Jump to content


strifus

Member Since 10 Sep 2008
Offline Last Active Yesterday, 03:38 PM
***--

Posts I've Made

In Topic: NBN - Is it too expensive?

13 September 2017 - 08:01 PM

It's September the 13th.  I live in Capalaba, Brisbane, QLD.  Just around the beginning of the year this year, I got mail outs that said that we have the NBN in our area now.  So, I go to my choice of RSP, and they tell me that my area or my building isnt connected yet even if I saw guys come in and install stuff on our walls and in our telecoms conduits.  So I call NBNCo, and ask, what's the go here.  And they give me some speil about not having enough of something and left it at that, and that there is no ETA in terms of when its going to get fixed.  9 months later, still nothing.

 

Sigh.....


In Topic: how crap is this government ?

14 December 2016 - 07:27 PM

https://au.news.yaho...er-bills/#page2

 

Hey Tastywheat.  Get a load of this.  Because of the shutdown of said power plant and because Victoria wants more greener power, everybody's power is going to get more expensive.  Some are even calling it a carbon tax.  I mean its a good thing from my POV but to others, and I dont know the stats, not so good for them.  I mean, its the oldest plant in Australia and at least the Victorian government is doing something, policy-wise, about the topic we were talking about.  It is clear though that Aussies are still divided over AGW.


In Topic: how crap is this government ?

12 December 2016 - 01:00 AM

 

I am just wondering if you all agree whether climate change is actually real or not yet, because, if it does happen, who knows what will happen beyond global warming.  The point is that most scientists are just guessing at a point of fact due to the data that they have.  However, to predict what actually will happen, is another thing entirely.  I friend of mine, who works at UC Berkeley, believes that there is enough data out there to prove something is happening but to call it climate changed induced by humans is a bit out there.  So, I believe, that the question is not whether its true or not, but what to do about it if it is true.

 

Edit:  There was a whole lot more I wrote but it basically says the same thing as the paragraph above, albeit with citations and all that.  I just wanted to ask the question, not as a denier or a believer.

 

That's not how science works.  

 

While it's true that leaps in science start off as guesses (better described at theoretical models), that's not actually what's happening with the modelling of warming outcomes.  In order to gain any credit in predicting an outcome, you have to explain the mechanics of your prediction.  e.g. sea level rises from the poles melting, run-away warming from melting permafrost that releases more of the green house gas methane, increased mosquito born disease from expanding habitat ranges etc.

 

So we have have a concrete model for the way that a virulent species can change the climate of the planet.  Cyanobacteria were the first form of life to photosynthesise, or make energy from sunlight.  A byproduct of this process was oxygen.  They were so successful as a species, that they literally changed the atmospheric content of the Earth.  They enabled life to move onto land through their waste products reacting in the upper atmosphere to create the ozone layer, which had a useful side effect of blocking UV radiation that otherwise would have cooked the DNA of any species exposed to it.  They facilitated the evolution of aerobic life, which uses oxygen as part of it's basic metabolism.  They also induced a mass extinction event of more primitive anaerobic organisms.

 

From this, we know life on earth has dramatically changed the climate of the Earth in the past, so it's possible that it could happen again.  If we look as what we're doing with fossil fuels, which is essentially taking millions of years worth of stored solar energy, and releasing it in the form of green house gasses, it's actually extremely intuitive to come to the conclusion that recent warming trends are the result of human activity.  Every step in the process is unambiguous.  We know that coal and crude oil are stored solar energy.  We know that CO2 is a green house agent.  We know that since the industrial revolution, atmospheric CO2 has been rising.  We're pretty damn sure that average surface temperatures have been rising over the last few decades, even when taking into account solar fluctuations, movement of the solar system through the milky way, and the impact of urban heat island effects on our weather stations.

 

So you have a friend at UC Berkeley that's skeptical of climate science.  That's one point of information, which certainly isn't trivial from your perspective, but it's also not completely reliable either.  The reason science has resulted in such awesome technological innovations in the last two centuries is because our way of thinking has evolved beyond a simple reputation system, and into something where logic and reproducibility are also given high status.  It's far from perfect, and science is littered with tales of ideas being suppressed by a consensus which eventually turned out to be right, but it's important to understand the complexities involved, and why the consensus on climate change is a reasonable thing to take seriously.

