The Science also provides an insight as to why Australia cannot make real progress at a national level on responding more assertively to climate change issues.
I sometimes wonder why when we post we do not take more time to dissect the content.
Firstly the data split in this key graphic in the report is a USA derived population survey.
There is an Australian based research document also referenced in the article. It relates to work done in 2013, and not 2019. Secondly it is behind an identity firewall. Accessible to us ordinary folk only if we choose to share our lives with Google, Faceplant (oops Facebook) or LinkedIn. Sorry, no go territory for some.
Are we any the wiser?
Most of us understand that at a Federal level the government has a slim majority. The voices of but a few can shape the policy of the majority within the party. The same might be true of any political party when in power. The data set from the USA is equally revealing.
The first half of today’s Landline repeats much of the same material. One farmer commented that many on the land are under-insured. Yet another market failure?
Is the private sector up to the task of insurance for agriculture? Would Australia be better served by some form of community-based insurance?
Should we ensure we all don’t breath in at the same time?
Science doesn’t respond well to uncertainty, Quantum theory excepted. Although we are also struggling to explain that in terms most of us might understand.
Climate change runs a similar gauntlet. While not lacking in fact it remains impossible to deliver exact outcomes. It still depends on how you observe events.
More succinctly there is good reason to believe these Scientists now as proof by observation may prove fatal?
Science is, if it is truthful, is always uncertain to some degree. It is lay people who hope that it is certain because that is their heart’s desire. As another poster remarked, it is only in mathematics that you can prove anything.
Here is an essay about future power generation from a Liberal MP, Katie Allen. I want to skate past the advertorial for her party’s policy to the section on nuclear power. I also want to skip the technical pros and cons of using nuclear power in this country. This conversation gets rather hot (the thread on that topic has been locked for a while) and I want to consider it from another point of view.
She says of the proposition to add nuclear energy to the mix:
"Any changes to the moratorium would require bipartisan support and broad community acceptance. "
Please consider these points:
any new structure of any kind will encounter objections founded on NIMBYism regardless of merit of the proposal or political affiliation,
greens and their supporters will automatically oppose the move,
much of the Australian public has a visceral fear of nuclear power, convincing them that newer tech will prevent another Fukushima will be an uphill battle,
to get bipartisan support will require getting considerable public support first, historically if the numbers are close one major party will oppose the other just on principle,
gaining the necessary level of support, if it can be done at all, will draw out the process.
But:
building nuclear facilities already has a long lead time,
we need a policy that will take effect sooner rather than later.
Therefore, regardless of technical merit, there is no point in starting the debate because even if the tech is safe and the outcome is successful it will be too late.
Such perceived slights are best left to slide. Pursuing them serves only to disrupt conversation.
As the issue has been raised,
is akin to somewhat unique and slightly pregnant.
Certainty has no place in science. The best science can do is degrees of confidence. For example, it was last year announced that evidence of human induced global warming had passed the five sigma threshold. That’s 99.9999% confidence. Not certain, but as close as science ever gets to it.
Sadly, confidence is often confused with certainty. Popular media is repeatedly culpable.
On a broader note, this is fairly old, but only now come to my attention:
In June 2019 a hazard reduction burn went ahead on Bribie Island - with disastrous results. Everything was too dry, the wind was unpredictable, the fire got out of control, homes were threatened, lives were endangered.
No more hazard reduction burns went ahead in the area after that in 2019; and the bushfires in the area began in August.
Plus the people who harvest crops, the people who harvest trees, the people who graze stock on grasslands really don’t like to have their croplands, commercial forests, and pastures burnt to reduce the risk of a bushfire coming along and burning them …
And as studies have shown, and evidence I’ve seen locally - recent burning does not prevent another fire going through, particularly in catastrophic/code red conditions.
Impacts of too hot or large a burn,
Impacts of insufficient adjacent refuge for displaced wildlife,
Boom times following for feral animals,
Fragmentation or habitat,
Vegetation areas too small for population diversity.
Etc
Responsible traditional management practices may not work if the environment and climate conditions present in the past are not present today.
Might have some consumer impacts.
