main causative factors regarding Australia's fire issue are pretty basic really.
Up until even less than a century ago the thousands of fires started every year by lightening strikes, burned till nature ran it's course. You can throw in levels of indigenous fire practices preceding as well.
The constant regular burning and reduction of fuel loads meant more regular, slower and less intense fires to which flora and fauna had adapted. Over the last century all that has ceased. Regardless of climate change models indicating a rise of below 2 degrees Celsius over that time, the effects of continually extinguishing almost all fires were inevitable. No matter what side of the fence you sit on regarding the nature of climate change, it is clear that taking further preventative actions regarding the changed fire risks due to European settlement is a shared prerogative.
There needs to be a major rethink I believe regarding building zone clearing requirements for all rural and semi/special rural zones Australia wide. The fanciful ideal of living right among the trees with such fire hazards at your doorstep, or in some cases actually within the building envelope has to cease.
There needs to be a genuine scientific acknowledgement of the amount of extensive fire continually burning throughout Australia prior to white man arrival and the amount of fires now. The true analysis would give a far more accurate representation of the levels of fuel reduction burning genuinely needed each and every year to bring a semblance of balanced, historical fuel load reductions into the public, media and politicians minds.
There is also an opportunity to reassess the various Rural fire services and State emergency services regarding some forms of structure and payment I believe. There is undoubtedly a requirement for far greater amounts of fuel reduction burning at more regular intervals that needs to be undertaken. Once again, we know there were far greater numbers and more regular extensive fires prior to European arrival. I don't see why this task could not become part of a conjoined Fire and Emergency platform better situated and coordinated to operate all year round through summer fires and winter storms, including regular fuel load reduction. If we can find funding methods for numerous other programs we can find funding methods for more regular burns. The accompanying reduction in insurance costs alone could be a part source and the creation of a level of genuine economically beneficial programs and income would pay the investment back to the economy.

 

[Kwality]

Retired people are past their used by date? Please.. that is such a stupid view to hold and you know it. They are the most experienced people around and should be listened to, that is why many come back in a part time consultant role (happens a lot in the engineering field)

My suggestion was about this group not more generally.
IF it was not apparent I apologise for not being clear given I'm retired now myself & have a number of projects on the run.
If an activist of any type tried to use me ... guess!

 

[quotemokc]

The main causative factors regarding Australia's fire issue is pretty basic really.
Up until even less than a century ago the thousands of fires started every year by lightening strikes, burned till nature ran it's course. You can throw in levels of indigenous fire practices preceding as well.
The constant regular burning and reduction of fuel loads meant more regular, slower and less intense fires to which flora and fauna had adapted. Over the last century all that has ceased. Regardless of climate change models indicating a rise of below 2 degrees Celsius over that time, the effects of continually extinguishing almost all fires were inevitable. No matter what side of the fence you sit on regarding the nature of climate change, it is clear that taking further preventative actions regarding the changed fire risks due to European settlement is a shared prerogative.
There needs to be a major rethink I believe regarding building zone clearing requirements for all rural and semi/special rural zones Australia wide. The fanciful ideal of living right among the trees with such fire hazards at your doorstep, or in some cases actually within the building envelope has to cease.
There needs to be a genuine scientific acknowledgement of the amount of extensive fire continually burning throughout Australia prior to white man arrival and the amount of fires now. The true analysis would give a far more accurate representation of the levels of fuel reduction burning genuinely needed each and every year to bring a semblance of balanced, historical fuel load reductions into the public, media and politicians minds.
There is also an opportunity to reassess the various Rural fire services and State emergency services regarding some forms of structure and payment I believe. There is undoubtedly a requirement for far greater amounts of fuel reduction burning at more regular intervals that needs to be undertaken. Once again, we know there were far greater numbers and more regular extensive fires prior to European arrival. I don't see why this task could not become part of a conjoined Fire and Emergency platform better situated and coordinated to operate all year round through summer fires and winter storms, including regular fuel load reduction. If we can find funding methods for numerous other programs we can find funding methods for more regular burns. The accompanying reduction in insurance costs alone could be a part source and the creation of a level of genuine economically beneficial income would pay the investment back to the economy.

Please use paragraph spacing

 

[Goosecat]

Please use paragraph spacing

Apologies, I like "Walls of Text" and it saves space.

 

[Bazzar]

Victoria 11 months ago.
Sadly, he was 100% correct.

Appaling- After 3 years State Government abandoned the royal commission recommendation dumping its annual 5 per cent target in favour of a "targeted risk reduction" program.

Former fire chief calls for more planned burns as fuel loads reach Black Saturday levels
By Ben Knight
Updated 7 Feb 2019, 1:29pm

A Victorian forest fire chief who quit following Black Saturday is warning a combination of fear about planned burns and increasing forest fuel loads is putting the state at risk of deadly bushfires.

When the Victorian Bushfire Royal Commission handed down its report in 2010, it was sharply critical of the Victorian Government's lack of prescribed burning, where patches of public land are deliberately set alight, to reduce fuel and to create firebreaks.

"The amount of prescribed burning occurring in Victoria is inadequate," it said.

"[The commission] is concerned that the state has maintained a minimalist approach to prescribed burning despite recent official or independent reports and inquiries, all of which have recommended increasing the prescribed-burning program."

As a result, Victoria's forests had been allowed to continue building up fuel loads, "...adding to the likelihood of more intense bushfires and thereby placing firefighters and communities at greater risk".

The commission recommended a doubling of the prescribed burning program, and set an annual target of 5 per cent of public land — up from less than 2 per cent before Black Saturday.

Ten years later, fuel loads in some parts of the state are now back to what they were on Black Saturday and there is still deep concern about how much planned burning is being done.

Victoria's former chief fire officer Ewan Waller said burning was a big, but necessary, task.

"The forest fuel loads are very high.

"After the big fires, the scrub came back very heavy, and we have now got very high fuel loads throughout those burned areas.

"It has to be on such a large scale — to stop the run of fires coming out of the high country, for example — that it's an immense task."

Three years after the royal commission recommended doubling the amount of land being burned off, the State Government changed its approach — dumping its annual 5 per cent target in favour of a "targeted risk reduction" program.


More - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/black-saturday-fire-fuel-threat-planned-burns-needed/10787050

 

[mcnulty]

It was conflated at the outset

Margaret Thatcher gave a speech outlining the dangers of this back in ‘89. Thatcher.

It most certainly wasn’t conflated at the outset. A huge amount of effort and money have been poured into making it so.

 

[Kwality]

Here in WA, we’ve had deadly fires caused by controlled burns that got out of control. Simply changing the definition of safe won’t change the danger. I’m sure there are new ways of thinking that can be tried when it comes to prescribed burns, but leaning solely on controlled burns is a way to deflect from an equally pressing issue.

No one measure alone will work, my sister lives in the SW & the family are active volunteers - their rural property borders a national park, my brother-in-law is an active environmentalist (no longer active politically) & cleans up in the forest adjacent.

Deflection for purely ideological reason will dog any solution.