NB: For any “tldr” viewers, you might wish to skip to the following link – where you can view a sequence of enlightening scientific views on the whole climate change debate – https://www.propertyinvesting.com/topic/5050126-the-climate-is-changing-2/#post-5060671
For all others, read on (the link above is further down anyway):-
“Is the Climate Changing”?
I’d say “Yes” – I’ve seen it happening for years (decades even). I am a big advocate for green space and for keeping trees where possible. But I am called a “denier” by many today who believe in Al Gore and his “Inconvenient Truth” movie (that was shot down by a bunch of inconvenient facts later on) and the IPCC and their projections on steroids that are later proven wrong.
What I see happening is that debate is being stifled – and yet, debate is what scientists depend on to arrive at conclusions that become accepted by all (over time). Today we see little debate – just the tired old debate-killing mantra trotted out that “The science is settled!”
Today I was fortunate enough to stumble across a scientific author (Howard Brady) who asks some interesting questions and who proffers some interesting facts re our climate. His findings often meet head-on with several of the IPCC’s findings. And as a scientist himself, he expresses himself without emotion by simply stating facts and leaving others to work things out for themselves.
I appreciated his work so much that I immediately shelled out a few dollars to purchase his book, titled “Mirrors and Mazes”. I can’t wait for it to arrive. While it does, let me tempt those of you who are interested in the truth about our climate via one of two of his observations:-
There has been so much focus on greenhouse gases as the primary cause of recent global warming that the Sun has been relegated to the background, somewhat like a steady light globe high in the sky, not doing much at all except giving out a steady light.
But, is the Sun a steady light globe or is it more like an illusionist standing on an open stage in front of a captivated audience and daring them in a mocking voice “I may seem to be doing nothing, but I can make things change before your very eyes, and I challenge you to find out how I did it”?
or this one:-
There has been some warming effect from increased greenhouse gases, but not enough to override various temperature pauses in the past 150 years. It is clear that a warming cycle, in its timing and general shape, is in rhythm with the Medieval, Roman, and Minoan Warm Periods. In pop-music parlance, the recent climate changes don’t make the charts. Humankind is presently living in a benign climate epoch.
Historical evidence shows that past warming periods have been periods of prosperity with increased agricultural production and population growth, and that this warm period has been the warm period “par excellence” for human development.
There has been so much panic. One of the worst examples was a United Nations Environmental Program report predicting that, due to increased global warming and rising sea levels, there would be 50 million climate refugees by the year 2010. This was climate alarmism at its worst. The decade ending in 2010 saw record agricultural production, a pause in world temperatures, and no acceleration in sea level rise. The map depicting those migrations was quietly withdrawn.
There was so much more, including examples of land sizes growing even as sea levels rise! Once I have the whole book, I’ll be happy to offer more. Meanwhile, where do you sit re “Climate Change”?
PS Howard Brady also agrees we need to move away from fossil fuels – but in a measured manner, not in the current frantic rush. His words below:-
Finally I would like to clarify to my readers that I do want to see the development of alternative energy technologies to diversify away from our absolute dependency on coal, oil and gas – energy sources humankind still desperately requires for its survival. Unfortunately, there is so much panic from faulty climate models predicting an impending climate catastrophe, that many communities have been conned to spend trillions of dollars installing the present infant technologies that require large subsidies ballooning national debts. What a waste, when those trillions should be directed to better develop such technologies to reduce their cost and improve their effectiveness.Jason StaggersParticipant@jason_staggersJoin Date: 2006Post Count: 61
Interesting thoughts Benny. I tend to agree that we’ve allowed the issue to become very politicised. I don’t trust either side. I think both the left and right are motivated by greed and desire for more power.
Whether climate change is natural or man-made, it just seems to make sense to me that we should care for the environment. Fossil fuels lead to unclean air and other pollutions. Petrol smells bad and breathing while riding my bike on a street in heavy traffic sucks. We should be mindful of animal habitats and preserve environments of species that could become extinct. These things seem obvious, and remain true regardless of why the climate is changing.
I’m looking forward to the day when I drive my electric car with solar power absorbing paint. The future is bright – pardon the pun :)
Actually, the car will probably be driving me.
