Yes, sometimes the ‘odd person out’ is eventually found to have been correct. My ‘alphabet experience’ was working with researchers at NWS (US), NCAR (US), NASA (US), Scripps (US) DKRZ (DE), ECMWF (EU), UKMO-Hadley Centre (GB), JAMSTEC (JP), BOM-CSIRO (AU), EU (CA), and there was and remains strong agreement across them. Their climate predictions are generally shown to have been conservative in many respects, happening well before they predicted them to be happening. FWIW the UN reports are politically censored and ‘adjusted’ to suit the political needs of governments of the day, generally ‘toned down’.
Prof Ridd is a well known sceptic who might eventually be proven right, and we each ‘salute’ those we feel are honest and have ‘the science’ as we journey forth into the future.
Prof Ridd has as much right to take his position as do the cadre of others on the opposing side. Whether he was properly dismissed has little to do with the science and everything to do with workplace regulations. Why he was dismissed? Just musing having not been privy, some people do Gish-Gallops and they do get tiring. I am not aware whether that was or is his behavioural pattern, but if he went on for decades and could not prevail using peer reviewed methods, what could one conclude about whether he is meritorious, a crackpot or just marginalised by a loaded-against-him system?
Since I have caused us to wander from the focal point of this, your topic I’ll conclude my participation. Apologies for that.
No that is a straw man argument. Science is always contingent on the data, if new data becomes available the understanding may have to change. Those who demand absolute certainty will not find it in science. At present the probability that humans caused most if not all of climate change in this instance is very high. It is time to act even if certainty never comes because if we don’t it will be too late to avoid the worst consequences.
It intrigues me that the do nothing view ignores the facts that coal and oil are finite resources and that burning them causes huge environmental and health problems. Any country that gets rid of them sooner rather than later will be in front of the inevitable and so much better off regardless of the effect on climate.
The answer to this is simple if you care to distinguish between weather and climate. By its chaotic nature weather cannot be predicted accurately, with climate there is the opportunity to look at longer periods of time where the fluctuations even out.
Another common anti climate change talking point is “the climate is always changing-it’s called nature”. Nobody doubts that the climate has changed many times over the last several billion years. That doesn’t mean that this time it must also be for natural reasons. The evidence that human activity has brought about this change is abundant. Aside from the pace of change and the coincidence with the industrial revolution and the growth of burning fossil fuel, there have been studies aimed at addressing this specific question that concluded the evidence was good.
I could be wrong, perhaps the past is inevitably a guide to the present and future. Maybe oil will last forever, after all we have never run out so far.
Both of these talking points have been debunked many times but still they are brought up time and time again.
When you started this topic I saw it as a serious question supportive of responding to climate change.
Your enquiry was narrow in what it asked. Something as the first to respond I sought to clarify. The opportunity to respond was there for all to agree or offer alternatives.
I’ll just suggest that those of us who are more affluent have the most to give up, and can better afford to do so. Those of us who are less well off have very little they can give up and very limited resources.
It is no surprise that many suggest they see a significant part of the way forward as doing things differently or better.
It does not matter how we see the science once we agree we are all in this together. Those with the most to give up perhaps are our politically appointed leaders. Pride and self interest their biggest personal challenge?
Looking to who is leading by example it is easy to see who is on board. Your original question asks that very bluntly. The majority of ScoMo (aka Sooty’s quiet Australians)?
Fortunately or not the recent surveys by the ABC that support that statement have avoided dividing Australians on the basis of affluence. Support for greater action on climate change risks appears wide spread across all but a select narrow demographic of “The Australian” population. (Excuse the accidental pun)
So for most of us we can only make small changes, consider the impact of our vote and reduce our transport emissions. As @bottville mentioned we can also try to reduce our purchasing from large polluters.
Does anyone here take multiple around the world flights a year? Or own significant shares in polluting companies (I’ve done my best to divest my super)? That’s what we need to look at giving up.
Good point I had forgotten this. My portfolio is likewise as free of fossil fuel as practical. Gosh now I feel even more virtuous, could whoever is keeping score give me another tick please.
