What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
Why do I feel like Gary Gutful and Bandwagon base their arguments on research and facts on this topic while others are pushing their own little views and opinions that they chose to beleive for whatever reason that is.
Pou also make good points. I've had to kind of dismiss the others unfortunately due to your emotions and ego effecting their actual thought process.
 

Poupou Escobar

Post Whore
Messages
84,148
When you look at it globally, the debate on human contribution towards climate change has been well and truly won in the affirmative, the only major western political party that is really bucking that trend is the GOP.

That is not to say there doesn't remain significant pockets of resistance, but they are dwindling, and are more and more becoming the outlier. Those countries with higher acceptance of the issue have well and truly moved past the political debate upon whether or not there is an issue, and are now debating what to do about it.
'Winning' a debate like this isn't strong evidence for the facts though, any more than when European Christians won the debate over the pagans. In the case of climate action, it feeds into the modern mental condition of interventionism, which afflicts members of a society when they become so highly specialised that they have full time jobs like politician. People always feel the need to do something, when doing nothing would have delivered superior outcomes.

The impact of carbon on climate is far from settled. The primary data is just too scant, and probably always will be. This is why there is disagreement over it, even within the scientific community. Even if it's only one percent that is a massive lack of consensus compared to issues where there is no debate. However the bigger problem is that so many people are so prepared to believe scientists when they don't actually know what they do, and in most cases have never even met one.

Personally I am against intervention in nearly every case. Modern humans intervene far too much, and cause new problems that could've been avoided. We can't help ourselves. But in the case of carbon emissions, that in itself is an intervention we chose to solve the non-problem of how to transport people and goods further and faster. It was never necessary, and is certainly something we should be dialling back. It might even change the rate and/or direction of climate change.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,537
Why do I feel like Gary Gutful and Bandwagon base their arguments on research and facts on this topic while others are pushing their own little views and opinions that they chose to beleive for whatever reason that is.
Pou also make good points. I've had to kind of dismiss the others unfortunately due to your emotions and ego effecting their actual thought process.
There very few people who remain agnostic on the topic of climate change. Hence why it is difficult to cut through the constant flow of emotionally charged opinions.

For you to use language like “their own little views and opinions” is condescending and discredits those participating in the debate.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,723
It's simply unrealistic for developed economies to deny the global south the opportunities that we have enjoyed. However there needs to be a re-think about what that actually means, and how we need to act.

I very much accept the argument that developing nations can not be denied that which we already have, access to cheap and affordable energy is key to that. But let's not kid ourselves that the status quo is that in affording those nations that very same power, we also are doing very well out of it thank you very much.
Thats true too. No question that we benefit.

I have studied the rate at which renewables have been taken up in developing countries. It is improving, but based on the current trajectories they will still need the cheap and reliable energy that thermal coal provides during a period of transition. I posted an article direct from India earlier in the week that said as much.

The only way this transition can be accelerated is if all developed nations see this a global crisis and provide collective investment in renewables throughout the world. This could happen and Australia could play an important role but it would require a lot more leadership and collaboration amongst world leaders than there is at present.
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,723
'Winning' a debate like this isn't strong evidence for the facts though, any more than when European Christians won the debate over the pagans. In the case of climate action, it feeds into the modern mental condition of interventionism, which afflicts members of a society when they become so highly specialised that they have full time jobs like politician. People always feel the need to do something, when doing nothing would have delivered superior outcomes.

The impact of carbon on climate is far from settled. The primary data is just too scant, and probably always will be. This is why there is disagreement over it, even within the scientific community. Even if it's only one percent that is a massive lack of consensus compared to issues where there is no debate. However the bigger problem is that so many people are so prepared to believe scientists when they don't actually know what they do, and in most cases have never even met one.

Personally I am against intervention in nearly every case. Modern humans intervene far too much, and cause new problems that could've been avoided. We can't help ourselves. But in the case of carbon emissions, that in itself is an intervention we chose to solve the non-problem of how to transport people and goods further and faster. It was never necessary, and is certainly something we should be dialling back. It might even change the rate and/or direction of climate change.
I see this as risk management. Erring on the side of caution and developing in a more responsible manner than we have would seem to be a lower risk than continuing on our current path.

