Whats a greater threat to Australia Climate Change deniers or terrorists?

[Gus Poyet]

you know, the tiny part you contribute to rising temps and the associated dramas.

How do you know I do?

 

[Long Live HFC]

How do you know I do?

lol, we all do

 

[Gus Poyet]

lol, we all do

And that's why I care not about it.

All the self righteous tosser hypocrites spouting crap about it while they go on contributing to it, day after day

 

[Long Live HFC]

Why isnt it the "side"?

Plenty of funding to be had from the anti as well as the pro groups.

oh come on. AGW research has been going on for a while, and it's only relatively recently that big business has started to get on board to find solutions. whereas big energy have been throwing whatever they can at the science in this time, attempting to muddy it and create doubt in the populace/legislature. it's pure fantasy to equate grant funding for research etc with the sheer volumes of cash available on the contrarian side of the "debate". where's that pic? *google image hunt* this isn't it, but you get the idea.

I never said there was a conspiracy. I said they are doing what science has always done. Pimping itself out.

sorry, but for any (untrue) consensus to occur it would take a vast collusion (ie a conspiracy) between all the parties involved in research.

 

[Long Live HFC]

And that's why I care not about it.

yeah well i don't care about it either; except as it pertains to an irrational denial of evidence.

All the self righteous tosser hypocrites spouting crap about it while they go on contributing to it, day after day

i don't doubt that these people exist, but i wouldn't call that a fair description of the various posters in this thread.

 

[Lebbo73]

oh come on. AGW research has been going on for a while, and it's only relatively recently that big business has started to get on board to find solutions. whereas big energy have been throwing whatever they can at the science in this time, attempting to muddy it and create doubt in the populace/legislature. it's pure fantasy to equate grant funding for research etc with the sheer volumes of cash available on the contrarian side of the "debate". where's that pic? *google image hunt* this isn't it, but you get the idea.

sorry, but for any (untrue) consensus to occur it would take a vast collusion (ie a conspiracy) between all the parties involved in research.

I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.

 

[CM86]

"Voodoo science"
-- Anonymous idiot.

 

[romeoh]

And that's why I care not about it.

All the self righteous tosser hypocrites spouting crap about it while they go on contributing to it, day after day

Well how about you stop posting about it if 'you care not'!

 

[CM86]

Well how about you stop posting about it if 'you care not'!

Because he is a troll.
He constantly says that he is a troll... and he constantly posts bullshit.

Don't know why.
Malifice ?

 

[Malifice]

Because he is a troll.
He constantly says that he is a troll... and he constantly posts bullshit.

Don't know why.
Malifice ?

He's ok. Have a go at his arguments and if you see a troll, hit report post.

 

[medusala]

Because he is a troll.
He constantly says that he is a troll... and he constantly posts bullshit.

If he posts bullshit then why cant you can easily counter his arguments? eg funding

A good example is the current fracking debate in the UK. Guess who is a massive funder of the anti fracking campaing?

Gazprom. Green groups are just useful idiots for the real players.

 

[CM86]

He's ok. Have a go at his arguments and if you see a troll, hit report post.

Yeah OK.

 

[CM86]

If he posts bullshit then why cant you can easily counter his arguments? eg funding

A good example is the current fracking debate in the UK. Guess who is a massive funder of the anti fracking campaing?

Gazprom. Green groups are just useful idiots for the real players.

I have, several times.
But whereas you will just stop posting and take a time out, then return repeating the same thing. Gus just insists he was trolling.
So, spending time replying to gus seems to be a waste of time, because it's difficult to know when he is trolling, or when he is actually trying for a serious discussion.

 

[Long Live HFC]

I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.

so what? what does that have to do with what i said? for your post to be of any relevance whatsoever you'd have to provide details of all the funding into AGW research/grants spent by exxon mobile. i will bet my left nut it's nothing compared to the dollars poured into AGW denial over the past few decades. you said it yourself- they don't believe in the voodoo science- so they sure as s**t wouldn't be funding any of it (given their own scientists had kind of been uncooperative lol):

But a document filed in a federal lawsuit demonstrates that even as the coalition worked to sway opinion, its own scientific and technical experts were advising that the science backing the role of greenhouse gases in global warming could not be refuted.

“The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied,” the experts wrote in an internal report compiled for the coalition in 1995.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/24/science/earth/24deny.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

the article (and many, many like it) comment on the efforts by exxon and others into funding climate "science" denial as per my assertion. so what was your point?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I have, several times.
But whereas you will just stop posting and take a time out, then return repeating the same thing.

