71–80 of 172 posts
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
Australia has a serious problem with water, and it would have a serious problem even without climate change. The water in the Darling, and in any river, can be extracted free of charge if your land includes the river. This produces permanent drought conditions in a country that exports oranges. Australia has limited water resources and laws that treat it as unlimited. It will be incredibly hard to square that circle.…
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
There are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
To fully appreciate the gravity of the IPCC's misadventures in "climate science", here is a seemingly hyperbolic, but actually quite accurate analogy of the situation:
A group of 100 people have been consuming candy, water, and Raid®. Among those 100 people, 20 have died within a 1 month period. A committee is formed to solve this crisis. The committee tasks a group of scientists with determining the cause of death, and they are told, "Here is a group of 100 people, 20 of whom have died, all of which have been consuming candy and water." A consensus is formed among the scientists; obviously the candy is causing the deaths, since water is known to be safe.
When some of the scientists discovered that the subjects had been consuming Raid®, they reached out to the committee to ask why the Raid® consumption had not been in the data, and the committee decided that, since the first ingredient in Raid® was water, and since water was known not to be a health risk, it was of little significance in the study.
Now, imagine knowing all of the above, and then trying to be patient while listening to everyone you know become a "candy science" expert over the ensuing decade, and seeing your favorite news show, movie actor, musician, etc. calling for a candy tax, and constantly berating you as a "candy denier" when you question the consensus... then, those same people begin calling for candy-related fines, fees, and taxes that will affect your livelihood, and then facing the irony of those same people berating you as ignorant swill living in a fly-over state that's simply "voting based on ideology"; imagine that.
1. https://progearthplanetsci.springeropen.com/articles/10.1186...
Meanwhile we're still voting in governments that don't believe in climate change and which fight tooth and nail to destroy any chance of addressing the problem. No worries giving endless buckets of taxpayer money to climate-denying farmers and coal plants, though.
We shouldn't use "believe" and "don't believe" terminology when we talk about scientific facts. It is more proper to say that people refuse to accept the climate change.
This article is a perfect example of why the climate change issue is so polarized - it's just so full of propaganda and lies that the important truth it talks about is glossed over with mistrust. "Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-coloured pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry." This river runs dry regularly and…
1) It would be better if this article recognised that Australia is a naturally dry country and that the Murray Darling basis is prone to seasonal dry conditions. 2) It would be even better if Australian farmers also recognised that and didn't grow water intensive crops there. 3) The "climate change issue" is not polarised.
This article is a perfect example of why the climate change issue is so polarized - it's just so full of propaganda and lies that the important truth it talks about is glossed over with mistrust. "Reduced to a string of stagnant mustard-coloured pools, fouled in places with pesticide runoff and stinking with the rotting carcasses of cattle and fish, the Darling River is running dry." This river runs dry regularly and…
Your comment is an even better example of why the climate change issue is so polarized, because the article made no mention of climate change, yet you were triggered by it anyhow.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your comment is an even better example of why the climate change issue is so polarized, because the article made no mention of climate change, yet you were triggered by it anyhow.
There are literally no weather conditions that won't be cited as evidence of dangerous climate change sooner or later. Wetter, dryer, hotter, colder, etc. It isn't so much being triggered as just saving time and hurrying the conversation on to its likely destination. If the point isn't to talk about climate change there isn't much to this article. Australia frequently experiences droughts. They are taken with a high…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are many people in the current government that believe in climate change. The real problem is that the government has surmised (correctly, it would seem) that climate change isn’t an issue that will win an election. That and the fact that pricing carbon was the opposition party’s policy...
Australia would be a net power exporting nation if they harnessed their solar and especially wind resources. The fact that they still burn coal is ridiculous and shameful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article touches on the cause. Planting trees won't help if you use the available water for other things.
That's true, but once the ecosystem is established, we don't drain water, trees cause rain right?