People either think the science is 100% certain or expect it to be and end up getting caught up in a silly debate that loses sight of the bigger picture.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
There very few people who remain agnostic on the topic of climate change. Hence why it is difficult to cut through the constant flow of emotionally charged opinions.

For you to use language like “their own little views and opinions” is condescending and discredits those participating in the debate.

Your opinion and view is based on what you have heard or read and have chose to believe.For whatever reason someone's brain will chose left or right over the other I do not know.Just like when one person buys a certain car over another then say it's better. Different people chose different things and unsure if most people have done that much actual research in global warming bar a few newspaper articles.
And like many people they will pick the bits that suit their opinion.

So when I try and form my own opinion on this topic I will take Gary,Pou and Bandwagons words a little more seriously cause I feel like they are just better educated on the topic and are slightly more open minded
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,537
The only way this transition can be accelerated is if all developed nations see this a global crisis and provide collective investment in renewables throughout the world. This could happen and Australia could play an important role but it would require a lot more leadership and collaboration amongst world leaders than there is at present.
Bingo. Meaningful action on climate change is indeed catalysed by all countries being on the same page. At the moment, if you take Australia for example, we have a government who superficially accepts the concept of climate change, yet metaphorically takes the pill and spits it out when the nurse leaves the room.
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
73,537
Your opinion and view is based on what you have heard or read and have chose to believe.For whatever reason someone's brain will chose left or right over the other I do not know.Just like when one person buys a certain car over another then say it's better. Different people chose different things and unsure if most people have done that much actual research in global warming bar a few newspaper articles.
And like many people they will pick the bits that suit their opinion.

So when I try and form my own opinion on this topic I will take Gary,Pou and Bandwagons words a little more seriously cause I feel like they are just better educated on the topic and are slightly more open minded

VioletLivelyAcaciarat-size_restricted.gif
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
51,723
Bingo. Meaningful action on climate change is indeed catalysed by all countries being on the same page. At the moment, if you take Australia for example, we have a government who superficially accepts the concept of climate change, yet metaphorically takes the pill and spits it out when the nurse leaves the room.
True. Because they see a threat to our industries when the reality is that forming a collective position will probably legitimise their role and importance during a transition period.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
'Winning' a debate like this isn't strong evidence for the facts though, any more than when European Christians won the debate over the pagans. In the case of climate action, it feeds into the modern mental condition of interventionism, which afflicts members of a society when they become so highly specialised that they have full time jobs like politician. People always feel the need to do something, when doing nothing would have delivered superior outcomes.

The point I make regards winning the debate is about the need to move on from re-hashing arguments that have for the most part been settled. The practical outcome is that the world for the most part has accepted that AGW is a problem that requires addressing, that being the case, it is far more productive debating how that problem is best addressed, even if the solution you offer here ( to do nothing ) is part of that debate.

The impact of carbon on climate is far from settled. The primary data is just too scant, and probably always will be. This is why there is disagreement over it, even within the scientific community. Even if it's only one percent that is a massive lack of consensus compared to issues where there is no debate. However the bigger problem is that so many people are so prepared to believe scientists when they don't actually know what they do, and in most cases have never even met one.

In saying the above, there is always room in science for conventional theory to be tested, that is after all how science works at it's core. For the most part many a theory is not ever really proven, it only stands up to any and all scrutiny at best.

Personally I am against intervention in nearly every case. Modern humans intervene far too much, and cause new problems that could've been avoided. We can't help ourselves. But in the case of carbon emissions, that in itself is an intervention we chose to solve the non-problem of how to transport people and goods further and faster. It was never necessary, and is certainly something we should be dialling back. It might even change the rate and/or direction of climate change.

Your last sentence here touches on an interesting subject, because it goes to the root cause, which is that the basis of our system of capitalism is ever growing consumption, which can only ever be satisfied through the exploitation of labour, and as that has become less acceptable in the west, we have outsourced that exploitation to the global south's developing nations.

And that's where we ( the west ) benefit most from providing the global south with the cheap energy they demand, because that energy allows for the exploitation of labour to be far more productive and therefore provide us with ever more cheaper goods upon which to keep our economies expanding.

In short if we were to stop providing for the expanding energy needs of developing nations, our economies would likely simply collapse.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
150,734
Whatever happened to that invention I saw on Beyond 2000 I think, where someone had designed something that would harness the power of the ocean's movement?

they are still around, for them to be viable the conditions need to be right, shallow fast moving water, they work better at river inlets/outlets

in short, they are expensive and not as efficient as other renewables
 

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,148
I’m not really sure what you are talking about ^^.

Before I go down the rabbit hole of explaining what I think meaningful action on climate change is, I’d like to know your position on the subject for a start.

It intrigues me why climate change seems to be a left vs right politics thing. Do you agree with scientific consensus that humans are causing global warming ? That the need to arrest green house emissions is urgent and that failure to act will be irreversible and catastrophic?

Or are you in the hoax or global-warming-is-part-of-a natural-climate-cycle camp ?

I'm happy to take the opinion of the majority of scientists on climate change, global warming etc.

My issue with the climate change debate is that there is only one climate and Australia is only a minor part of the cause. If China, India and the USA aren't on board, then why should anyone else bother. The left don't seem to understand this. They just feel that the miniscule and uninfluential Australia should do what the economically inept Europeans are doing.

As I said in another post. If Australia went to 100% renewable energy tomorrow, what impact will that have on the affects of global warming? Virtually nothing.
 
Last edited:

Chipmunk

Coach
Messages
16,148
What I've posted there is neither a left nor right position. Tbh your need to frame it that way in order to dismiss it it rather childish.

Setting aside climate policy for a moment, if a Country such as ours sees an issue that it feels needs global co-operation to address, it would be very difficult to argue for any action on that issue, on that level without displaying a willingness to address that issue within it's own borders.

Now that is simply common sense, it's not left / right doctrine.

Maybe we don't address it because we know that unless everyone is on board then there is no point. This is the part that the left don't seem to be able to grasp. The left is for some reason of the opinion that Australia is this almighty influential power. In reality we are really Neville Nobody's on the World stage.
 

Twizzle

Administrator
Staff member
Messages
150,734
I find it odd that most people choose to believe or reject climate change based on their political views and choose to accept of reject what ever finding they read accordingly.

The thing for me is, lets say the leftie/greenies are wrong, whats the worst thing that can happen ? we have a much nicer planet in which to live

And if the righties are wrong ? well we're pretty much screwed
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
Maybe we don't address it because we know that unless everyone is on board then there is no point. This is the part that the left don't seem to be able to grasp. The left is for some reason of the opinion that Australia is this almighty influential power. In reality we are really Neville Nobody's on the World stage.

Do you ever stop to wonder why it is that you fell the need preface everything you have posted here on this subject with "but the left"?

That aside, again this is just the same flawed argument wrapped in a different bunch of words. I've addressed it logically, and repeating yourself does not serve to address the rebuttal I've presented.
 

hindy111

Post Whore
Messages
58,489
I find it odd that most people choose to believe or reject climate change based on their political views and choose to accept of reject what ever finding they read accordingly.

The thing for me is, lets say the leftie/greenies are wrong, whats the worst thing that can happen ? we have a much nicer planet in which to live

And if the righties are wrong ? well we're pretty much screwed

What if your apolitical?

And worse thing that can happen is I am guessing we become one of those poor nations and have to work 60hrs a week to live just to have bread and milk.
 

Bandwagon

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
41,833
I find it odd that most people choose to believe or reject climate change based on their political views and choose to accept of reject what ever finding they read accordingly.

The thing for me is, lets say the leftie/greenies are wrong, whats the worst thing that can happen ? we have a much nicer planet in which to live

And if the righties are wrong ? well we're pretty much screwed

It's really only an ideological issue in very few western democracies. Obviously the US being the most blatant.

I mean hark back to the 2007 election, and one John Howard went to the election with an emissions trading scheme in his policy portfolio.

Last time I looked, Howard was no hero of the left.
 
Top