Absolutely with you re “Caring for the environment” Jason. I’m sure we can be doing lots better in that regard too – i.e. don’t clear timbered areas to build homes. Leave the trees there and build homes where there are no (or few) trees. Don’t be in a rush to knock down old homes – the wood therein has captured a bunch of carbon, so fix it up if possible. And wood has very good insulating properties to keep the interior warm in Winter and cool in Summer.
I’m looking forward to the day when I drive my electric car with solar power absorbing paint. The future is bright – pardon the pun :)
I’m appreciating the imagery !! Why not, eh?
I appreciated his work so much that I immediately shelled out a few dollars to purchase his book, titled “Mirrors and Mazes”. I can’t wait for it to arrive.
Woohoo – it’s here !! And now that I am able, let me state a few more thoughts from this book that might turn a few hypothesese on their heads – like this one:-
“For those who talk about present temperatures being ‘unprecedented’, geological history shows that for 80% of our Earth’s history there have been NO ice sheets at the Poles. Indeed Mother Earth has normally been at least 3 to 5 degrees warmer, and plants and animals have happily lived and evolved in those hotter conditions.”
“The world has warmed over the last 300 years, yet not as much as various warm periods in the last 8000 years. More of our modern thermometer temperature readings may be broken, but such records only go back 150 years!”
One section of Chapter 1 – “The Climate Debate” is titled “Solutions before Answers” where he talks of over-spending on as yet untried solutions that cost billions :-
“In the fervent rush to reduce greenhouse gases, many countries have installed large-scale solar plants and wind farms that require large subsidies or tax credits to justify some return of capital. In Spain the economy was not robust enough to fund these subsidies that became a significant component of its ballooning National Debt.”
And just one more quote that shouted at me in a quick read through Chapter 1
“Carbon Dioxide levels rose about 11% between 1975 and 1998 while temperatures were also increasing. However, Carbon Dioxide levels rose another 9% between 1998 and 2017 while temperatures did NOT increase. So, how can rising carbon dioxide be the main driver?”
Dear reader, are these questions and comments of interest to you? I don’t wish to simply add to a store of website information if it is of no interest to others, so I’ll hold back now to see if there are any reader reactions before continuing. Meanwhile I will enjoy reading the whole book.
* All quotes from “Mirrors and Mazes” by Howard Thomas Brady – “A guide through the Climate Change debate”
As the clanging bell of “Climate change” becomes more and more strident, the more I believe we all need to take a cold shower and re-look at some facts.
One fact I recall (about the time that we were fighting “chlorofluorocarbons in aerosols, and the hole in the ozone layer”) was that the icy poles on Mars were observed to be melting (or had completely melted). I can’t think ANY scientist on Earth was attempting to blame us for that. Of course not – the Sun was having a bit of a party, and that probably aligned with those times (mentioned above – from 1975 to 1998) when our Earth was getting hotter too. But for the last two decades, our temperature HAS NOT increased. The Sun has cooled – for now….
Isn’t that significant?
Doesn’t that throw some doubt on the whole carbon dioxide / climate change / end of the world drama that is clogging up our newspapers and our lives?
Seems not – the bells just keep on clanging, drowning any attempts to bring a wee bit of common sense into the argument. Schoolchildren are encouraged to play truant to bring even more emotion into play with “What about our futures” rallies. Demanding that Govts “do more” to make the bogeyman of Climate Change go away.
I struggle to know how Govts can stop volcanoes from erupting – and when the Iceland volcano threw off its lid in 2010, I read that it released as much pollution in one day as Sydney did in one year !! How do we (sensibly) do anything about that? That volcano went on for weeks – how many major cities should we close down for a year to counteract that pollution?
And, as we have earthquakes regularly, as tectonic plates shift, wouldn’t it make sense that there will be volcanoes erupting UNDER WATER too (unbeknown to us perhaps)? And what would that do to our oceans – maybe warm them somewhat? Well hello!! What can man do about these, seriously? How many more cities would we need to “shut down for a year” to offset the warming/pollution that arises from each of these events?
