Scott Morrison Cancels Government!

Right, just remember that you read it here first.Any day now, ScoBro…

The Pathology of Mass Surveillance: The UK, Bulk…

It’s fitting that the same society that produced George Orwell with his…

Why was Quaedvlieg really sacked?

On 15 March 2018, the head of the Australian Border Force, Commissioner…

The United Nations junket - at your expense

Every year, Australia sends two federal politicians for a three-month secondment to…

Politics from the Pulpit

Scott Morrison is Australia’s first Pentecostal prime minister. He is a member…

The wages of pollution is tax

By John HalyHow is it that recent parliamentary bloodletting over tax breaks and…

Investment Funding for Northern Development: Is the LNP…

More Dams for the Northern Food-bowls: Achievable Policies or Pre-Election Hype? Preamble to the…

Scott Morrison is completely out of touch

Many of us were disenchanted with Malcolm Turnbull, but Scott Morrison is completely…

«
»
Facebook

At what date do you wish to see a dystopian world, or your children or grandchildren dead?

By Keith Antonysen

Lately, when there is discussion of climate change there are two conversations going on; one pushing the need for reliable energy sources, and the other being in relation to climate change. Climate change has to a great extent been subsumed by discussions in relation to energy.

But, the lack of water, breakdown of crops, and sea level rise will lead to the creation of a dystopian world creating refugees by the score. Reticulated water problems have already been experienced in California, Mexico, Brazil, Bolivia etc, a recipe for community breakdown. Lack of water resources have been stated to be a background influence in the Arab Spring. Sea level rise has already been experienced in a number of locations.

It seems like a hysterical title, but it is promoted in all seriousness, people are dying through climate change, a very recent example is 33 deaths in Canada from heat stroke.

Professor James Anderson who alerted the world about the ozone layer has stated … “The chance that there will be any permanent ice left in the Arctic after 2022 is essentially zero,” Anderson said, with 75 to 80 per cent of permanent ice having melted already in the last 35 years.”

He has also stated; “Can we lose 75-80 per cent of permanent ice and recover? The answer is no.”

A number of Australian habitats are breaking down, including:

  • “kelp forests shifting to seaweed turfs following a single marine heatwave in 2011;
  • the destruction of Gondwanan refugia by wildfire ignited by lightning storms in 2016;
  • dieback of floodplain forests along the Murray River following the millennial drought in 2001–2009;
  • large-scale conversion of alpine forest to shrubland due to repeated fires from 2003–2014;
  • community-level boom and bust in the arid zone following extreme rainfall in 2011–2012, and
  • mangrove dieback across a 1,000km stretch of the Gulf of Carpentaria after a weak monsoon in 2015-2016.”

The IPCC is in the process of compiling research for a Report to be published later this year, leaked documentation indicates that the minimal standard set at Paris of a 1.5C above pre-Industrial times is virtually not attainable.

Permafrost is thawing at quite a rate causing the breakdown of infra-structure and public and private buildings. Also, with the breakdown of permafrost greenhouse gases are emitted. Anton Vaks et al studied caves in permafrost areas, in areas where permafrost was intermittent, and non-permafrost areas.

Robertscribbler a week or so ago gave warnings about weather forecasts for extremely hot weather to be experienced in the following days. Scientists have stated that a fingerprint of climate change is the increasing warmth of night time temperatures, Robertscribbler gives a later breakdown of the temperatures on the film he has attached to his article showing how night time temperature has been increasing along with other records. It has been a neutral ENSO period which does not bode well when there is a 50% chance of changing to an El Nino later in the year.

James Hansen in 1988 created 4 scenarios to display what can be expected depending on how serious climate change was taken; contrarian fraud misrepresented two of his scenarios, and then argued he was wrong. The hyperlinks provide the details.

Just lately two studies have been published in relation to Antarctica; one showing the degree of melting of the Antarctic, interestingly the other study supports the first study in a way, on the basis as volume of ice is lost causes the bedrock is lifting slightly.

People die from climate change. Also visit epidemiological studies.

A New York Times article warns that 800 million people are at risk in South Asia.

James Hansen et al have provided research in relation to sea level rise, they postulate that sea level rise will be far greater than what the IPCC has predicted.

So if you don’t mind people dying or being placed in survival conditions; then continue to push the status quo; a business as usual approach promoting coal, gas and coal powered stations. The risks created for young people increase with time; the warning provided by Professor James Anderson is certainly not the only one provided by scientists.

Please prove me wrong, though to do so it will be necessary to debunk the references provided. The article is about the exceptionally high risk of ignoring climate change, the risks are increasing rapidly. Though civil strife and war are the most likely matters; rather than, excessive warmth that pose the greatest danger as essential resources are lost.

This article was originally published in the Tasmanian Times.

Keith Antonysen has been researching climate change for several years. Apart from reading about climate science, Keith also views pseudo-science presented by contrarians. It seems that the material referenced by contrarians is continually recycled. Doctoring graphs is something that has been used on occasion. Fossil fuel companies have known for decades about the impact of their products.


18 comments

  1. diannaart

    Is this a rhetorical question?

