Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. (Vol 5)

TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED
Author
Discussion

zygalski

6,152 posts

92 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
Randy Winkman said:
What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?
Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.
I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.

Randy Winkman

7,345 posts

136 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
Randy Winkman said:
What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?
Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.
I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.
Exactly. Whilst I'm not sure I really see eye-to-eye with Extinction Rebellion types I equally don't go with the "lets find an excuse or blame someone else" approach. For those who genuinely think there's an issue that needs addressing excuses don't help much.

Kawasicki

6,510 posts

182 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
Randy Winkman said:
What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?
Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.
I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.
If you move production of consumer goods/industry away from wealthy western countries towards developing countries, then it expect less environmentally sound products.

PRTVR

4,910 posts

168 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
Randy Winkman said:
What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?
Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.
I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.
Who pays for all the technological advances? And what are these? intermittent renewables need back up that costs, the developing world will always go for the cheap reliable option and that is coal.
Shutting down our coal fired power stations will make no difference to AGW, other countries are building a lot more Germany included.
Do you believe making the UK poorer for no reason makes sense ? Less money for schools hospitals etc, is that what you want?

PRTVR

4,910 posts

168 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
Exactly. Whilst I'm not sure I really see eye-to-eye with Extinction Rebellion types I equally don't go with the "lets find an excuse or blame someone else" approach. For those who genuinely think there's an issue that needs addressing excuses don't help much.
It's not blaming someone else it's being realistic, the UK can do nothing by itself, it is such a small producer of CO2 any difference we make is swallowed up by the large producers China India etc, but the effect on the UK economy will be large, we will lose lot of jobs,
higher energy costs and a change in direction environmentally, who would want to build ICE cars in the UK when we are going to phase them out? we are as a country going to become poorer.

zygalski

6,152 posts

92 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
Randy Winkman said:
What if I don't think the money is being wasted/spunked/spaffed? Then I would simply say that the money should be diverted from something less important. Defence spending perhaps?
Defence spending is always an easy option, until you end up in a shooting war, which the British regularly end up in.

The truth is even if the UK was carbon neutral, it would make no difference to the mathematics of climate change,

most of the reduction in CO2 production that has taken place has been completed by exporting it, steel production to China etc,
unless we stop consuming we will still be responsible for CO2 production, just not in the UK.
I fail to see the logic in your response.
It sounds like the best reason for the West to lead the way in terms of cleaner energy. We should be proud to do this.
We can hardly expect the rest of the developing world to follow or indeed benefit from shared technological advances if we ignore the issues facing us.
Who pays for all the technological advances? And what are these? intermittent renewables need back up that costs, the developing world will always go for the cheap reliable option and that is coal.
Shutting down our coal fired power stations will make no difference to AGW, other countries are building a lot more Germany included.
Do you believe making the UK poorer for no reason makes sense ? Less money for schools hospitals etc, is that what you want?
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.

PRTVR

4,910 posts

168 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.
As always nothing now all in the future, what technology improvements are you talking about, unicorn treadmill ?
Improvements like shutting down the power to the whole south of the country when a wind farm has a problem,great isn't it ?

ChevyChase77

581 posts

5 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
"Policing Extinction Rebellion over the last fortnight cost the Met Police at least £21million - and that number is expected to rise.

The city’s violent crime taskforce (by contrast) has an annual budget of £15million"

https://twitter.com/rachaelvenables/status/1186575...

LongQ

13,662 posts

180 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Kawasicki said:
If you move production of consumer goods/industry away from wealthy western countries towards developing countries, then it expect less environmentally sound products.
Also products with shorter lives - not good news when one is using mined resources and a significant amount of energy to create them.

Assuming the User Profile pages for the forum are still accurate it appears that a number of us, including messrs Winkman and zygalski, have an affinity to older vehicles used as daily drivers.

In other words we are using products up to and beyond their designed lifetime expectancy and, at least in theory, obtaining the best returns for the materials and energy invested in them during manufacture.

From some point around the 2000s most manufacturers have been producing vehicles that have become more and more complex with relatively short life electronic components (in the interest of 'efficiency' and 'carbon reduction' mostly offset by increasing weight due to the way that crash protection standards have been written and a few other factors) and thus cars have become somewhat difficult to maintain as they age and some of the simpler cheaper aspects of the designs fail but in ways that are not readily repairable leading to scrappage after 10 years or less.