On an individual level, yes you not going wouldn’t have made a difference. But if on average we all flew 10% less then there WOULD be less flights happening. I’m not saying anyone has to give up traveling, but many people fly multiple times a year for leisure. It would definitely help the environment if we cut that back to once a year.
Currently air travel contributes around 2.5% of global emissions. So a 10% reduction would be a 0.25% reduction in overall emissions without any of us really having to sacrifice anything (for you that would mean skipping a year only once a decade!)
I haven’t even been in a plane for well over 10 years, let alone flying around the world multiple times!
I have however, cycled a distance of more than twice the circumference of Earth in that time, and over 4X in the past ~20 years!
I moved my super to Australian Ethical (no FF investments) many years ago, as soon as I left ANU and was able to choose my own fund.
To keep my conscience clear, I do as much as I can not to waste precious resources and ‘minimise my footprint” but deep down I know that there’s really nothing I can do to “Save the Planet” because of one very
important factor: Population growth.
Projections for 2050 reckon the population will reach 9.8 Billion.
This planet can sustain 9 to 10 billion,
considering available water, grain, etc.
We can win some battles by modifying our behaviour, but in end we are going to lose the war.
Humans are in plague proportions today, let alone in 2050.
One additional thing to my list above was having one child (our own one child policy). If everyone only had one child, the population would slowly decrease.
Good luck telling the 1.5 billion Muslims that. Or maybe the Indians. By 2050, the world will be Orwellian and then the culling can commence. Maybe they will ask for volunteers. Maybe the old, in-firmed or handicapped. Maybe the Christians. Maybe the non-conformists.
Sustainable population depends on how the numbers are spun. In very rough terms, the human population of the planet hit 1 billion about the middle of the 19th century. It passed 2 billion about the middle of the 20th. By the end of that century, it was more than 6 billion. In other words, the population doubled in a century then tripled in half that time.
The global degradation I’ve seen in my lifetime suggests that we passed the sustainable limit some time before World War II. If a healthy planet will sustain less than 2 billion people, then the capacity of one that’s severely damaged is far less.
No need for us to do anything. Nature has ways of dealing with populations. Given the state of the planet, my own guess is that humanity will be reduced to less than 1 billion people. Civilisation will not survive and will not recover.
I doubt this is about religion or ethnicity. Your point appears lost in suggesting the politics of the planet can be that simply defined or divided.
India as a nation is a multitude of different cultural groups, languages, and five major religions.
The Middle East and Northern Africa has many nations at odds with each other despite sharing the same principal faith, with the populations of the majority all seeking to travel once in a lifetime to a common holy site.
The power of Christianity to unite it’s diverse flocks has long gone with the demise of the power of the Pope’s of Rome. The majority of Christians now live in secular states.
China has not rated a mention. It of all nations and people’s has a significant role to play.
One thing I have definitely given up for the future of the planet is to divide others by religion or race or nationality.
I only hope that if enough of us do likewise, we can push past those who would divide us. Those encouraging division seek to derail genuine progress to stopping climate change. I have no desire to see our children or their children inherit the grim predictions alluded to previously, or to perform a fatalistic overture as a measure of self worth.
The highest rate of population growth is in Africa, followed by parts of SE Asia, South and Central America and Afghanistan, then in the middle are N America, Australia, Brazil, Argentina, China, Scandinavia and India. Most of Europe, Japan and Russia are negative. China and India have the largest populations but not the fastest growth rates.
If one is looking for a simple model the one factor that best predicts natural population growth is poverty. Russia is the anomaly its low rate is due to other factors not wealth.
The rate of growth peaked in the 1960s however the population will not peak for a while, maybe 2100. If you want to reduce the growth rate in the countries where it is high then raise their living standard and education. Sadly this will also raise their consumption of resources and unless there is major change their greenhouse emissions per head.
I for one would like to raise an objection that blaming individual races and religions is not appropriate talk. This forum exists for consumer issues and is no place for suggesting religious based homicide.
Settle down , mate. If you read my comment in connection with the post I was commenting on, you would have realized that I was blaming anybody. I was merely responding to the notion that we limit each family to one child and pointing out that those groups have a strong tendency to have large families. The comment about the culling was a perspective on where this world is heading could be heading with its social engineering. I wasn’t criticizing anyone.