Makes me wonder what proof there is that Meds is in the UK? He claims economic knowledge yet shows poor understanding of mathematical basics. So could the whole UK story be false too? It means the avatar can avoid on-going discussions and do his disappearing act whenever he's found out, semi-justifying such disappearing acts because he's apparently in an opposite timezone. But having been around since 2004 I'm sure others can better say if it is just the economics that he's stretching the truth on... Power Raid's account was made only a couple months later... Maybe he has an insight...?

I worked for ExxonMobil's representative company in Qld. ExxonMobil is and has been a supporter of trading carbon credits for over a decade now. They don't believe in the voodoo science. They believe in the $$'s that they will make from the monopoly that will result from this expensive scheme. Smaller competitors will be shutout.

What monopoly?

 

[sherb]

 

[Father Jack]

Why isnt it the "side"?

Plenty of funding to be had from the anti as well as the pro groups.

I never said there was a conspiracy. I said they are doing what science has always done. Pimping itself out.

Science does not and cannot work that way. Business and politics yes, science no.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Science does not and cannot work that way. Business and politics yes, science no.

Gus is a 'libertarian'. In my experience, people like this generally aren't trying to make their own greed seem moral, but simply think they are smarter than most people and get frustrated/angry when the people they perceive to hold the power don't listen to their ideas. From what he's said here, it sounds like Gus is in the former camp and just wants to pay SFA tax, but maybe the distrust of people in power means he dislikes scientists. Maybe. The wi-fi he might be using to post was a CSIRO invention.

 

[geelong_boy]

http://www.theage.com.au/environmen...e-carbon-price-data-show-20150330-1mat7d.html

 

[Todman]

oh come on. AGW research has been going on for a while, and it's only relatively recently that big business has started to get on board to find solutions. whereas big energy have been throwing whatever they can at the science in this time, attempting to muddy it and create doubt in the populace/legislature. it's pure fantasy to equate grant funding for research etc with the sheer volumes of cash available on the contrarian side of the "debate". where's that pic? *google image hunt* this isn't it, but you get the idea.

sorry, but for any (untrue) consensus to occur it would take a vast collusion (ie a conspiracy) between all the parties involved in research.

The Sierra Club received $26 million from a Gas fracking company a few years ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72400.html

 

[Long Live HFC]

The Sierra Club received $26 million from a Gas fracking company a few years ago.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72400.html

and this impacted published research how?

 

[Todman]

and the fact that temps stay the same (or even go down) does not support your view that AGW isn't real?

did you really type this? LOL.

 

[Lebbo73]

"Voodoo science"
-- Anonymous idiot.

The sun is the sole determining factor behind climate change!
Now who is the idiot?

 

[Lester Burnham]

you realise that models are there to predict long-term trends and not to tell you whether you'll need a hat on the weekend? (not to mention i can find you a model right now that shows a "hiatus" in surface temps in the period in question, but whatever).

you mean the period of warming that stretches ~160 years? which periods in those 160 do you feel are getting ignored? which periods in the past 2,000 years didn't receive the love and attention they deserved? you do know that nobody has stated that temperatures must increase on a year-by-year basis, and the fact that temps stay the same (or even go down) does not support your view that AGW isn't real?

At the risk of going round in circles I will say again - the warming in the 20th century needs to be put in perspective. The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion. There is no evidence that increased CO2 caused the warming between 1975-1998. It is similar in length and rate of increase to other warming periods that the IPCC does not attribute to rising CO2. The IPCC conclusion depends on the output of climate models which does not qualify as scientific evidence.

If the AGW hypothesis were valid then the models would have predicted the hiatus in warming we have seen since 1998. They didn't and spectacularly so. Von Storch at al. looked at a large range of models and found

that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.​

http://www.academia.edu/4210419/Can_climate_models_explain_the_recent_stagnation_in_global_warming

That's not to say warming will not continue but there is no proof that carbon dioxide is the main driver for it. The models are clearly missing a major factor, which could be a natural phenomenon. The IPCC, with its raison d'etre to prove AGW, is blocking the furtherance of scientific knowledge in this regard.

 

[Lester Burnham]

so what? what does that have to do with what i said? for your post to be of any relevance whatsoever you'd have to provide details of all the funding into AGW research/grants spent by exxon mobile. i will bet my left nut it's nothing compared to the dollars poured into AGW denial over the past few decades. you said it yourself- they don't believe in the voodoo science- so they sure as s**t wouldn't be funding any of it (given their own scientists had kind of been uncooperative lol):

Gee I hope you've still got your right one

The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $21.4 billion for climate change activities.​

https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/de...gislative_reports/fcce-report-to-congress.pdf