The manufacturers are, of course not unhappy with that since they are not thinking on terms of maintenance and parts revenues (too complicated when the life of a component is measured in months (or weeks), it has a very specific low volume use (at that specification and with a given software load) and would be absurdly expensive to keep stocks for possible future failures.

So the industry, through crash protection legislation and user expectations, is forced to build vehicles that, structurally, could readily last 20 years or more with minimal preventive maintenance for corrosion and for the mechanical aspects of engines but that will be scrapped much earlier than that because some minor component - a rubber seal say, buried deep in the engine and requiring a total rebuild to replace it (judged uneconomic by most) - has failed due to poor specification, poor design or poor quality control and the vehicle will be scrapped.

If not that it will be down to an electrical component failure with a replacement component being quoted (if available at all) at a price that is about the same as the perceived value of the car.

Meanwhile governments decide that the margin improvement in 'emissions', etc. available from the latest and greatest (but short livid) favourite technologies are worthwhile enough to allow them to try to force the already declining population of older vehicles off the roads by increasing the costs of ownership rather then rewarding the care deployed on ensuring the best returns from previous materials and energy investments.

Why?

Mainly because of tiny (and debatable) differences of CO2 output between the older and newer technologies all of which is probably more than offset by the shorter life of the newer products.

Indeed it is ironic that across the board in a period when the likes of ER are shouting that an immediate elimination of "carbon" use is the only way to "save" the planet the only solution offered require a lot of in-life existing infrastructure - carbon investment already made and not yet fully accounted for - to be scrapped and for there to be a huge and immediate increase in materials and energy usage to try to build stuff to replace it but less consistently.

The only real benefit to all of this, once one gets past the awe and wonder of shiny new toys, is that it keeps the global economy going a bit longer through mandated change and enforced obsolescence. All on a timescale that suits politicians but that is irrelevant to the planet.

The more worrying angle is not related to big ticket items like cars. It's the smaller, more everyday stuff where the same concerns about short life expectations for what should not be 'disposable' items is becoming evident. Cheaply produced rubbish products, often plastic but metal would be no better it seems, manufactured on the other side of the world, shipped to the UK and found to either not work, have manufacturing faults that require additional workarounds and suggest a short life expectancy or are just very poor quality in terms of fitness for purpose.

Which ever way one see it results like that are a significant waste of materials and energy that will no doubt be repeated many times a year and for very large numbers of consumers - not just for those buying cars and similar larger items.`

Irrespective of the position one might take related to the causes and effects of Climate Change and the ability of humans to understand Climate and somehow come to manage it, the waste of materials and energy due to poor design and manufacturing decisions is a disgrace that is the responsibility of the political establishment as far as policy decisions are concerned. It is something that could be addressed relatively quickly in ways that the "grand solutions" cannot.

It won't be addressed for fear of adversely affecting the numbers by which the health of the global economy is 'measured'.

That and a few other things that might dilute the messages we are bombarded with.



zygalski

6,152 posts

92 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.
As always nothing now all in the future, what technology improvements are you talking about, unicorn treadmill ?
Improvements like shutting down the power to the whole south of the country when a wind farm has a problem,great isn't it ?
You're an adult.
I'm sure you can take the time to Google any large energy company or supplier to find out what research they are doing into cleaner and more efficient energy.
Do you really need hand holding for this sort of thing?

PRTVR

4,910 posts

168 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.
As always nothing now all in the future, what technology improvements are you talking about, unicorn treadmill ?
Improvements like shutting down the power to the whole south of the country when a wind farm has a problem,great isn't it ?
You're an adult.
I'm sure you can take the time to Google any large energy company or supplier to find out what research they are doing into cleaner and more efficient energy.
Do you really need hand holding for this sort of thing?
hehe so no answer then...... I have not seen anything that will change the world, a lot of promises, a lot of the sites Remind me of snake oil sales men,
I suppose if you are trying to sell something you want people to believe in your product,
the only one that I liked were the small nuclear reactors, to keep the lights on we need more nuclear, what do you think ?

Donbot

1,056 posts

74 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
LongQ said:
From some point around the 2000s most manufacturers have been producing vehicles that have become more and more complex with relatively short life electronic components (in the interest of 'efficiency' and 'carbon reduction' mostly offset by increasing weight due to the way that crash protection standards have been written and a few other factors) and thus cars have become somewhat difficult to maintain as they age and some of the simpler cheaper aspects of the designs fail but in ways that are not readily repairable leading to scrappage after 10 years or less.
The average age of cars on the road has been steadily increasing. Therefore cars are lasting longer. I think it is mostly down to better corrosion resistance and engineering.

