Thread: Future of the Australian Electricity Market

A method of steering the populace could be trying to dismiss climate science by suggesting climate scientists are fooling us to milk a system.

Originally Posted by Warb

It's a very interesting question, isn't it? The climate scientists with "very little power". Really? 40 years ago nobody had heard of "climate scientists", and indeed they had zero power. These days they have conferences in glamorous places and are on the TV all the time. They have found some leverage, and they have profited by it. Almost every piece of research now has "climate change" somewhere in it, because that's what gets the grant $'s rolling in, and that's what gets the results publicised in the media. Is it in their interests to say anything that doesn't reinforce their statements?Evolution has made us an avaricious species, we'll do whatever we think we can get away with to advance ourselves, almost without exception. I don't think businessmen, politicians or scientists are any different in this regard. We have always created "threats" to steer the populace, whether those threats are based on an angry god, the reds under the bed, or climate change. Is it coincidence that small groups of people have used these (and other) levers to control populations?I entirely agree, and have said the same myself, but in this case it was a late model V8 LandCruiser 200 SUV.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

A method of steering the populace could be trying to dismiss climate science by suggesting climate scientists are fooling us to milk a system.

Absolutely! So now we're back to my original issue - if profit is the motive, how can we tell what is genuine as opposed to what is in the interests of the person "telling the story"? This applies to solutions to the supposed issue, as well as the issue itself.

Much like religion, it seems to come down to beliefs - if an individual believes climate change is true, they believe everything the climate scientist says and dismiss naysayers as liars. If they don't believe it's true, then they dismiss those same scientists and cling to every word of the naysayers.

Also, like religion, I suppose one could examine the actions of the leaders of the movements. A religious leader preaching peace and then declaring war, abusing children etc. is not living the life they are preaching, which in my view diminishes their argument. So, are the two sides in the climate argument living according to their own advice?

Well I suppose one can always stick one's head out the window and see if they are noticing anything odd going on. It sure seems that way up here, and various other wild weather events seem to be far more plentiful these days.

Then, if one does come to the conclusion that things seem to be changing at something approaching the speed of light, compared to geological timeframes, one has to wonder why that might be the case, particularly when equipped with incontrovertible truth that methane and CO2 trap heat in the atmosphere, and that both these gases have increased their atmospheric % substantially since the industrial revolution.

For me, the science is largely settled, and we have to clean up as best we can. If that means that various corporations will make staggering profits, and that there will be raging greed, then so be it. It's better than the alternative of faffing about arguing the toss until it becomes too late to achieve the goal, and it's not like there isn't astonishing greed running rife already.

Same greed, different smell.

One can both believe in climate science but be insufficiently motivated to do much about it personally for any number of reasons. People do act hypocritically.

Frankly it's a bit ridiculous to suggest that because climate scientists don't as a rule live off mung beans, ride a bicycle exclusively and refuse to ever get on an airplane, that climate science as a whole can all be dismissed.

Originally Posted by Warb

Absolutely! So now we're back to my original issue - if profit is the motive, how can we tell what is genuine as opposed to what is in the interests of the person "telling the story"? This applies to solutions to the supposed issue, as well as the issue itself.

Much like religion, it seems to come down to beliefs - if an individual believes climate change is true, they believe everything the climate scientist says and dismiss naysayers as liars. If they don't believe it's true, then they dismiss those same scientists and cling to every word of the naysayers.

Also, like religion, I suppose one could examine the actions of the leaders of the movements. A religious leader preaching peace and then declaring war, abusing children etc. is not living the life they are preaching, which in my view diminishes their argument. So, are the two sides in the climate argument living according to their own advice?

Just finished a book called "Powering Up" by Australian Former Chief Scientist (Alan Finked) on how we "unleash the Clean energy supply chain".
Worth a read.

RE; Appearances can be misleading. About 20 years ago I met a senior US climate scientist and he took me for a ride in his beautifully maintained 1970? 454 ci Chevy V8 that gave him about 7mpg. His daily commute of ~4 miles was a bicycle but on really cold or snowy days (about 20 days a year) he would drive the Chevy to work. On weekends and holidays he would occasionally take the Chevy out for short runs, but for any long distance travel he drove hie wife's Hyundai. He'd had the Chevy since new and done ~ 230,000+ miles in it and reckoned it was good for at least another 100,000 miles which he said would easily get him through to retirement.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Well I suppose one can always stick one's head out the window and see if they are noticing anything odd going on. It sure seems that way up here, and various other wild weather events seem to be far more plentiful these days.

