"Martin Durkin’s excellent new documentary" - yes it is. Should be required viewing by all the climate change idiots, but of course they'll dismiss just like the authors of the GBD were.
BTW, still waiting for the "cheaper renewables" to kick in and see my electricity bill lowered. Any idea when that will happen Chris Bowen ?
This is an interesting article, but one thing that is often ignored is the effect on the health of the planet due to pollutants from coal oil and gas….
thanks for commenting - yes - Coal plants also produce mercury. But good environmental regulations from GREAT environmental activism meant coal plants had to remove it. Which they do, with various methods including injecting powdered activated carbon to capture and remove it, so it doesn't get put into the environment.
Once upon a time they used to pump out smoke with particulate matter - but again, great activism meant they had to put in scrubbers and filters, so the only thing that comes out is steam: water vapour and CO2 which is healthy for the planet.
It's literally the cleanest form of energy we have. Carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change, it's a bunch of other things we don't control - and don't even fully yet understand.
If you want to talk about hard times, look at 1914 in Victoria. Massive drought, high temps, the men had left the farms and gone to war, the cattle and sheep dropped dead. No air conditioners, obvs. I thought that if people could get by then they should be able to get by in 2006, when John Howard mooted nuclear power and I decided to give him no reason. Spent a lot of time in the community pool/dam, went around the house in wet clothes and slept under a wet towel. I thought my kids should know how it's done.
Is it the carbon dioxide that raises the temperature in a greenhouse, or is it the surrounds keeping the heat in, and preventing the cold from entering? These assumptions we grew up with...
As I have mentioned before and before that. I see the overall problem is a lack of true spiritual direction, I’m not talking about corporatized for profit and control religions.
When people don’t connect with their own purpose in life and develop their own beliefs they become vulnerable. Vulnerable to shallow virtue signaling and being easily manipulated aka mind control/ brainwashing. These are empty lost souls looking for meaning, trying to save the world when they cannot even control themselves. We only need to look at the rates of obesity, alcohol, drugs and medication to know modern science mostly offers evidence that increases corporate profits and government agendas. There’s nothing like getting people to look the wrong way when you want to pull a swiftie. The Kindom of heaven lies within, to change the world change yourself first.
The human spirit is actually innately good as opposed to the Original Sin drummed into western culture and thinking, survival of the fittest, redemption through personal suffering for an invisible god etc.
If people choose to treat each other as commodities and with indifference then no matter how good any System they will find a way to exploit it for personal gain.
You actually sound like you believe some Perfect System can control people and we can have a Ideal Society, according to who? Most certainly not any collective consciousness nor universal mind.
Isn’t this what we are currently undergoing at the hands of the Elite and the impending Technocray of a complete Surveillance State, their Perfect System 🤔
These are your religious beliefs and you are welcome to them. Everyone understands the world in a slightly different way. Good on you for thinking independently and making up your own mind instead of following the herd.
I commend Alison for referencing three scientific articles in this piece.
1. https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ which gives a good account of the history of CO2, with an interesting graphic which show the dramatic increase in CO2 levels since 1950 as compared to levels over the preceding 800000 years.
It is this last article, which is quite technical and difficult to read, that Alison uses to support the claim that scientists have found no correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last 500 million years, and the geologic record of climate variations. (see the second last paragraph headed: Comparison with the Climate Record).
I think the evidence provided by this study does not support Alison’s claim, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The author of this article, geophysicist and mathematician, Daniel H Rothman, Ph.D. says that if our null hypothesis is that levels of CO2 do not exert dominant control over the earth’s atmosphere, then his study does not provide evidence upon which we can reject this hypothesis.
This is something very different to saying that his study provides evidence supporting the null hypothesis. In science we gather data in order to build a case against the null hypothesis, not in support of it.
For example, in the 17th century, zoologists held the null hypothesis that all swans were white. If scientists did a detailed audit of all swans in Belgium, say, and found no swans that were not white, this does not change our position, which is that all swans are white. This is not seen as proof that all swans are white, but simply a failure to disprove what we already believe.
So, Dr Rothman’s article does not stand as proof or evidence that CO2 levels don’t affect climate.
Again well done to Alison for citing these three scientific articles. I would encourage people to read these and to look for other scientific articles and studies on this question. There are a lot of them.
If AGW deniers can accept that the small amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere plays an important role in keeping the planet warm, then they might wonder how much warmer it has become since the first accurate measurements of its concentration in 1958 were recorded. It is now over a third more in concentration now. Exon Mobil decades ago conducted its own research on C02 emissions and climate and found the results somewhat inconvenient for their vested interests and switched from climate research to man made climate change denial. A similar strategy used by the tobacco industry when their products were proven to be a major cause of lung cancer, not to mention other health problems. An unfortunate aspect of human nature where money is concerned. Another is believing what one wants to despite evidence to the contrary.
