OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.

  1. hindy111

    hindy111 Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    28,932
    Likes Received:
    5,933
    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.
     
  2. Poupou Escobar

    Poupou Escobar Post Whore

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2007
    Messages:
    57,013
    Likes Received:
    8,158
    '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.
     
    Gary Gutful likes this.
  3. Gronk

    Gronk Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    49,362
    Likes Received:
    7,459
    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.
     
  4. Gary Gutful

    Gary Gutful Immortal

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    30,922
    Likes Received:
    8,739
    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.
     
    hindy111 likes this.
  5. Gary Gutful

    Gary Gutful Immortal

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    30,922
    Likes Received:
    8,739
    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.
     
    Poupou Escobar likes this.
  6. hindy111

    hindy111 Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    28,932
    Likes Received:
    5,933
    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
     
  7. Gronk

    Gronk Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    49,362
    Likes Received:
    7,459
    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.
     
  8. Gronk

    Gronk Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2006
    Messages:
    49,362
    Likes Received:
    7,459
    [​IMG]
     
  9. Gary Gutful

    Gary Gutful Immortal

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2010
    Messages:
    30,922
    Likes Received:
    8,739
    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.
     
  10. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    21,746
    Likes Received:
    7,272
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Poupou Escobar and Gary Gutful like this.
  11. Twizzle

    Twizzle Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    135,651
    Likes Received:
    4,378
    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
     
  12. Hollywood Jesus

    Hollywood Jesus Coach

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2003
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    484
    Oh, snap! ;)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 7, 2019
  13. Chipmunk

    Chipmunk Coach

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    11,949
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    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: Oct 6, 2019
  14. Chipmunk

    Chipmunk Coach

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    11,949
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    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.
     
  15. Chipmunk

    Chipmunk Coach

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    11,949
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    It's the same with any commodity.
     
  16. Chipmunk

    Chipmunk Coach

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2003
    Messages:
    11,949
    Likes Received:
    1,414
    We're not influential. We're nobody in the grand scheme of things.
     
  17. Twizzle

    Twizzle Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    135,651
    Likes Received:
    4,378
    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
     
  18. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    21,746
    Likes Received:
    7,272
    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.
     
  19. hindy111

    hindy111 Referee

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    28,932
    Likes Received:
    5,933
    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.
     
    Poupou Escobar likes this.
  20. Bandwagon

    Bandwagon Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2013
    Messages:
    21,746
    Likes Received:
    7,272
    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.
     

Share This Page