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? Or is it that we notice things far more when our attention is drawn to them by outside influences? Have you ever found yourself itching when you see someone else scratching? Or yawning when someone else yawns? There's an ad on CNN, I have no idea what it's for, but it talks about humans and their ability to "see" shapes and patterns where none exist. It's a survival trait - we take odd hints, bits and pieces, and our brain processes them and "realises" that there's a lion behind that bush. But the same system also "sees" faces in clouds, or a dragon in the tree down the valley. Put these things together and you have "the power of suggestion".

A year ago I bought a car, because my "farm ute" is too tall for the carparks in Canberra. At the time, I didn't think there were many of the particular model of car on the roads. Since buying it, I have realised that every other vehicle in Canberra is the same as mine. Or maybe I just notice them more?

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever. Very often, if you actually think about it, you'll find that you are watching predictions (forecasts), rather than outcomes. Additionally, we are being shown weather events that in the past would never have reached our TV screen because they weren't newsworthy TO US. They were the other side of the planet, and irrelevant. These days they are front and centre in the media, so we notice them. In the past, a tree falling down in a street somewhere wouldn't have been news. It still happened back then; it just wasn't publicised. Now it is, and we think "wow, this never happened before".

Then we have the man-made disasters. We build houses on flood plains, because it's the only land left. We cover all the rain-absorbing ground with concrete, run the stormwater it into a budget-friendly sized drain, allow that drain to be blocked with rubbish, and then act surprised when our house floods.

We can also get confused because we tend to move around and live in different places. I moved from mid-west NSW down to the Canberra area, and in the middle of summer I had to buy warmer clothing. And an umbrella!

So; remove the news articles and rose tinted hindsight, and consider whether there are really more wild weather events in your immediate vicinity (assuming you have lived there for 20+years!) than there were in the past. If you do that honestly, then you have your answer!

Originally Posted by BobL

Just finished a book called "Powering Up" by Australian Former Chief Scientist (Alan Finked)

That's either Freudian or deliberate Bob, because Alan Finkel certainly got finked by the Prime Minister of the time.

You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.

The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.

If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.

Originally Posted by Warb

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder? Or is it that we notice things far more when our attention is drawn to them by outside influences? Have you ever found yourself itching when you see someone else scratching? Or yawning when someone else yawns? There's an ad on CNN, I have no idea what it's for, but it talks about humans and their ability to "see" shapes and patterns where none exist. It's a survival trait - we take odd hints, bits and pieces, and our brain processes them and "realises" that there's a lion behind that bush. But the same system also "sees" faces in clouds, or a dragon in the tree down the valley. Put these things together and you have "the power of suggestion".

A year ago I bought a car, because my "farm ute" is too tall for the carparks in Canberra. At the time, I didn't think there were many of the particular model of car on the roads. Since buying it, I have realised that every other vehicle in Canberra is the same as mine. Or maybe I just notice them more?

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever. Very often, if you actually think about it, you'll find that you are watching predictions (forecasts), rather than outcomes. Additionally, we are being shown weather events that in the past would never have reached our TV screen because they weren't newsworthy TO US. They were the other side of the planet, and irrelevant. These days they are front and centre in the media, so we notice them. In the past, a tree falling down in a street somewhere wouldn't have been news. It still happened back then; it just wasn't publicised. Now it is, and we think "wow, this never happened before".

Then we have the man-made disasters. We build houses on flood plains, because it's the only land left. We cover all the rain-absorbing ground with concrete, run the stormwater it into a budget-friendly sized drain, allow that drain to be blocked with rubbish, and then act surprised when our house floods.

We can also get confused because we tend to move around and live in different places. I moved from mid-west NSW down to the Canberra area, and in the middle of summer I had to buy warmer clothing. And an umbrella!

So; remove the news articles and rose tinted hindsight, and consider whether there are really more wild weather events in your immediate vicinity (assuming you have lived there for 20+years!) than there were in the past. If you do that honestly, then you have your answer!

Originally Posted by Warb

I'll continue to play Devils Advocate......

What's the point of that, in this case?

There would only be a point to that if there was any doubt that the climate is changing at an unprecedented and very rapid rate.
If there is no doubt then consideration of the non-existent alternative is just a waste of pixels.