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-age-cars-grea...

Edited by Donbot on Tuesday 22 October 13:21

LongQ

13,662 posts

180 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Donbot said:
LongQ said:
From some point around the 2000s most manufacturers have been producing vehicles that have become more and more complex with relatively short life electronic components (in the interest of 'efficiency' and 'carbon reduction' mostly offset by increasing weight due to the way that crash protection standards have been written and a few other factors) and thus cars have become somewhat difficult to maintain as they age and some of the simpler cheaper aspects of the designs fail but in ways that are not readily repairable leading to scrappage after 10 years or less.
The average age of cars on the road has been steadily increasing. Therefore cars are lasting longer. I think it is mostly down to better corrosion resistance and engineering.

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-age-cars-grea...

Edited by Donbot on Tuesday 22 October 13:21
Good find.

What it is suggesting is that older cars (pre 2007 ish according to quality mechanics of my acquaintance) have the potential for longevity.

What we would need to consider is how the numbers relate to the active fleet and and sales numbers since 2007.

I agree about corrosion resistance and engineering but the corrosion resistance factor has been around for a long time iirc (Audi introducing galvanised steel back in the 80s?) although taking a while before all the manufacturers joined in and somewhat aided by the steady move to plastics for many exposed areas - like front and rear bumpers - that removed a lot of metal.

Mechanically things have been pretty impressive since around the same time but again becoming really effective (unless suffering from materials problems from time to time) in the 90s. After which things started to get a little "too clever" and complex for a number of reasons especially in engines and transmissions. Some are really great, others less so.

Given the normal wastage - use, accidents, etc, - that the average age has been increasing strongly suggests that vehicles of that era are lasting quite well so long as people are not persuaded to scrap them as some form of incentive to keep the manufacturers in business. Also that they can still obtain parts for them at economically justifiable costs AND see the benefits of keeping them running.

However it is not so simple to derive an evident interpretation because there have been and continue to be so many political policy interventions that are likely to have skewed the way the users have viewed their thoughts on the market. Company car taxes for one thing, the advance of personal finance deals, messing around with RFL rates and so on. Plus the emissions and safety regulations and technological advances that have allowed manufacturers faster design to product times and therefore shorter model runs and so more rapid component changes - especially some of the more expensive items the failure of which will make a car uneconomic to repair. Or the manufacturer leaves the market.

In summary, like for like comparisons are not at all easy until a realistic typical end of life age can be seen to have been reached. I reckon the number start to become meaningful after about 10 years - but that is little more than a guess based on observations of the mid market and may not apply to the smaller vehicles of less complexity sold in higher volumes.

zygalski

6,152 posts

92 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.
As always nothing now all in the future, what technology improvements are you talking about, unicorn treadmill ?
Improvements like shutting down the power to the whole south of the country when a wind farm has a problem,great isn't it ?
You're an adult.
I'm sure you can take the time to Google any large energy company or supplier to find out what research they are doing into cleaner and more efficient energy.
Do you really need hand holding for this sort of thing?
hehe so no answer then...... I have not seen anything that will change the world, a lot of promises, a lot of the sites Remind me of snake oil sales men,
I suppose if you are trying to sell something you want people to believe in your product,
the only one that I liked were the small nuclear reactors, to keep the lights on we need more nuclear, what do you think ?
You denier boys really need to bash heads and work out what your stance is on research & investment in cleaner energy technologies & renewables.
Is there none, or is there too much because of grants being given willy-nilly to everyone on the gravy train?
Let me know when you've worked out what you think.

robinessex

7,528 posts

128 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
PRTVR said:
zygalski said:
I think you'll find that the research is already happening. You might not like that, but it's too bad.
The trickle-down benefits will be felt by all as the technology improves and renewables and cleaner, more efficient energy technological advances are made.
You seem to be burying your head in the sand.
As always nothing now all in the future, what technology improvements are you talking about, unicorn treadmill ?
Improvements like shutting down the power to the whole south of the country when a wind farm has a problem,great isn't it ?
You're an adult.
I'm sure you can take the time to Google any large energy company or supplier to find out what research they are doing into cleaner and more efficient energy.
Do you really need hand holding for this sort of thing?
hehe so no answer then...... I have not seen anything that will change the world, a lot of promises, a lot of the sites Remind me of snake oil sales men,
I suppose if you are trying to sell something you want people to believe in your product,
the only one that I liked were the small nuclear reactors, to keep the lights on we need more nuclear, what do you think ?
You denier boys really need to bash heads and work out what your stance is on research & investment in cleaner energy technologies & renewables.
Is there none, or is there too much because of grants being given willy-nilly to everyone on the gravy train?
Let me know when you've worked out what you think.
Why do you need a grant? If it's a profitable venture, market it.