    The only living creatures are those who would silently answer “Yes”, but publicly claim “No”, are the nutters from the far right (who believe they know more than everyone else) and/or the religious who believe the entire world must perish for some religious big thing.

    Also, I do not have any living children – why so discriminatory in this question? I care about my extended family, my friends and other animals – doesn’t my opinion count at all?

    PS

    I have been banging on about the danger human beings pose to a sustainable pro-human environment/climate since reading Rachel Carson’s The Silent Spring” as a wee girl.

  2. John O'Callaghan

    And these morons like Kelly and Abbott want Govt funding to build new coal fired power stations?
    I still think nothing positive will happen towards anything until Murdoch and his media are denied oxygen!

  3. Keith

    diannaart

    I think all young people are in the firing line while we have governments ignoring climate change. I believe the title of the article encapsulates where we are present; also, I wanted to use an emotive title to drive home the message. Since writing the article more worrying articles have come my way.

    Examples:

    https://medium.com/@aarnegranlund/three-things-we-dont-understand-about-climate-change-c59338a1c435

    https://newsroom.unsw.edu.au/news/science-tech/global-warming-may-be-twice-what-climate-models-predict

    The second reference discusses the Pliocene warm period (3.3-3 million years ago) when CO2 levels were in the range of 350 -450 ppm.

  4. diannaart

    Keith

    Where in my comments above did I not indicate my concern and belief that humans are doing irreparable damage to our environment and that we urgently require our nuff-nuff collection of leaders to fucking stop behaving like morons and do something?

    I resent assumptions that ONLY people who still have children are to be challenged. We are all in this together – part of our problem is this labelling of people into “mum and dads”, “working families”.

    Plenty of unsuccessful breeders take no action on climate change either. Trying to think of childless climate deniers off the top of my head – I am sure they are out there.

    Am I amazed that so many breeders do keep their heads in the sand regarding climate change – yes I am. I don’t get it.

    But I do get the reasons behind pollution and degradation of our environment. I have studied in tertiary as well as personal research for decades now.

    Or were those links, with which I am already familiar, intended for other people who may not understand?

  5. Max Gross

    So (as Michael Moore might say) here’s my question: if our governments and corporate giants (“too big to fail”!) refuse to act, what then can we do? Writing letters, tweeting, howling in the Facebook echo chamber, angry blogging and civil disobedience changes NOTHING! So… here’s my question…

  6. king1394

    Sadly my adult grandchildren do not seem to be as concerned about the environmental collapse they face in the future as I am. They are completely distracted by the daily economic demands of studying and keeping their jobs. I am glad that one is a tradesman with practical skills and the other will be a nurse, so hoping that their skills will help them cope with the changes ahead.

  7. Keith

    diannaart

    I’ve read your comments in the past and realise that you are aware of the impacts of climate change.
    The extra references were not directed at you, directed at people not so aware. Last week a libertarian Tommy commented on an excellent article written by Kaye about libertarianism. This article is a result of the previously unsatisfactory comments from Tommy when he wouldn’t respond when challenged … it is directed at libertarians and neo-liberals mainly. They are the main groups whom do not believe in anthropogenic climate change being ideologically fearful of any government regulation, unless it suits their cause.

    Silent Spring is also something i’ve been contemplating, with the EPA in the US being rendered unviable by Scott Pruitt, and now his successor whose biography is hardly encouraging and will no doubt keep a negative trend going.

    Max

    Currently, climate change has been taken over by commentary about energy, the discussions about energy encorporating the use of fossil fuels is mutually exclusive to climate change science and human safety. There would be no point in writing this article unless it is possible to ward off the worst effects of climate change. Political ideology is a huge barrier at present. The stupidity of political ideology in relation climate change is similar to what happened when Galileo was accused of heresy.

    Objective data will always push out political philosophy/ideology; when .

  8. paul walter

    It’s a timely post.

    It is very depressing since Silent Spring opened up public awareness as to enviro sixty years ago and things have been going backwards at an accelerating rate, apart from the eighties,

    It is true that there have been wins, such as the filthy Thames being cleaned up in England and the Franklin and Daintree actions here, but on the whole, big business just doubled down, muscled up and this century has been a neoliberal inspired environmental hence humanitarian disaster.

    Ps, I found Keith’s comments above most accurate. Media and press coopted have played a big part in the catastrophe.

  9. johno

    The second reference discusses the Pliocene warm period (3.3-3 million years ago) when CO2 levels were in the range of 350 -450 ppm.

    Present carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is 412 ppm and rising. The recent heatwaves in the northern hemisphere will be making more people pay attention I am sure.
    Our rainfall so far this year is crap, well down on average.

    @PaulWalter re the eighties, shoulder pads and boofy hair was an environmental disaster. All those shoulder pads in landfill. Please, never again.

  10. Keith

    In my comments to Max I stated that objective data will push out political philosophy/ideology, a mega Report underlines that view, being but a small fragment, as an example:

    https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/2/

    Something I’ve found is that deniers do not have answers for such mega Reports, their commentary amounts to it’s wrong which is a meaningless retort.