The word "denier" is a bit like a mob with pitchforks burning the witch. It's like "racist" or "antivaxxer" a word designed to censor instead of consider alternate points of view.
And who cares if there's a third more concentration of CO2 now. Good. We need more. Plants are not at optimum levels.
Human beings are plants way of increasing CO2 because you know what? The oceans remove it gradually over time and geologists estimate that in 100 million years there would be so little that plant life (and thus all oxygen-breathing, plant-eating life) would die.
So thank goodness we came along to release some CO2 before it is too late. Since carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change, who cares!
The climate is changing because of the sun and other complex factors.
Anjali is a very intelligent young lady who is being given accolades and status-rewards for following the climate change train. She truly believes she is saving the planet. It's not actually her fault she is wrong. That is the fault of lazy corporate media and activist teachers who encouraged her to think like this, and a lack of skepticism generally.
Once people are invested in an idea, their status tied to it, they can't change course.
It's not possible now for Anjali to even think there could be something wrong with the core premise that her identity is now built on.
This is a tragedy. It is the misdirection of a young person's energy and talent. She has been told she is a future leader who will change the world. That's a powerful ego boost for a young person.
Schools should instead be teaching humility to students, that changing the world is not a good thing unless it is a genuine improvement, that they should check and check again before messing with a system that has taken years to develop, that tinkering with things must be done with great caution.
"Martin Durkin’s excellent new documentary" - yes it is. Should be required viewing by all the climate change idiots, but of course they'll dismiss just like the authors of the GBD were.
BTW, still waiting for the "cheaper renewables" to kick in and see my electricity bill lowered. Any idea when that will happen Chris Bowen ?
they are literally going to divert billions of taxes to subsidise to pretend its cheap.
This is an interesting article, but one thing that is often ignored is the effect on the health of the planet due to pollutants from coal oil and gas….
thanks for commenting - yes - Coal plants also produce mercury. But good environmental regulations from GREAT environmental activism meant coal plants had to remove it. Which they do, with various methods including injecting powdered activated carbon to capture and remove it, so it doesn't get put into the environment.
Once upon a time they used to pump out smoke with particulate matter - but again, great activism meant they had to put in scrubbers and filters, so the only thing that comes out is steam: water vapour and CO2 which is healthy for the planet.
It's literally the cleanest form of energy we have. Carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change, it's a bunch of other things we don't control - and don't even fully yet understand.
If you want to talk about hard times, look at 1914 in Victoria. Massive drought, high temps, the men had left the farms and gone to war, the cattle and sheep dropped dead. No air conditioners, obvs. I thought that if people could get by then they should be able to get by in 2006, when John Howard mooted nuclear power and I decided to give him no reason. Spent a lot of time in the community pool/dam, went around the house in wet clothes and slept under a wet towel. I thought my kids should know how it's done.
Is it the carbon dioxide that raises the temperature in a greenhouse, or is it the surrounds keeping the heat in, and preventing the cold from entering? These assumptions we grew up with...
Excellent article - thank you!
Nice concise statement of the facts (including some unpopular ones).
As I have mentioned before and before that. I see the overall problem is a lack of true spiritual direction, I’m not talking about corporatized for profit and control religions.
When people don’t connect with their own purpose in life and develop their own beliefs they become vulnerable. Vulnerable to shallow virtue signaling and being easily manipulated aka mind control/ brainwashing. These are empty lost souls looking for meaning, trying to save the world when they cannot even control themselves. We only need to look at the rates of obesity, alcohol, drugs and medication to know modern science mostly offers evidence that increases corporate profits and government agendas. There’s nothing like getting people to look the wrong way when you want to pull a swiftie. The Kindom of heaven lies within, to change the world change yourself first.
yes but i don't believe in spirits. Human nature is what it is.
good systems prevent corruption
bad systems incentivise bad behaviour
show me the incentive and I'll show you the outcome.
The human spirit is actually innately good as opposed to the Original Sin drummed into western culture and thinking, survival of the fittest, redemption through personal suffering for an invisible god etc.
If people choose to treat each other as commodities and with indifference then no matter how good any System they will find a way to exploit it for personal gain.
You actually sound like you believe some Perfect System can control people and we can have a Ideal Society, according to who? Most certainly not any collective consciousness nor universal mind.
Isn’t this what we are currently undergoing at the hands of the Elite and the impending Technocray of a complete Surveillance State, their Perfect System 🤔
These are your religious beliefs and you are welcome to them. Everyone understands the world in a slightly different way. Good on you for thinking independently and making up your own mind instead of following the herd.
I commend Alison for referencing three scientific articles in this piece.