Now look, I certainly agree we need to do things to prevent pollution – like all those plastic bottles and bags that are currently choking marine life. That IS our problem, and we MUST fix that one. And we can do far better by keeping (and planting up) more trees – they give off oxygen, so that is goodness, even as they store carbon.
But the call to flee to sources of energy that are unreliable, costly, and are totally not viable if we are to keep a robust economy, instead of renewing our energy sources to use HELE coal, or Uranium, or even Thorium is beyond belief. Maybe in decades to come, the current “hot topics” (wind, solar, wave power) WILL be reliable and inexpensive – but that is not today. And I hear that even if Australia CLOSED RIGHT DOWN and the country generated NO emissions at all (turn out the lights and all leave!) the savings that were made from the cut in greenhouse gases would be totally negated within 6 months by China’s and India’s growth !!
So come on !! Let’s get real here. Our old people may yet die in huge numbers because of the current huge cost of electricity this coming Winter (thanks to the subsidies levied to cover the cost of solar, etc). Labor leaders talk of “renewables” (solar, wind, etc) being “the cheapest power around” – but if it is, tell that to South Australia! I’m sure they don’t believe it for a minute.
And even as Bill Shorten projects having 50% electric cars within 10 years, HOW will he provide all the extra Gigawatts needed? Surely not Solar or wind power – or we might be intermittently getting to work each day, depending on whether the day before was cloudy with no wind. Sheesh!
By demonising coal (as seems now to be happening), where will that leave Australia’s economy when its 2ND LARGEST EXPORT is axed? Don’t allow the Greens to gain seats in this election, please! How will all the school children who are today “demonstrating” about climate change end up when their parents suddenly don’t have a job, or when electricity costs grow even higher as ALL coal-fired power goes away. there might be enough solar power to let them charge their mobile phones, not much extra for anything else.
Think about it. Sure, we might need change – but let’s do it in a measured, orderly fashion, not in the heated rush that is “climate change alarmism” right now. Over time, let’s remove coal – sure. But replace it with something that is RELIABLE, just like coal is. Uranium, HELE coal, Thorium, or whatever is next.
Last words go to my newest mentor, Howard Thomas Brady:-
“It is hard to see a way forward in the climate debate due to the inextricable links that have been forged between so many disparate groups. It is rather like a thousand cats in the same room playing with a thousand balls of wool. It has got to the stage that a sharp global cooling, much like the Dalton Minimum between 1795 and 1820, may be needed to bring the foundations of modern climate science to its knees, and to disentangle those disparate groups caught up in the climate debate.
“To some extent we have been conned by our new awareness of the climate in polar and high altitude regions. In September 2015 President Obama had his photo taken near a retreating Alaskan glacier, and used this image to tell the world it is on the verge of catastrophic change. Obama did NOT tell the world that these polar regions have always been vulnerable to the slightest changes in climate, and always will be!
“In the past 40 years scientists thought that rising greenhouses gases provided a general guide through the climate maze. They were wrong. There are many competing forces behind climate. However, it is going to take some extraordinary events to change the present simplistic carbon dioxide global warming theories within the scientific community.
“The Fairy Tale called the Emperor’s New Clothes is very relevant. The defence of the role of greenhouse gases as the primary driver of the present global warming may become more strident but one day, someone or some event will make it clear that the emperor and all his rabid followers are stark naked, and the science community will suddenly nod in agreement and change sides so that climate edifice, built up over the last 40 years, will collapse. Then the charade will be over.”
BennyKumpapeat4Participant@kumpapeat4Join Date: 2019Post Count: 11
Totally agree. We are all accountable for the environment.
My concern grows as folk (no doubt sincere in their intentions) are encouraged to rally in large numbers to disrupt our economy – blocking streets and bridges in our capitals to “make a point” about climate change. And now we have those who point to our recent bush fires as being CAUSED by Climate Change….
Now wait a minute !! Who was it who locked up vast tracts of forests as National Parks, then didn’t allow the cutting of fire breaks even, nor any kind of maintenance? And who voted down the regular burning off of these areas to reduce the fuel on the ground caused by branches and leaves falling yearly? Some reports I heard after a decade or more of neglect were that fuels loads were “shoulder high” in some areas. How can anyone stop a fire that has THAT much fuel at its disposal?