Randy Winkman

7,345 posts

136 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
LongQ said:
Donbot said:
LongQ said:
From some point around the 2000s most manufacturers have been producing vehicles that have become more and more complex with relatively short life electronic components (in the interest of 'efficiency' and 'carbon reduction' mostly offset by increasing weight due to the way that crash protection standards have been written and a few other factors) and thus cars have become somewhat difficult to maintain as they age and some of the simpler cheaper aspects of the designs fail but in ways that are not readily repairable leading to scrappage after 10 years or less.
The average age of cars on the road has been steadily increasing. Therefore cars are lasting longer. I think it is mostly down to better corrosion resistance and engineering.

https://www.nimblefins.co.uk/average-age-cars-grea...

Edited by Donbot on Tuesday 22 October 13:21
Good find.

What it is suggesting is that older cars (pre 2007 ish according to quality mechanics of my acquaintance) have the potential for longevity.

What we would need to consider is how the numbers relate to the active fleet and and sales numbers since 2007.

I agree about corrosion resistance and engineering but the corrosion resistance factor has been around for a long time iirc (Audi introducing galvanised steel back in the 80s?) although taking a while before all the manufacturers joined in and somewhat aided by the steady move to plastics for many exposed areas - like front and rear bumpers - that removed a lot of metal.

Mechanically things have been pretty impressive since around the same time but again becoming really effective (unless suffering from materials problems from time to time) in the 90s. After which things started to get a little "too clever" and complex for a number of reasons especially in engines and transmissions. Some are really great, others less so.

Given the normal wastage - use, accidents, etc, - that the average age has been increasing strongly suggests that vehicles of that era are lasting quite well so long as people are not persuaded to scrap them as some form of incentive to keep the manufacturers in business. Also that they can still obtain parts for them at economically justifiable costs AND see the benefits of keeping them running.

However it is not so simple to derive an evident interpretation because there have been and continue to be so many political policy interventions that are likely to have skewed the way the users have viewed their thoughts on the market. Company car taxes for one thing, the advance of personal finance deals, messing around with RFL rates and so on. Plus the emissions and safety regulations and technological advances that have allowed manufacturers faster design to product times and therefore shorter model runs and so more rapid component changes - especially some of the more expensive items the failure of which will make a car uneconomic to repair. Or the manufacturer leaves the market.

In summary, like for like comparisons are not at all easy until a realistic typical end of life age can be seen to have been reached. I reckon the number start to become meaningful after about 10 years - but that is little more than a guess based on observations of the mid market and may not apply to the smaller vehicles of less complexity sold in higher volumes.
You've obviously been thinking about the complexities of this. smile One other thing not to forget is that people use cars for different reasons. Some for big mileages everyday, some only occasionally. (Sorry if this point is in there somewhere)

turbobloke

86,615 posts

207 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Another memo or two politicians and teenagers won't get.

West Antarctic ice sheet growing? (some mistake surely) and ice shelf collapse is a bit of a hoot.

MIT News 21 October 2019 said:
MIT researchers have found that to get into catastrophic failures of really tall ice cliffs, you would have to remove these ice shelves within hours, which seems unlikely no matter what the climate change scenario.
Unlikely ho ho ho not going to happen, and there's no 'seems' about it, but weasel words are expected now in this field (of km thick ice) so why not look back on PH for something not weaselly misunderstood but easily understood, see n posts with the Ollier and Pain paper.

ETA another memo, can't copy and paste from commercial as opposed to academic news outlets but anyone interested can dig it out.

Great Barrier Reef In Good Shape, Has ‘Vibrant Future’ Reef Authority Says
The Australian, 22 October 2019

Good RIDDance to scaremongering barrier reef coral agw junk'n'bunk.


Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 22 October 17:07

LongQ

13,662 posts

180 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Randy Winkman said:
You've obviously been thinking about the complexities of this. smile One other thing not to forget is that people use cars for different reasons. Some for big mileages everyday, some only occasionally. (Sorry if this point is in there somewhere)
Absolutely. And the overall cost effectiveness tends to favour high mileages provided maintenence is followed correctly and th vehicle does not have any fundamental mileage related problems.

Distance covered would be an interesting statistic - possibly available via MOT records with eventual scrappage info.