1. https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/ which gives a good account of the history of CO2, with an interesting graphic which show the dramatic increase in CO2 levels since 1950 as compared to levels over the preceding 800000 years.
2. https://science.nasa.gov/earth/climate-change/greenhouse-gases/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide/, which gives an insight into the incredible technology used by scientists to accurately monitor CO2 levels in the atmosphere.
3. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.022055499. Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels for the last 500 million years.
It is this last article, which is quite technical and difficult to read, that Alison uses to support the claim that scientists have found no correlation between atmospheric levels of CO2 over the last 500 million years, and the geologic record of climate variations. (see the second last paragraph headed: Comparison with the Climate Record).
I think the evidence provided by this study does not support Alison’s claim, and perhaps there is a misunderstanding of the scientific method.
The author of this article, geophysicist and mathematician, Daniel H Rothman, Ph.D. says that if our null hypothesis is that levels of CO2 do not exert dominant control over the earth’s atmosphere, then his study does not provide evidence upon which we can reject this hypothesis.
This is something very different to saying that his study provides evidence supporting the null hypothesis. In science we gather data in order to build a case against the null hypothesis, not in support of it.
For example, in the 17th century, zoologists held the null hypothesis that all swans were white. If scientists did a detailed audit of all swans in Belgium, say, and found no swans that were not white, this does not change our position, which is that all swans are white. This is not seen as proof that all swans are white, but simply a failure to disprove what we already believe.
So, Dr Rothman’s article does not stand as proof or evidence that CO2 levels don’t affect climate.
Again well done to Alison for citing these three scientific articles. I would encourage people to read these and to look for other scientific articles and studies on this question. There are a lot of them.
If AGW deniers can accept that the small amount of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere plays an important role in keeping the planet warm, then they might wonder how much warmer it has become since the first accurate measurements of its concentration in 1958 were recorded. It is now over a third more in concentration now. Exon Mobil decades ago conducted its own research on C02 emissions and climate and found the results somewhat inconvenient for their vested interests and switched from climate research to man made climate change denial. A similar strategy used by the tobacco industry when their products were proven to be a major cause of lung cancer, not to mention other health problems. An unfortunate aspect of human nature where money is concerned. Another is believing what one wants to despite evidence to the contrary.
The word "denier" is a bit like a mob with pitchforks burning the witch. It's like "racist" or "antivaxxer" a word designed to censor instead of consider alternate points of view.
And who cares if there's a third more concentration of CO2 now. Good. We need more. Plants are not at optimum levels.
Human beings are plants way of increasing CO2 because you know what? The oceans remove it gradually over time and geologists estimate that in 100 million years there would be so little that plant life (and thus all oxygen-breathing, plant-eating life) would die.
So thank goodness we came along to release some CO2 before it is too late. Since carbon dioxide doesn't cause climate change, who cares!
The climate is changing because of the sun and other complex factors.
After reading what you have written I think that denier is the appropriate word, given the overwhelming evidence both theoretical and concrete for AGW. What have the majority of climate scientist been saying now for many decades? More frequent extremes of weather. There is little evidence that Sun Cycles or "other complex factors" are presently having much effect on global warming. It's Eunice Foote, an American scientist, inventor, and women's rights campaigner, who will be posthumously worthy of a Galileo Award, should there be one, for findings from her experiments in the 1850s that inccreasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere will cause the Earth to warm up. https://www.google.com/search?sca_esv=6ea7bef9d148f8bc&tbm=vid&sxsrf=ACQVn08Q8OSRIBnxi01ePJf7zADlPqEqAA:1711514826532&q=1958+global+warming+film&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwifjI3K0ZOFAxX-klYBHXgdDfAQ8ccDegQIERAG&biw=1366&bih=625&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:d12bd940,vid:m-AXBbuDxRY,st:0
https://thespinoff.co.nz/science/04-08-2022/the-new-zealand-newspaper-climate-report-making-waves-110-years-later
Anjali Sharman, have you heard of photosynthesis? No, it is not Taylor Swift's back-up band, you dill.
Anjali is a very intelligent young lady who is being given accolades and status-rewards for following the climate change train. She truly believes she is saving the planet. It's not actually her fault she is wrong. That is the fault of lazy corporate media and activist teachers who encouraged her to think like this, and a lack of skepticism generally.
Once people are invested in an idea, their status tied to it, they can't change course.
It's not possible now for Anjali to even think there could be something wrong with the core premise that her identity is now built on.
This is a tragedy. It is the misdirection of a young person's energy and talent. She has been told she is a future leader who will change the world. That's a powerful ego boost for a young person.
Schools should instead be teaching humility to students, that changing the world is not a good thing unless it is a genuine improvement, that they should check and check again before messing with a system that has taken years to develop, that tinkering with things must be done with great caution.