And just what led to that happening? It wasn’t some arbitrary “Mr. Climate Change” – not at all. It was politicians and bureaucrats who should all be lined up to take responsibility for these conflagrations. The climate is certainly a bit drier than usual, but with lower fuel loads and fire breaks maintained in these areas, the fires would have remained far more controllable.
I have also heard it is ILLEGAL to clear around your own home in some of these areas? Now which idiots voted in THAT particular law? And just who should be on trial for the massive grief that their actions have caused?
It’s an open question people. It galls me to hear some politicians turning the blame onto others for “inaction on Climate Change” when they themselves have played a huge part in fanning the flames of the recent unstoppable fires.
Further reading tells me that our Earth has been hotter than today for 97% (yes, that’s right – 97%) of its long history. Our current warming event is line with earlier warming phases – but this one is quite benign. The Roman and Minoan warmings were some 4 to 6 degrees hotter than today.
The Earth continues to do as it does – so does the Sun, and so too do those who would have us wreck our economies to fight some elusive bogeyman instead of concentrating our efforts on cleaning up our act re plastic waste, the unnecessary felling of trees, and the custodianship of our wildlife. Let’s not waste too much more time chasing shadows.
Polar regions melt then freeze again – it happens. The Sun goes on a heating cycle, then cools a bit – it happens. If man doesn’t burn coal, then he burns trees and (in some cases) dung to keep warm or to cook. All of these release carbon, but some release far more….
Man does a lot of damage. One man with a D9 Caterpillar can devastate a small forest daily – 1000 men with 1000 D9’s can do a helluva lot more. WHY are we doing this? We need trees – so let’s spend some money on ways to re-afforest the place, and let’s not build our homes where we need to chop down vast tracts of trees (disrupting wildlife). And let’s look at phasing out coal in a considered, sensible, planned manner – without the bogeyman of “We’ve only got 10 years to turn this around” alarmism. I don’t know where that came from, but it DOESN’T help.
Let’s talk about sensible solutions rather than accepting the first wild scheme that comes along to “set things right”. Even planned things can have unintended consequences – and this current climate change rebellion sets in train a whole HOST of those.
I want to rebel against the extinction of commonsense and to suggest we sit down and have a huge round-table that covers what things are important, what are real, and what are realistic to fix. King Canute tried to “fix” tides coming in and going out – didn’t work for him. And I do tend to see “Climate Change” in a similar light.
I DO agree that the climate changes – always has – always will. But I don’t agree with the capitalised version as trotted out by fanatics. We can do way better than that.
Suddenly we are seeing a “hotter than before” series of temperatures – the climate has dried out certainly, with a major drought having a marked impact on our farmers, and will thus bring higher prices for foods in the next few months.
The current bushfires are playing their part now too – like, when you have an uncontrolled (and uncontrollable) series of bushfires, their very presence is going to have some effect on temperature, yes – and it won’t likely be getting any cooler, will it? The 3 million hectares already burnt, and still with 100 fires active in NSW, this must be adding to the ambient heat of the continent – or at least within these Eastern states. So let’s not be too surprised if/when 150 year temperature records might be broken soon.
It has been quite alarming to read of temperatures in the high 40’s recently. Do keep in mind though that the current highest temperature on record in Australia (according to Google) is around 51 degrees. We may break that over this Summer, or we may not. If we do, the bushfires will likely have added some impetus to the thermometer readings. And as long as they remain out of control, their effect will only grow surely.
We do need rain on many fronts. And it will come – but is not able to be “dialled up on request” – when was it ever? Meanwhile, our powers-that-be need to take counsel from RFS veterans who said this week something like this – “Previously we’ve found we need to do a hazard reduction burn-off every 7 years to keep control of our forests. In the previous decade or two we’ve only managed to do 1% per year of our total forested areas.”
Working those numbers, that tells me we must get many more Firies doing burn-offs so we can get those hazard reduction cool burns up from 1% to nearer 14% (to keep that 7 year cycle going – 7 x 14 = 98% of forests with reduced fuel). It’s time to pay a lot more people to do a lot more work in that regard. Also bprovide them with bulldozers to rebuild the firebreaks that have became overgrown over the last 20 years (these had become mandated “no-go areas” by local/State govts with the lobbying by Green members). With firebreaks, at least Firies have some chance of containing a forest fire. Without them, just read the news to see what happens !! We’re living it right now, and it isn’t pretty.
