Net Zero -- out on the nature strip it goes

Net Zero- its NOW out on the nature strip with all that other short term stuff  that simply doesn't work. 







In a technological society what does not work gets thrown out. Simple as that . 

You cannot revive a dead horse after vainly  trying to ride it for 20 years

Type " climate change " and  "Unexpected consequences "into the query line above . 20 years of hot air talk and ever changing focus -- has taken us nowhere.   



I hate it how those who didn't pass physics and chemistry still try to tell those of us who did HOW to solve scientific and practical challenges.
Their incompetence over several decades has led to many empty aims and actions in conservation . 

 The Conservatives have finally split over the simply stupid badge of Net Zero and Greenlabor will now have to change its spots on the subject too - 20 years to try and convince the public that the wild horsemen know what they are doing, is too long.
We sadly live on an island and have got distracted by careless chatter . We have been pretending we can solve the world's problem of increasing fuel costs by trying to do something about the world's atmosphere , We have been totally distracted from the  real challenge of decreasing fossil  fuels by the nonsense that a great increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem; it is not.   
The early adopters may think theirs, and the worlds future depends on them achieving Net zero but  they are only supporting the desperate to stay in power ( November 2025 )



In a technological society what does not work gets thrown out . Simple as that . 
You will hear all sorts of excuses when Labor changes its tune on what net Zero means,  but the above principle is the driving one. Change and all the waste that it creates. 


This is the mad disease of our age. Drug induced comas . The people are dependent on the government for this weeks high.  A new description of the drug will save the suckers from seeing that the drug of last week doesn't work.
The Teals can complain all they like about Labor changing its spots, but, its happening and its going to keep happening because the well intentioned have been distracted by the quick fix drugs that do not work.

The unreliable light of Greenlabor is fading just like its vain hope in all that batteries cannot do is going is going to keep fading ( look up Rowan Atkinson on the subject ) .  

It's in the nature of the animal that too many post moderns worship change alone.

To get away with it now, that minority called  Greenlabor  will have to be subtle: the complete erosion of their rationale should result in them being taken off the job. 

Hopefully Australians will have had enough of their costly ignorance and arrogant expensive purchases in windmill and other defenses that don't even work half the time. 
If Labor want to keep winning, they  too have to rebadge the task. They already have had a go by changing the crisis dates.
Labor will have to change the goal posts .eg "We  didn't mean complete net zero just a zero change from 1960 or whatever"" 
This hypocrisy and waste completely empties their right to govern any budget : the intellectual and scientific  credibility of green labor is in tatters .  

We capable applied scientists were never happy with the science of AGW being a threat, let alone all the false worries of those determined to try to move us onto last quick fix called CC .Bigger again in all this   is the lefts chosen track of Suicidal Empathy ( Saad)

Wires Windmills Panels and the constant changes re where they are best to go  . 
None of these ever changing" best sites for this and that " last long .
This week the machinery gets bigger , more expensive to maintain , and more risk prone in big winds.

In a vain attempt to make them fill the energy gaps they never will Premier Allan  has moved them off Bridgewater ( where its too windy ) tried to get them  at sea ( where they will work more often but cost more to maintain - STGLTP  and now fills any landscape like Rokewood where they are a bit out of mind: Trillions of dollars for something that doesn't even half do the job 

This in the mad disease of our age. Drug induced comas . The people are dependent on the government for this weeks high.  A new description of the drug will save the suckers from seeing the that the drug of last week doesn't work. 
They haven't worked out the Canberra plan will never keep the smelters going. 
And so the seed for seeking for more gas , these creepy incompetents are  now sowing . 

One presumes their latest big gearbox solutions , that the location could be secondary now to the mad merry go round of demands from Canberra for something that involves less wires , transformers and grief from those who know the Bowen plan is costing the earth for  excess power when we don't need, 

As always, the incompetent are desperately trying to fix something they don't understand with short term ( apparent gains ) that turn out to be long term pain  for the people.  STGLTP

Climate Change - Is it the great moral challenge of our time ?

There are then 3 key aspects to this question . There is

1.  Global warming ,( only the Anthro bit) ( Science)  GW  AGW 
2. What we do about it and      ( Technology )( Politics ) Assuming we can   There is to date no agreement about what we can do to change the risk ---as stated   the options are CCA1 CCA2 -20 
3. We Must do ( Moral) ( Politics )  Many like Kevin Rudd  , The Greens and Labor say we MUST do something about it .CCAI -20 Leaving aside the reality that we don't know what these advocates really means on the ground-- for the moment .The advocates talk about " strong action " and imply a tax of some sort on somebody - not exactly concrete actions .Who would have thought the reactionaries would ever use a moral argument but they are. ( see Susan Neiman for anyone who wants to argue that CCA1 is set solutions from science) 

Conclusion 1 : Noone can go anywhere with this because we haven't got past 1st base . 
Conclusion  2   Does the issue have Moral Status ?  Clearly only for some . For many of us No  
According to traditional western thinking CC can't be a moral challenge because men are free under God to act until such time as they know they are doing "the wrong thing" . Many of us have no such knowledge. If your are not sure about whether you are sinning,  you have have no obligation to act . Moreover you should not force the issue as many are doing . Knowledge is not information  so it can't be equated for the purposes of political argument. Freedom of belief and speech are connected .

