Australian PM lays off climate scientists

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jnpy!$4g3cwk, May 29, 2016.

  1. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #1
    Tony Abbott's smoother successor, Malcolm Turnbull, is continuing down the same path. For decades, CSIRO has been carrying out important climate science work. Now, Australia suddenly can't afford it. The government "no longer wanted what the climate scientists were selling".

    http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/backgroundbriefing/the-inconvenient-scientists/7451660

    The odd thing about it is that about 4 out of 5 Australians live on or near the coast. Vast areas of Australia's major cities are near sea level. Most of Australia also is, with respect to climate, subject to major variation in annual rainfall, with floods alternating with forest fires. Climate isn't a question of just "pure" research in Australia.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...ll-shorten-face-off-at-leaders-debate/7457418

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-29/dr-michael-gannon-elected-new-ama-president/7457096
     
  2. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #2
    Great news, at last people are seeing the planet is far more complex than first thought.

    The planet has been both warmer and cooler before and will become both again in the future. If governments wanted to truly fight global warming "caused by humans" the only credible way to do that is though population control.
     
  3. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #3
    People per capita don't contribute to global warming, it's the things they use that do.
     
  4. AFEPPL, May 29, 2016
    Last edited: May 29, 2016

    AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #4
    I beg to differ. Humans consume food, food requires space, water, farming, distribution, packaging and disposal.
    Humans consume resources, electric generated from fossil fuels, they consume masses of consumer goods all of which have to be manufactured in factories again that take up space, resources and power.... then need housing, roads and other "vital" services....

    reducing the population, regardless of what they do will have a positive impact on the plant. However its more than true to say some people consume more than others...
     
  5. thermodynamic Suspended

    thermodynamic

    Joined:
    May 3, 2009
    Location:
    USA
    #5
    Selling or advising.

    We in this peanut gallery assume and opine on what we read. We do not sell. Did government buy data from scientists?

    Now if these people were like, say, an environmentalist that did research stemming back to the 1950s or earlier to find criteria for the claim that certain actions cause what could lead to climate change or conditions that cause it and then, once he's done selling, acts the opposite way, that is where I can see why they would lose credibility.

    Climate change or not, pollution is known to be harmful to life and people just ship it to where the deer roam and the dalits play - until they get sick and die... it's not all contrived fiction...
     
  6. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #6
    Australian government didn't get the memo that now it's called climate change because when it was global warming it wasn't selling?
     
  7. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #7
    Okay, point taken. But it's a bit of an extreme response nonetheless, because you could achieve similar ends just by being a bit more mindful, and leaning on different technologies and materials without having to reduce the population.
    --- Post Merged, May 29, 2016 ---
    Global warming was selling just fine. We've had whole nations coming together to discuss the issue long since before the name was changed to the more technically correct term "climate change".

    If this is the only argument you have, I don't even know why you're wasting your time and ours by bothering us with it.
     
  8. AFEPPL macrumors 68030

    AFEPPL

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2014
    Location:
    England
    #8
    I agree it's really extreme, but all other methods simply delay what is inevitable. The matrix film put it very profoundly, humans are like a virus... "Every mammal on this planet instinctively develops a natural equilibrium with the surrounding environment; but you humans do not. You move to an area and you multiply, and multiply, until every natural resource is consumed and the only way you can survive is to spread to another area"

    To be clear, I'm not advocating genocide in anyway.
     
  9. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #9
    Everybody in the world could stand up in the area of Hong Kong. Your point is well taken. Cars, cattle, -you-name-it-.
     
  10. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #10
    Ah, @Renzatic, there is a very simple and effective form of population control, but it is one that religious conservatives world wide detest and seek to deny.

    Very simply, it boils down to the education of women, and access to education for women.

    Educate women, allow them to be economically independent, and ensure that they have access to safe, reliable, and affordable birth control, and the population tumbles, within a generation or two.
     
  11. thewitt macrumors 68020

    thewitt

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2011
    #11
    I assume you can post actual population studies that support this hypothesis?
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    That's an overly pessimistic way to view things. It's not entirely wrong, but probably a little too extreme for my tastes.

    As far as global warming is concerned, replacing gas burning cars with electric equivalents, and relying on more high yield clean burning energies like nuclear (and fission...one of these days) would help us out tremendously. Add in green energy sources as a supplement, and we've solved a good 2/3rds of the global warming issue. Yeah, people will still litter, and garbage will still collect, but we'll cut emissions, the biggest problem, by tremendous degrees.

    By that point, we'll only be using fossil fuels for high capacity transport and air travel, which make up a relatively small percentage of our overall emission output.

    The saddest thing is we already have the technologies to do it, but we're lacking the infrastructure to implement them, and the initiative to really try it.
     
  13. Scepticalscribe Contributor

    Scepticalscribe

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2008
    Location:
    The Far Horizon
    #13
    Discussions on demography which fail to note the position of women - social, legal, economic - have long struck me as missing one of the key - if not the key - variables.

    Aid agencies have long known that the single key variable in generating sustained economic development is the education of women.

    Any country where women have had access to education, which have usually been followed by the sort of socially progressive policies such as entry to the workforce (economic independence) - and latterly - the development of safe, reliable, affordable birth control have seen their birthrates tumble in a generation or two. Because when women have the choice to decide on numbers and spacing of children, they will choose to limit the size of their families.

    The most obvious example of this are the Catholic countries of western Europe; contrasting their stats these days, with the 70s, and 80s, when women's rights were considerably more restricted, are very telling.
     
  14. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #14
    The science on climate change is settled, according to Al Gore and Bill Nye. So why keep paying scientists to tell us climate change is occurring?
     
  15. chown33 macrumors 604

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2009
    #15
    The line for Soylent Green volunteers is to the left.
     
  16. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #16
    Because now scientists aren't studying the if, but the hows and whys, along with the various detrimental (and sometimes even beneficial) effects that could occur within this new system we're driving.
    --- Post Merged, May 29, 2016 ---
    Can I volunteer other people for the line?
     
  17. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #17
    This is usually assumed to be a reason why birthrates in wealthier countries lag behind others. It hasn't necessarily held up in recent years. This has been reported with a fairly high degree of consistency.
     
  18. oldmacs, May 29, 2016
    Last edited: May 29, 2016

    oldmacs macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2010
    Location:
    Australia
    #18
    That is because Turnbull is a complete and utter fool, constrained by his party. Turnbull shouldn't even be in the Liberal Party, his personal beliefs go against what he is doing on so many levels. There are still members of the Liberal party that deny any sort of climate change, Australia's last PM Tony Abbott (Who we actually elected), who told people that Global Warming wasn't happening, because it was also warm in Jesus' time. Essentially the Libs don't get a flying damn about whats happening to the country as long as their big business friends are doing well.
     
  19. SHNXX macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2013
    #19
    No disrespect to Australians, but with all the scientists worldwide from more reputable universities and institutions working on the problem, the world and the Australian citizens do not need their government paying scientists to do the same thing.
     
  20. jnpy!$4g3cwk thread starter macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #20
    What makes you think that CSIRO and Australia's top research universities are not reputable?

    Do you think only one institution in the world should do research in a given area?

    In any case, perhaps Australia's politicians were thinking that CSIRO should be researching new uses for dead coral, considering the large supply that may soon be available:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/30/w...-death-great-barrier-reef.html?ref=world&_r=0
     

Share This Page