Originally Posted by Warb

Is it really the case that the weather is getting wilder?

AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days. Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made? They forecast more frequent and more extreme weather events.
Do you not think that all of those climate scientists are massively frustrated with the various Govts and bureaucracies faffing about kicking the can down the road whilst we hurtle towards the point of no return?

• 2023 has been declared as the hottest on record for the whole planet. (yes I know reliable records are not all that old, but ice core samples etc are backing up many of these findings)
• It was the same in Katoomba.
• We had 3 records (in a row) for hottest months here.
• Icebergs as big as Manhattan breaking off Antarctica.
• Pacific Islanders freaking out because they can see what is happening, know that it is not their doing, but are powerless to act to prevent their homelands from becoming uninhabitable to a greater or lesser extent.
• An El Niño was forecast, but so far it is the exact opposite. BOM is yet to explain what is going on, but I'm sure they will when they can figure it out properly – and that's the whole point: their forecasts these days are pretty reliable, so there must be some new "curve ball" going on to make that forecast so ridiculously wrong. I'm awaiting the update eagerly.

Originally Posted by Warb

Currently, every time you switch on the TV you'll see references to a storm, flood, drought or whatever.

I'll accept that as rhetoric. I don't even have a TV, and I generally read my news from a number of sources, watching occasional videos that are embedded. I see nil advertising, and nil promos (sensational or otherwise) for whatever it might be that any broadcaster might be pushing.

I doubt I've ever been better informed.
I have enough nouse to stop reading or watching anything that smells like bollocks, and seek an alternative view if I consider it worthwhile.
I am not generally thinking "Wow, this has never happened before", I am thinking "this seems to be happening more frequently and with increasing devastation".

Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch. Moving-pictures-media always wants the most sensationally explosive footage, especially for promos, because they almost exclusively rely on advertising revenue. Eyes glued to the tube is what they need. I doubt they give a toss about the program content – it just needs to attract viewers to be bombarded with adverts, just as long as those adverts get watched.

I have lived here for 14 years. Prior to that I lived within Sydney for all but 2 of the previous 53 years.

Originally Posted by Cgcc

You are doing the politician's / pundit's method of, instead of stating a position and justifying it, just throwing out rhetorical questions or observations to avoid actually having to defend a position.

The frequency and severity of extreme weather events is measurable and objectively ascertainable.

If you want to suggest extreme weather events are not in fact increasing in frequency and severity, say so and identify your source, rather than musing about the ways in which humans can make faulty conclusions.

I'm not really defending a position, I'm simply having a conversation and, in part, questioning blind obedience to a cause.

The difficulty with things like declaring an increasing number of extreme weather events is one of timescales, and measurement techniques and locations (and, of course, media coverage!). We have records of varying degrees of accuracy, measured using a wide array of ever-changing technologies, from an increasing number of ever developing locations for perhaps 150 years. During that time, we have gone from almost zero communication (man on a horse), to instantly knowing everything. We are using those disparate measurements and observations from a trivially small dataset to draw conclusions about a system that is immense and has a timescale of millions of years. This is not to say that those conclusions are inherently incorrect, it's just something to consider.

Tongue in cheek:

It is also the case that the predictions have followed an interesting pattern. 30odd years ago, the message was that by 2020 the earth would be like Venus (I genuinely read this, back in the 1990's). Such predictions were largely laughed at (though there were a few devout believers) and were subsequently wound back to more believable levels. The movement gained traction, and we went through the "you can't argue with the science" wars. Then we had the purge, where all non-believers were cast out, and we mocked and derided any who did not share the faith. Then the predictions once again accelerated, because nobody was allowed to "argue with the science". Which brings us to today. We have now declared a tipping point at 1.5C above preindustrial temperatures, and stated that 2023 was 1.4C above pre-industrial. Pretty close, eh? We have also declared 2023 to be the hottest in 100,000 years. So largely speaking we're screwed, and yet we're still not doing much about it! Let's be honest, planting a few trees and claiming that they'll each sequester 20odd tonnes of carbon over the next 50 years isn't making any difference today.....

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

What's the point of that, in this case?

Twofold, I guess.

Firstly I think it is wise for all of us to THINK about things. Not just climate, but everything. It is very easy to be led around, to believe what we are told without ever considering the motives of those who are telling us.