In an attempt to use “what’s out there” (i.e. you can check it out for yourself) I dug around in a pile of “climate change facts” as ranked by Google and found something that I think is – a. balanced, b. fair, c. easy to take in, and d. providing an alternate view to the current alarmism around the climate.
It is a sequence of 22 separate “mini-seminars” that tackle several claims made and seeks to shed light on each from a different perspective. If you don’t have an hour spare, please take just 10 minutes to view the following two linked offerings from their list of 22 videos.
The fourteenth one is titled “What they haven’t told you about climate change” –
and the nineteenth is “The truth about CO2” – https://www.prageru.com/video/the-truth-about-co2?playlist=what-science-reveals-about-climate-change
There are twenty other videos to view (each about 5 minutes) if you find you appreciated the content – the above two I thought were a good place to start. A comment I heard in one of these two videos that stood out was this:-
“This does not mean that climate change is not an issue, but exaggerating the threat does concentrate our resources in the wrong areas.”
So you see, this group are not denying anything, but instead are focussing on a common-sense approach – providing far more light and far less heat on the subject than many others do.
Over to you though. What did you think?
- This reply was modified 1 year, 3 months ago by Benny. Reason: Adding links to accommodate changes at the source
Agree with most of what has already been written, so refreshing to read good common sense. My question is ( with regards to properly investing ) should I wait until the dust settles now to see which direction to go. Obviously at the moment there is a lot of politics and emotional commentary going around and I’m not sure what the sentiment is going to prevail with the Australian community.?I was going to head off and buy something next week but some have suggested that I be a little more patient and wait until we know more. Anyway this is my first post and I am thrilled to be added to this community.
Thanks for your response, and welcome. :) Re your comment below:-
I was going to head off and buy something next week but some have suggested that I be a little more patient and wait until we know more.
If you are skilled in property purchases, I’m sure there are always opportunities “out there”. On the other hand, if you are new to it, I’d also be saying “Hang back until you have planned just what to buy that suits your situation. Steve often says “Don’t just buy anything – the better way is to identify just what to buy (so you are actually looking for SOMETHING rather than anything)”. Or words similar to that.
But then, you said “wait till we know more” – is that about the climate? Or the bushfires? Or the current economic climate? Or something else altogether? Where do you have concerns in that regard?
I’m concerned about the psychology of the Australian people in terms of how they view different cities and regions now as a result of the fires. With the hyper politicisation of this natural disaster there would be many people out there that are perhaps now re thinking where they would invest as a result of the fires.
I think I am concerned about perceptions and sentiments that people may be expressing right now compared to how they may see things In a years time. For example there is a lot of climate change narrative being prosecuted right now which is bad for the property investor. When media organisations like the ABC start talking about areas that will flood, become too hot, too dry, too bush fire prone will scare some people. How do you see it?
Im hoping that the government does call a royal commission and get some CSIRO scientists to testify about there claims so that we can all get some clarity.
Now I understand !! Yes, for sure, I can see where some regional areas might be “no-go zones” for any kind of investment into the near future. And yes, various media entities do tend to drive particular sentiments. Personally, I don’t foresee too much downside in cities, though some regional towns may well face a downturn, so it would be wise to re-consider things if your existing involvement in property has been mainly regional.
Re the cities though – as long as we all need a place to lay our heads for the night, and immigration remains strong, I think there will continue to be strong demand in Australia. Some downsides I DO see would be with units – these have faced multiple shocks over the last few years. There were increases to the cost of ownership for any overseas investors a few years back, leading to a drop in their numbers. That then left local buyers to pick up the slack (overseas buyers had been purchasing around 50% of all new units) so that dropped demand even as more towers were completed, leading to softer prices. Then we had the double shock with claddings catching fire (overseas, but applicable to some towers here, I hear) and then we had some towers failing (cracks appearing in newly-built places, with occupants told to “get out” and they haven’t been able to move back yet – eek!!).