If you are living in fear maybe your need to relook at your faith.The only way our society can really adopt cultural change is if you can  get confession . Coercion on the basis of your more complete knowledge could rightly be considered tyranny.


The science and the substance in summary 

1. Assuming we can 't do anything about GW , or that we don't need to , is not discussed properly  See the basic physics and geological argument below that GW throughout Geological history that says GW puts more moisture into the  atmosphere which means more clouds and wetter world , We know for example that the many and frequent cold periods in Geological History are Dry periods .      There are radiation and other physics . The common use of montorung and modeling is akin to meddling with statistics. 
2. All the main evidence ( sea levels arctic ice etc and now coral bleaching ( see posts below) A litany of correlations that go nowhere  near causation . The latest coral bleaching change  was stated by profs within the ocean science as something that will recover by itself . The discussion of resilience by advocates of CCA is enough to take me ignore them . 
3. The move from Global warming to CC    No scientist I know wants to accept the nonsense target that is the change to the catchall crap phrase "change" . Its in the nature of both weather and the climate to change . CC was clearly was substituted  for GW and AGW about 10 years ago because the case for acting against AGW alone was not clear , 

Summary

Advocates of CCA and CCA1 completely lost me when they changed channels from AGW to Climate Change CC-, They ALSO can't be taken seriously with imperatives on the ground when they are unclear about the imperatives in the air (My work is with the practical implications of fluid  and gas science )..
Advocates must regroup and answer thinking peoples doubts in ALL three areas  before they will again get the attention of thinking practical scientists. 

The Sydney Schmatz

How do you get an agreement signed , when you don't really agree ? The answer--You say something , but you say nothing. The leaders will be smiling when they finish , but people who care will wonder at what opportunity has been lost.
What arrows , amongst the many being fired, would have cut some mustard for the future ? Was this talkfest just the biggest load of hot air ever about hot air? And why didn't Australia take the opportunity of a lifetime to be credible about the environment , poverty and protection ? The answer : No consensus and no credible focus in this country for environmental risk assesssment. How can we encourage agreement outside this island when we have no agreement within it . Tell me i am wrong and why i am wrong!

No one it seems , should be happy with the Sydney agreement, whatever it finally says .( this post published on 8th sept at 8am )
The greens cynical use of "climate change" in recent months ( cf "global warming" and much better targeting ) has left the door wide open for the bigger horses to bolt . The result is everyone is smiling, except those who would like our most powerful leaders to tackle the problems of poverty and protection seriously .

Change doesn't come out of agreements drawn up in the heat of the moment , but on the basis of consensus and realistic ecological , scientific and economic facts . Despite the media hype , the content of this broad consensus is missing. This should not be so, when the west is so wealthly and the integrated problems of disaster , threat , rural poverty and environmental protection are matters of known praxis. Australians have led the way in the intellectual debate on earthcare .
Those who thought attendance in Sydney would bring forth new agreements in the context of controversy are not very realistic - the ground work in the above areas must be done and consensus built BEFORE it happens . Kyoto was bad enough, Sydney was quick fix ( where is the carbon trading consensus???) Sydney maybe be a turning point in being too weak to be believable . A turning back

Those who should be most worried about this loss of opportunity are the Greens and those of us who want the earth to be better used . The trouble with the " bucket of change for changes sake "is --it leaks. Grist are saying this and they are right . You can't win wars with all the money in the world . Mr Gore !Your arrows have to be sharp . You must support strong scientific debate and consensus building that comes from it - This could have been the real big " agreement" from Sydney , Australia in 2007 . not some self congratulatory statement that we have the physical resources and we are willing to share theme with you ! The big worry in this is ---the intellectual climate !
You can't change the agenda from global warming to climate change and back again with out opening the door to nuclear distraction.

Those of us who want realistic attention given to resource use need to support those who advise these leaders with informed comment on the above matters . There can be no international agreement out of SYDNEY if there is no internal agreement in Australia - support a forum for consensus .
Sydney will probably be noted for at least one major achievement - the biggest load of hot air about hot air ever .

Just a lot of hot air and obfiscation

Well , did we get what was expected? A lot of hot air talk - yes . Could you call it a debate ? No ( ABC debate on Durkins hard work on "the climate change swindle")) , I don't think so !!!

Tony Jones and Robin W did a shocking job of setting up a debate - wasting a good hour and failing to nail the only scientist to criticize the films' key question - the dearth of evidence of a connection between co2 and temperture rises!

The public have every right to question certainties that can't be easily explained!
.

The very high seas of media led motivation

You don't have to be Einstein to recognise that Flannerys and Gore's flirt with the media over climate change is unsustainable; you just have to be a sustainability expert.