Secondly, because if what we are told is genuinely true, then why are we not trying to fix it? And I'm not talking about accounting the problem away by planting trees. If the CO2 currently in the atmosphere has caused the planet to warm to within 0.1C of the tipping point (as we are currently being told), then continuing to bucket out additional CO2 on the basis that a tree might absorb it 50 years into the future isn't going to help. Insulation keeps the heat in, and therefore it is logical to think that the current amount of CO2 will cause continued warming for several years until a new equilibrium is reached. And we only have 0.1C to play with, if the numbers are to be believed. We need to reduce the levels of CO2 right now, surely? But we're not. I find that to be concerning, and to mean either that the whole thing is a lie, or that we are literally suicidally stupid.

By the way, for anyone new to the thread, I am not a climate skeptic. I use zero grid power or water, and grow an increasing amount of my own food (now that I have time!). I do not have an EV, because there hasn't been an electric "farm" ute available in Australia and historically range was an issue for our rural location, though these days I drive minimal distances anyway. I have no doubt that my wife's next vehicle will be electric, to replace the hybrid she currently drives.

I genuinely believe we need to change our ways, but I don't automatically believe everything I read!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

AFAIK, you are a scientist in the field of Industrial Chemistry (if I'm not mistaken), and you no doubt put that knowledge to great use and effect in your farming days.

Surprisingly, yes. Not just the chemistry (soil balancing etc., I actually did some extra courses), but also simple analytical thinking. After being an industrial chemist, I moved into IT and ended up owning a consultancy company. Even that helped, as I found it easy (and fun) to cover my entire farm with WiFi, have GPS guidance and data logging on the tractors, surveillance of livestock, gates, water troughs, remote and automated control of pumps etc.

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Do you not believe the opinions of 99% of the climate scientists – experts in their field – that climate change is largely man-made?

A tricky one! We all know (I assume) that the climate has always changed. Not only year to year, decade to decade changes, but also over long periods. We know that there have been ice ages. I watched a program a few years ago that mentioned a coastal defence castle in the UK that is miles from the current coast (it was a program about coastal walks, if I remember correctly). It is also fairly normal for humans to believe that they are responsible for everything, and that nothing can possibly happen that is not under our control. It is also undeniable that all the fossil fuel CO2 was, at some point, in the atmosphere and yet the planet didn't explode. However, with all that said, I would say that I do believe that making wholesale changes to the make-up of the atmosphere will inevitably impact the climate, and many other aspects of the planet and its environment. That seems perfectly reasonable!

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

Trying to correlate suddenly seeing more of the latest vehicle that one owns with suddenly seeing lots of weather events is.... a bit of a stretch.

It's not an attempt to correlate the two, it is simply to point out that once our attention has been drawn to something we tend to be more alert to it and notice it far more, even if we're not consciously looking for it. Later today I'm intending to spray some St John's Wort on my new property. I, and now also my daughter, can pick it out in a patch of almost_but_not_quite exactly the same colour weeds from 100m away, because I'm "attuned" to it. I have no doubt that you can do the same thing, and instantly notice things that I would either not see or not consciously recognise, because you are attuned to noticing them. It's the way humans are!

Just a few generalities that are not specific to any individual posts, but more a comment on the way we, as humans, perform.

We often have very firm beliefs on an issue whether these are right or wrong, but instinctively we latch onto anything that backs up our views. It is human nature to support anything that supports our standpoint. This is unfortunate as it severely restricts our ability to think beyond and question even what we believe in.

Perhaps we all need one of these blokes (apologies to M. Rodin):

Think Outside The Square.jpg

It is very difficult to distinguish between the ratbags and the geniuses who have vision ahead of their time.

Records, as has been observed, may not always be correct and the means of attaining records has vastly changed over the course of time. This can distort our views

We don't always know everything that is going on. An example would be that the global temperature was not in fact increasing as fast as the scientists were predicting and that was both troubling and ammunition for the naysayers. Then global dimming was discovered following the Twin Towers attack. It became apparent that pollution building up on the clouds was in fact reflecting heat back into the upper atmosphere and slowing the warming effect.

There are many that none of the above or below pertains to as their only motivation is greed, which is why I say "look for the agenda."

My point is that we should continually question even our own beliefs as it is just remotely possible we are not as perfect as we think.



Regards
Paul