With all of those downside events, I could only think unit values HAD to drop – and one off-shoot of that means house prices might become more favourable as more people steer clear of units. But hey, that is just a quick “back-of-the-envelope” set of opinions – what do YOU think re those?
Yes that seems quite a sensible approach to me. Glad I joined this forum. I’m looking at the Adelaide market at the moment for a house in Hallett Cove / Moana area compared to Brisbane Alexandra Hills/ Petrie suburbs in the low 400k’s
- This reply was modified 3 years ago by maxyboy.
Two years on and things keep changing – and also staying the same (with thanks to Jean-Baptiste Karr) around the subject of Climate Change. The “world” is right now meeting for a gabfest in Copenhagen around the subject of CO2 emissions and setting goals to reduce our emissions to zero (if that is even remotely possible).
Meanwhile, some cooler heads around this subject have changed their website layout, so a change was made to their (initial) 12 videos that schooled us on the various subjects that make up “climate change”. They now have 22 videos, so old links became invalid. But don’t worry – click the link below for their latest words of wisdom that offer hope, and much more LIGHT, on the whole subject, rather than the heat that many other sources provide. Happy reading!
What do you think about THIS comment from PragerU?
“This does not mean that climate change is not an issue – but exaggerating the threat concentrates our resources in the wrong areas.”
See the context of that statement in this link – around 2:20 >
The whole 5 minutes of this video would be time well spent as it also addresses the solar & wind energy outcomes vs their expense (quite a surprise there, as we constantly hear how CHEAP these are, when the reality is quite different (around 3:20 in the video).
As said before, more light is shed in these videos on the subject of climate change, hopefully offsetting a lot of HEAT that comes from other sources.
Further to that last comment, the presenter (Bjorn Lomborg) goes on to say (and I paraphrase Bjorn, but you can click the link and hear him yourself) “Instead of pouring Billions into subsidising infant technologies that are not cheap, we would be better advised to turn those dollars into researching better ways to produce CHEAP energy. Once that path is found, China and India (along with everyone else) would RUSH to utilise this new cheaper, more reliable power source. So long as the current ‘green’ energies require massive subsidies to make them appear cheap, that will not happen.”
In short, he is inferring that we need to do a U-turn, and stop doing what is not working too well (and at a very high cost – i.e. those renewables), and instead turn to the other options (Nuclear, Thorium, etc) that seem to show much promise around the subject of providing cheap energy for all.
Why not? Seems to me to make far more sense than what is happening currently…. Do you agree? Or is there an even better way? Let’s hear it….
Wow !! Where has THIS been hiding?
I was fortunate enough today to stumble over a dissertation from two stalwarts of common sense – Bjorn Lomborg and Jordan Peterson. And, following on from Bjorn’s comment in my last post:-
“Instead of pouring Billions into subsidising infant technologies that are not cheap, we would be better advised to turn those dollars into researching better ways to produce CHEAP energy. Once that path is found, China and India (along with everyone else) would RUSH to utilise this new cheaper, more reliable power source.
Well, lookee here – in this short video (approx 20 mins) Bjorn and Jordan combine to espouse a host of truths about today’s world, promises made (and costed) that show the “path to fixing Climate change could do with a major reset”, but finishes with a hope that sounds like it is well worth exploring. Listen in to the last 3 minutes of the link below at least, to where Jordan talks of “oil-producing algae”. Is that not a HUGE hope for the future? Look it up.
Apparently, all the algae needs is water, carbon-dioxide, and sunlight. Just as plants take in carbon dioxide and give out oxygen (we’ve all known that for centuries), here’s a plant that takes in CO2 and gives oil instead of oxygen. Let me think now – would this be worth spending a few R&D dollars on do you think? It reduces CO2 and produces Oil – could we FARM it? SHOULD we farm it?
If not, WHY NOT?
PS Oh, and within that link, Bjorn talks of how “long” the batteries in the world could provide a backup for when “sun isn’t shining and the wind isn’t blowing”. It is measured in seconds !!!! Check THAT out, then tell me how good solar and wind power really are as a viable future power source. Maybe seaweed will turn out to be way better? But we gotta spend R&D money first….