I could also make a case for excluding 'exotics' but the number probably don't skew the average too much.

I used to cover about 14k miles a year, mostly work related but that reduced when I ended up flying to clients for most business activity. Later, working mostly away from home, I was covering about 22k mile a year. After that it dropped as I worked mostly from home with some longer trips and then things dropped away a lot. However I suspect that higher mileage might result in better cost per mile for maintenance spend.

On the other hand if one looks at current personal finance deals most seem to be set up for either 8k or 10k miles a year. Or 4k if you want to pay the lowest price for a Renault Zoe battery lease - suggesting they see the typical user doing no more than 40k miles over a 10 year life.

If we take the 10k miles on a 4 year lease idea for, say, a 50k 'luxury' car after 4 years you have a £50k vehicle worth about 15k having covered 40k miles.

It is likely to be expensive to run due to taxes, maintenance, insurance, etc.

It will, in today's terms, be pitched into a user market that can't readily afford to keep it on the road so most are likely to be abused and run into the ground and will probably die, one way or another, at between 8 and 10 years as things start to fail. Mileage? Probably not much more than 80k on average against a potential for 200k or 300k from the materials used and the quality of the engineering. Much more if used on a commercial basis.

That's not a good use of resources and energy - in my opinion.

Look at adds for vehicles being sold as spares or repair, many less not more than 10 years old and typical mileage anything from 70 to 120k. Not much for a modern car. But policies encourage us to throw them away as uneconomic to keep on the road. That is unlikely to improve with the pressure to eliminate ICE vehicles and introduce all electric travel within a decade or so.

They may not achieve that but they will surely screw the existing markets trying and so, by implication, the existing consumers in the market. Plus, on a like for like ownership basis, they will need to have pumped about 40million electric cars into the system and eliminated all ICE vehicles with a maximum of 20 years. 5 years if you listen to ER.

That could prove interesting.

These are not commercially driven decisions. They are political decisions that may or may not have any aspect of feasibility.

It will be interesting to see what happens.

Esceptico

1,928 posts

56 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
turbobloke said:
Unlikely ho ho ho not going to happen, and there's no 'seems' about it, but weasel words are expected now in this field (of km thick ice) so why not look back on PH for something not weaselly misunderstood but easily understood, see n posts with the Ollier and Pain paper.

ETA another memo, can't copy and paste from commercial as opposed to academic news outlets but anyone interested can dig it out.

Great Barrier Reef In Good Shape, Has ‘Vibrant Future’ Reef Authority Says
The Australian, 22 October 2019

Good RIDDance to scaremongering barrier reef coral agw junk'n'bunk.


Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 22 October 17:07
That sounded like it was too good to be true. A quick check on the internet I found an official report on the health of the GBR. Paints a very different picture.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/outlook-report-2...




turbobloke

86,615 posts

207 months

Tuesday 22nd October
quotequote all
Esceptico said:
turbobloke said:
Unlikely ho ho ho not going to happen, and there's no 'seems' about it, but weasel words are expected now in this field (of km thick ice) so why not look back on PH for something not weaselly misunderstood but easily understood, see n posts with the Ollier and Pain paper.

ETA another memo, can't copy and paste from commercial as opposed to academic news outlets but anyone interested can dig it out.

Great Barrier Reef In Good Shape, Has ‘Vibrant Future’ Reef Authority Says
The Australian, 22 October 2019

Good RIDDance to scaremongering barrier reef coral agw junk'n'bunk.


Edited by turbobloke on Tuesday 22 October 17:07
That sounded like it was too good to be true. A quick check on the internet I found an official report on the health of the GBR. Paints a very different picture.

http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/our-work/outlook-report-2...
Firstly the account from the Reef Authority (interesting name, ponder on that a mo) offers a more up-to-date picture focusing on the present, not speculation within a belief system.

Secondly that link has the type of content that Ridd complained about before he was sacked. It doesn't correspond to a basic 'check it out for yourself' test as Australian federal Environment Minister Ms Ley discovered for herself. Clearly she had previously been misled by scaremongering reports on the state of the GBR.

Ms Ley said:
I was expecting to see dead areas with a few patches of life.

I saw the exact ­opposite to that.
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/great-barrier-reef-is-better-than-expected-ley/news-story/6eef71906c6553453cde8575a6cca0ad

The GBR was already recovering from the 2015/16 El Nino bleaching back in 2017. El Ninos are natural events.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-29/coral-regen...




TOPIC CLOSED
TOPIC CLOSED