 

If you pay attention to the details, from my perspective it's fairly clear that we're having an impact on the climate.  The next step in logical analysis of this phenomena is whether this impact is positive, neutral, or negative, and to whom.  Here is where I think there can still be a healthy application of skepticism, provided that it adheres to the precautionary principle.  From past extinction events, we again have pretty good models of what happens from 'rapid' climate changes.  It's generally very bad for biodiversity on Earth, and almost certainly bad for us as a species, but the ethical conclusions that can be drawn are far more nuanced than what the mass media or political organisations describe it as.

 

The great thing about the internet era is that all of the evidence available, waiting for you to sift through it and form your own opinions.  The thing that I'd like to stress the most, is that the simplest models and conclusions are almost always wrong, even if it's tempting to go with them because they're neat.  There's a reason it takes 8 and a half years of university study to become a respected climate scientist, and though a certain amount of that study is abstracted from the real world, it's not just academic learning for academic learning's sake.  Check out Crash Course Chemistry/Physics or Minute Physics on Youtube.  If you're a bit more serious about it, try Khan Academy.  There's really no excuse to hide behind the opinion of a friend who apparently knows better these days, when you could apply you're own intelligence and logic to the problem.  

 

If you don't have the time or interest to read up on this stuff, then the answer is simple.  Don't perpetuate opinions that you haven't verified.  In fact, don't have an opinion on the matter at all until you've invested time trying to understand it.  Sure, ask questions, call out logical fallacies, but don't be anti-intellectual unless you can point out what parts of the logic of intellectual's is faulty.

 

 

Dude, you are entitled to your own opinion.  I what I was expressing in that paragraph was the question of what do we do?  I mean, I know what I am doing, but what can we do as a nation without government help.  As you pointed out, its entirely logical that whats happening now is as a consequence of human activity with regards to CO2.  Its also logical, therefore, to try to do something about it, if not as a nation, at least individually.  I doubt the LNP nor the ALP are willing to do anything at this time to further that agenda and there is much debate on how we achieve the goal of reversing AGW, as a nation, at least politically, at least with regards to CO2.

 

My question was, How do we get everybody on the same page before the problem gets worse?  I may believe in AGW but my neighbour might think that its malarkey and think that there are more important variables than just CO2 reduction.  Ultimately, we all have to do our bit and get involved otherwise its for nothing.


In Topic: how crap is this government ?

08 December 2016 - 12:21 AM

I'm not a hundred percent sure strifus . What I am sure about is the level of crap we keep inflicting on ourselves

in the chase for the mighty profit :\   ... ffs black lung is making a comeback.

 

Nobody is 100% sure about anything.  Take the Snowball Earth, or Global Glaciation (glaciation all the way to the equator), Theory.  There is evidence that such events happened, yes plural, and thats outside what we would consider Ice Ages.  Did they actually happen?  How can we say for sure because they cant even agree precisely on the mechanism of such an event apart from that something triggers a cooling trend which starts the build up of glaciation and from there reflection of sunlight and heat by glaciation just progresses the process further.  So, if a Snowball Earth scenario can happen, apparently by itself and with no help from humans, who is to say that there is no chance that a global heating trend can or cant happen, with or without human influence.


In Topic: how crap is this government ?

07 December 2016 - 07:18 PM

I am just wondering if you all agree whether climate change is actually real or not yet, because, if it does happen, who knows what will happen beyond global warming.  The point is that most scientists are just guessing at a point of fact due to the data that they have.  However, to predict what actually will happen, is another thing entirely.  I friend of mine, who works at UC Berkeley, believes that there is enough data out there to prove something is happening but to call it climate changed induced by humans is a bit out there.  So, I believe, that the question is not whether its true or not, but what to do about it if it is true.

 

Edit:  There was a whole lot more I wrote but it basically says the same thing as the paragraph above, albeit with citations and all that.  I just wanted to ask the question, not as a denier or a believer.