    Meanwhile, the National Party is promoting coal fired power stations using the latest in technology to reduce emissions. The CON is in the fact that only a percentage of the emissions are reduced, they still emit a significant amount of greenhouse gases, and the stations tend to be less efficient, as some of the energy created is used in the process of greenhouse gas emissions reduction. Also, compared to traditional coal fired stations they are horrendously expensive to build.

    At the beginning of the year David Wallace-Wells had published an article which stirred up scientists and deniers, in his defence he published an annotated version soon afterwards:

    http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/07/climate-change-earth-too-hot-for-humans-annotated.html

  11. Phil

    Ugo Bardi teachers physical chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. His two blogs; Cassandra’s Legacy and Chimeras, are thought provoking and grounded firmly in science and reasoning.
    His most recent blog discussing human population deserves attention. There are no magic solutions but there are consequences. His reference to the catastrophic collapse of the US horse population between 1920 and 1960 is something to ponder!

    http://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/

  12. diannaart

    Keith

    I appreciate your clarification.

    A very small percentage of AIMers are into ‘splaining as opposed to communicating. You, Keith, are clearly in the latter.

    Unfortunately, presenting reason backed up by facts do not work on the religious or neo-libs.

    “Prior beliefs create an inertia that opposes change.”

    This explains why so much effort has been expended by those with financial or political reasons to oppose the science of AGW to provide evidence against it. If people have reasons not to change an initial view, then change is less likely, even if evidence for change is strong.

    This might seem a little obvious, but remember that the value of understanding Bayesian reasoning1 lies in showing us the need to address prior beliefs – especially for rational people. It is prior beliefs, not necessarily a lack of clarity and reasoning, that determine differences in responding to evidence.

    https://theconversation.com/why-facts-alone-dont-change-minds-in-our-big-public-debates-25094

  13. Keith

    diannaart

    That is the reason I chose an emotive title, except, the title I believe truly represents where we are at at present.
    When responding to deniers at times I write about the costs created … health and economic. Also, show how deniers often use graphs that have been doctored, which amount to fraud.

  14. diannaart

    Keith

    I understand your point.

    May I politely suggest, that the probable future of our children and grandchildren has become little more than white noise to the deniers. The rich think they can future proof anything and the poor are deluded.

    The deniers need to connect with the here and now, which is why little progress will be made until someone really rich and powerful gets personally harmed by events such as his/her penthouse going under water during a heat-wave, all their family drown and their investments become worthless – not necessarily in that order.

    Even reasonable people only begin to care about cancer/Parkinsons/MS when they become inflicted.

  15. guest

    In his article here, Keith mentions death by heatstroke for people in Canada. Deniers prefer to talk about death from cold because old people, they say, cannot afford the electricity bill if they put on heaters.

    This kind of cherry-picking is part of the strategy employed by deniers. It is a major part of the criticism leveled against Bjorn Lomborg, who appeared in The Australian again recently. His main argument is that Climate Change is real but we would be better off economically attending to matters such as AIDS, malaria and malnutrition. Meanwhile, we must endure any climate change until later, when we can begin to do research to deal with further climate change. He seems to have a belief that science can find an easy and cheap solution.

    You can see how Tony Abbott was enamored with Bjorn, but both the University of WA and Flinders Uni in SA rejected proposals to house a Lomborg institution. The conservatives seem to have some difficulty getting beyond the cloisters of universities.

    Besides the false scientific and bad economics of a coal based NEG, the conservative concentration seems to be on how much emission is being emitted by different countries. The Oz conservatives say that countries such as China are getting away with high carbon emissions, while poor little Oz emits only 1.3% of the world’s emissions.

    The corollary of that is that if Oz gets away with 1.3% of all emissions, then those with less emissions should continue to emit without offering to reduce. In fact, Oz is keen to reneg on the Paris Agreement and to follow the USA.

    What is ignored is that if everyone did their bit, however small, then the level of CO2 could be reduced over time. But the longer we leave it, the more expensive it becomes and the more the effects of Climate Change take hold. And the ones to suffer more will be future generations.

    What is also ignored is that China very well knows the effects of coal pollution and is determined to attend to it. As it says itself, the West has been emitting fossil fuel carbon for more that 200 years, therefore China needs to emit for a few decades to catch up – and is a manufacturer of renewables.

    Meanwhile, here in Oz, business, insurance, health experts, agriculturalists, scientists and others are telling us what Climate Change is about – and evidence is appearing by the day. And renewables become cheaper than coal. The Oz deniers lament the stranded asset coal is beoming.

    How the deniers can ignore the recent hottest years is beyond belief – and especially the fact that the one degree celsius rise in 60 years is “20 times faster than any previous sustained rate of temperature change”. (Eggleton, p. 133)

  16. diannaart

    What deniers are afraid of:

  17. stephengb2014

    Diannaart
    The cartoon says it all for me, I tried a similar logic on a relative in Lawson is dead set LNP.

    He couldn’t answer so changed the subject.

    I said just suppose you are wrong and the world is plunged into destruction, he responded with were not wrong!

    End of discussion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Return to home page
Scroll Up
%d bloggers like this: