Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Gronk]

Lol what a ludicrous policy

What’s the difference between that and a human rights policy ? It’s about leadership to force change.

 

[Bazal]

What’s the difference between that and a human rights policy ? It’s about leadership to force change.

Lol what a ludicrous comparison

It's very different to a human rights policy.

 

[Bandwagon]

Except that there is significantly more green and blue than there is yellow, orange and red.

And importantly, significantly more dark blue than purple.

https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/delgenio_02/

Oh, and btw...I noticed your nice, selective use of "clearly".

And despite that being 20 year old data, it backs up exactly what I said. Please explain how that graph shows anything other than "the effects of greater precipitation aren't uniformly felt across the world"?

Cheers.

 

[Gronk]

Lol what a ludicrous comparison

It's very different to a human rights policy.

It’s not LOL anything. The EU can trade with anyone they like. If they think that your country has a shit human rights history or don’t agree with your warmongering or your bullshit attitude with emissions, then they don’t trade with you or introduce tariffs. They can buy their wheat or iron ore from multiple sources. It’s their choice and provided that they can trade at a similar price, why do you give a crap ?

 

[Bazal]

It’s not LOL anything. The EU can trade with anyone they like. If they think that your country has a shit human rights history or don’t agree with your warmongering or your bullshit attitude with emissions, then they don’t trade with you or introduce tariffs. They can buy their wheat or iron ore from multiple sources. It’s their choice and provided that they can trade at a similar price, why do you give a crap ?

Because its utterly useless, harmful policy aimed at making pollies who enjoy the scent of their own farts feel good about themselves?

Are you seriously all for an idea whereby a large country (say China, all denier cliches aside) that pollutes dozens of times more than Australia, but makes an effort, will be all sweet while one that still creates a fraction of the damage will be barred or tariffed?

It's hollow policy that will hurt smaller or developing economies while further increasing reliance on big polluters who make an effort.

Political fan bois, man. Deadset

 

[Gronk]

Because its utterly useless, harmful policy aimed at making pollies who enjoy the scent of their own farts feel good about themselves?

Are you seriously all for an idea whereby a large country (say China, all denier cliches aside) that pollutes dozens of times more than Australia, but makes an effort, will be all sweet while one that still creates a fraction of the damage will be barred or tariffed?

It's hollow policy that will hurt smaller or developing economies while further increasing reliance on big polluters who make an effort.

Political fan bois, man. Deadset

Well the devil is in the detail. We all know that emerging economies are treated differently under the Paris Agreement and likewise those countries would also have different benchmarks to say us. Again it’s about taking a stance on principles. Dismissing this as virtue signalling by do-gooders is short sighted.

I’m sorry, the but India, but China argument is past it’s use by date.

 

[Bazal]

Well the devil is in the detail. We all know that emerging economies are treated differently under the Paris Agreement and likewise those countries would also have different benchmarks to say us. Again it’s about taking a stance on principles. Dismissing this as virtue signalling by do-gooders is short sighted.

I’m sorry, the but India, but China argument is past it’s use by date.

Lol. I never used the word virtue signalling, so stop resorting to your fanboi cliches. This is not a but China or India situation. Dismissing the fact that they still pollute more than most despite doing their bit is arrogant and ignorant.

Would you prefer I used the USA? They're near the largest importer into the EU.

 

[Bandwagon]

I've never heard NASA referred to as a crayon before...

But a little breakdown of the above won't hurt...

Just because a part of the map does have yellow, orange or red doesn't mean they will go through endless droughts. Southeast Asia, for example, has the colours above but is also known for significant rainfall. There has just been a lessening of that rainfall and while that may have some implications, "OMFG!!! They're all going to die in a drought!!! Climate Change!!!" is not one of them.

The northern region of South America is the same.

But some places that are known for regular droughts do seem additionally exposed - the southern part of Africa and the Mediterranean are the obvious places on the map above.

However...Australia and North America have increased rainfall and more than make up for the SA/Med declines, especially since both places are known for droughts and so now have a reduced risk/occurence.

So, while Bandy's generic, meaningless point of "Precipitation isn't felt uniformly across the world" is valid (such insight there, Bandy. Why haven't you received the Nobel prize, yet?) it is, as I just stated, meaningless.

Of course changes in climate aren't felt uniformly across the world. We shouldn't be shocked to hear that.

But, overall, there is an increase in precipitation and, when looked at in more detail, the areas where there is less are fewer in number than those with more, and known drought affected areas have, on the whole, received increased precipitation rather than decreased.

So, my points are still correct - there is less drought, as per NASA and the EPA, and the current bushfires are not connected to "climate change", as per the IPCC.

Hey, you found that reference in AR5 stating no "link between extreme weather and climate change" yet mate?

If I was a little cynical, I might think you were avoiding backing up your claims.

 

[hindy111]

I'm heading down the Sth coast in 10 days.

 

[TheParraboy]

I'm heading down the Sth coast in 10 days.

Batemans bay?

 

[Gary Gutful]

I've never heard NASA referred to as a crayon before...

But a little breakdown of the above won't hurt...

Just because a part of the map does have yellow, orange or red doesn't mean they will go through endless droughts. Southeast Asia, for example, has the colours above but is also known for significant rainfall. There has just been a lessening of that rainfall and while that may have some implications, "OMFG!!! They're all going to die in a drought!!! Climate Change!!!" is not one of them.

The northern region of South America is the same.

But some places that are known for regular droughts do seem additionally exposed - the southern part of Africa and the Mediterranean are the obvious places on the map above.

However...Australia and North America have increased rainfall and more than make up for the SA/Med declines, especially since both places are known for droughts and so now have a reduced risk/occurence.

So, while Bandy's generic, meaningless point of "Precipitation isn't felt uniformly across the world" is valid (such insight there, Bandy. Why haven't you received the Nobel prize, yet?) it is, as I just stated, meaningless.

Of course changes in climate aren't felt uniformly across the world. We shouldn't be shocked to hear that.

But, overall, there is an increase in precipitation and, when looked at in more detail, the areas where there is less are fewer in number than those with more, and known drought affected areas have, on the whole, received increased precipitation rather than decreased.

So, my points are still correct - there is less drought, as per NASA and the EPA, and the current bushfires are not connected to "climate change", as per the IPCC.

 

[Gronk]

Lol. I never used the word virtue signalling, so stop resorting to your fanboi cliches. This is not a but China or India situation. Dismissing the fact that they still pollute more than most despite doing their bit is arrogant and ignorant.

Would you prefer I used the USA? They're near the largest importer into the EU.

i think you need to look into what’s happening in the EU before you LOL again. The EU have already put a price on carbon. Just as Australia did circa 2012. The reason why there is a price on carbon in the EU is because it works. Australia is a perfect example, where industry found ways to cut emissions. Left to their own devices, emissions trend upwards.



EU companies pay 25 euros per metric ton of carbon. This hits their bottom line and it is reflected at the consumer end of production. Because Australia and the US (for example) refuse to put a price on carbon, their EU competitors are at a disadvantage to those from AU and USA. To avoid EU companies becoming uncompetitive, they really have no alternative but to charge a toll at the border equivalent to the carbon price. If the exporting countries have a price on carbon domestically, there will be no need for a collection at the border. If not, then they pay to enter the market. Is this protectionism ? Sure, but it’s also climate pragmatism at the very time when leadership is required.

When Australia put a price on carbon, the world didn’t implode, a Sunday roast didn’t go to $100 as Tony Abbott scaremongered. Indeed Peta Credlin even admitted that the whole evil tax thing as made up bullshit to give Abbott some political purchase against Gillard.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/markdistefano/whats-the-point-of-australian-politics

If we kept the price on carbon, we would be so far down the track towards lower emissions, it’s not funny. Ironically, ScoMo said this week that industry left alone will retool and trend towards lower emissions without government intervention, however we all know that in real terms emissions are increasing.

The EU are being brave and seeking net zero emissions target by 2050. Australia and the USA will follow, albeit kicking and screaming some years later.

https://www.ceps.eu/ceps-publications/how-eu-trade-policy-can-enhance-climate-action/

 

[Gary Gutful]

Passive agressive lol'ing should be banned and repeat offenders should be publicly melted.

 

[Bandwagon]

Passive agressive lol'ing should be banned and repeat offenders should be publicly melted.

What will I post then FFS

Lolz

 

[Gary Gutful]

What will I post then FFS

Lolz

You are too smart and well informed to resort to an LOL. Never thought I'd say that about anyone from Lismore.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

You can't publicly melt people anyway. It would be a fire hazard.

 

[hindy111]

You can't publicly melt people anyway. It would be a fire hazard.

Can't do bugger all these days

 

[Bandwagon]

You can't publicly melt people anyway. It would be a fire hazard.

Acid.

 

[Eelogical]

You are too smart and well informed to resort to an LOL. Never thought I'd say that about anyone from Lismore.

 

[Eelogical]

Passive agressive lol'ing should be banned and repeat offenders should be publicly melted.