-
@nta I hear ya. but I think we might see people engage more if we keep the conversation open. I know that's been fruitless in the vaccine space, and that pushing these things often reinforces people's position. But don't we want to keep pulling people into this conversation, even if we know 5% (or whatever % it is) will always call bullshit for some reason or another?
-
@paekakboyz for the same reasons trying to engage anti-vaxxers doesn't work, trying to engage climate deniers doesn't work. You can state the scientific evidence over and over again, and it won't make a difference; they're too invested in their position. They are highly unlikely change because it would require them to abandon their position and admit they were wrong, and people in general hate that.
The science will change, if given enough evidence. The point I always make - and which @TeWaio will back me up on: getting scientists to agree to something with a high degree of consensus is near fucking impossible if the underlying science is dodgy. There is nothing academics and industry bodies like more than proving each other wrong!
Even on an economic basis you can't convince them, because they don't believe that system-level weather or economic disasters are possible, or that energy generation is cheaper via renewables increasingly.
Status quo is a powerful position to hold, because it asks nothing of you.
EDIT: the other point I'd make is that, if you were at a BBQ with 20 people, and one of them (the 5%) is a denier, but 5 of them (25%) are unsure, all you do is give the 5% a platform to sway the 25% through simple shoutiness. Even the supporters might not want to generate conflict, safe in the knowledge they're right. At any point, when you simply walk away from the discussion, the shouty one will point at you being wrong.
Had this recently with some of the guys at the rugby club. Its easier to avoid the confrontation with people who get all their facts from talkback radio and politicians with vested interests.
-
If only testing the theory of climate change or the effects of climate change was as simple as testing gravity. What an absolutely absurd comparison.
A massive reason for any skepticism is the boy cried wolf alarmism, not to mention the incredible hypocrisy of those screaming the most yet who have personal carbon footprints larger than vast swathes of the developing world. How about getting these nutters in order first before getting all high and mighty about "deniers" (that lable is just a coincidence btw and has absolutely no connection to Holocaust deniers, no none whatsoever) in the comment section of a trash news website.
-
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Or a battler ...
Kinda like Aussie Virat ... (although he is little, his rep, star power and bank balance aren't)
Matteo Canavanni also said "up to 15,000 jobs!" in another tweet. Which is ridiculous as even Adani's estimates are ~1500 FTE and the knock-on jobs are not going to amount to much more than that.
-
@nta said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@booboo said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
Or a battler ...
Kinda like Aussie Virat ... (although he is little, his rep, star power and bank balance aren't)
Matteo Canavanni also said "up to 15,000 jobs!" in another tweet. Which is ridiculous as even Adani's estimates are ~1500 FTE and the knock-on jobs are not going to amount to much more than that.
Even less if they FIFO them from OS.
-
@antipodean And they will, because Adani is corrupt as fuck, and all about taking the money for mates. The number of Indian "engineers" who make up that 1500 max will be interesting to see...
-
@nta said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
@antipodean And they will, because Adani is corrupt as fuck, and all about taking the money for mates. The number of Indian "engineers" who make up that 1500 max will be interesting to see...
Cue 456 visas...
-
@antipodean They're all au pair so its good.
-
Just had to go looking for this thread - surprised to find it in the Politics Forum?
Anyway, just a little anecdote: I was running some figures for my work place the other day, and looking specifically at emissions intensity of our sites across Australasia vis-a-vis CO2 per kWh consumed.
Pretty fucking depressing to compare Australian sites to our NZ sites - for every kWh used in Australia, the average CO2-e emitted is about 0.8kg.
In NZ, it is about 0.14kg by the looks - I don't have the table in front of me.
The lowest state on the mainland is Tasmania with 0.19kg but we don't run a lot of our business there, obviously.
All comes down to energy source of course - here is the table we use for our figures:
Reasoning behind each level based on generation
VIC has a lot of brown coal (lignite) which is dogshit for emissions.
NSW & QLD have a lot of black coal which is cat shit for emissions. Both states will increase large solar rapidly over the next few years.
SA has a lot of wind BUT still uses some gas and occasionally imports coal generation - though it is a net exporter this FY I believe.
TAS is mostly hydro, a tiny bit of gas, and some wind and solar.You can see the NEM (National Energy Market) Watch here for generation and forecast.
Of the non-NEM grids:
WA has a mix of gas, black coal, and a decent chunk of small solar and wind compared to other states
NT is similar but trying to bring more solar and storage online - just that its a very twitchy grid stretched over a long distance to limited customers. -
@nta I like watching electricitymap.org
When the sun rises on a clear day and there's the right amount of wind, SA looks great and can export to VIC.
TAS looks great because it's hydro, unless they're pumping it back up.
But effectively the country currently needs QLD burning coal instead of exporting it all.
South island of NZ is hydro. Uruguay is brilliant, Norway, etc.
-
I found this discussion interesting with Dr Bjorn Lomborg from the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. They've been working with some of the worlds top economists on rank ordering the worlds problems and devising data on where resources are best invested in order attain the best return on investment, for the most amount of 'good', in the shortest amount of time.
They talk about the more 'celebrity endorsed' causes such as climate change which get the most attention but in the grand scheme of things are most likely not where we should be putting out money, at least not where we are currently. Worth a listen.
-
@rembrandt said in Climate Change #3 & Other Environmental Issues:
I found this discussion interesting with Dr Bjorn Lomborg from the Copenhagen Consensus Centre. They've been working with some of the worlds top economists on rank ordering the worlds problems and devising data on where resources are best invested in order attain the best return on investment, for the most amount of 'good', in the shortest amount of time.
They talk about the more 'celebrity endorsed' causes such as climate change which get the most attention but in the grand scheme of things are most likely not where we should be putting out money, at least not where we are currently. Worth a listen.
It's well worth a listen for everybody trying to wrap their brain around too complex issues for us to accurately comprehend.
Should be compulsory viewing for the entire population
Classic ending where in 5 minutes JP began a meaningful and prudent strategy to help his own country which would take 2 million dollars and 18 months.
I wish someone in NZ would do the same
-
@siam Bjorn Lomborg has paid a heavy professional price for his stance on man's effect on the environment. Thing is, economically speaking there's very little in what he says that's controversial. My stats aren't of a high enough standard to comment on his analysis of the climate data but he was originally a statistics academic so I assume it is sound. His book and the furore surrounding it was what first alerted me to the duplicity of the climate change industry.
Climate Change