Civil war breaking out in the Federal Coalition govt

Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
That's just not true. You're confusing Geology with climate I think. The last ice age was 5000 years ago. It was climate change that drove humans out of Africa.

There is this very common myth that without people the climate would be stable. There's more than ample evidence it is a myth though.

That actually doesn't disprove man made climate change, and that's why I was ambivalent.
11000 years ago.

http://sciencenordic.com/what-makes-climate-change-part-one

Helpful.
 
Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
Actually there was an ice age 5000 years ago. A lot more helpful than your suggestion " natural" climate change takes millions of years.
No normal climate change occurs over thousands or millions of years.

Take note of the bolded. Then look at the screenshots.
36D3FBCB-2B4F-4A8F-A6F8-B5B0C00C3F70.jpeg
6B951D7C-9C56-45C8-9A91-B98E4E1CD15A.jpeg
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
Exactly. Anyone who mocks the views of sharia muslims and ISIS is an idiot
What extraordinary lengths you go to when your faith is offended.
In fact of course we've learnt many things from Muslims who'be historically been much more pragmatic in their faith than you show in yours.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
Take note of the bolded. Then look at the screenshots. View attachment 593274View attachment 593275
There was in fact a significant cooling event 5,000 years ago. I see no point in a debate about the definition if an ice age.
Given you acknowlege there were ice ages, it's a very small step now to acknowlege the climate has never been stable. Just a matter of whether you can get your head around the implications of that.
 
Jun 18, 2003
1,536
1,183
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Last sentence isn’t necessarily true. We can take action to mitigate impact if a natural process, similar to what is happening with bushfires. Although I do believe it is largely man made in terms of correlation between co2 levels and temperatures inferred by ice thickness

(Inb4 correlation is not causation)
I agree that the logic isn't sound in all cases but in this case every solution being proposed involves a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; we wouldn't be proposing solutions like that unless we believed (a) that carbon dioxide is the cause of CC and (b) we as humans have discretion over the collective volume of CO2 emissions being produced. That's why I found that other post hard to reconcile (i.e. why would anyone be open to investing so much into CO2 reduction, which is the only real solution being proposed, if they also were agnostic about whether humans were the cause of the problem?)
 
Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
F666F9A7-7D95-4515-8964-A31A94F80B35.jpeg
There was in fact a significant cooling event 5,000 years ago. I see no point in a debate about the definition if an ice age.
Given you acknowlege there were ice ages, it's a very small step now to acknowlege the climate has never been stable. Just a matter of whether you can get your head around the implications of that.


Pay particular attention to the highlighted area 5000 years ago. As you can see - the cooling event you speak of.... well its less cool than the fonzie living in the garage of his friends parents place. Probably closer to tony abbott in budgie smugglers levels of cool.

Then cast your eyes from 16000 years ago to 5000 years ago where the temps slowly edge their way up 4 degrees over 11000 years.

Yes the climate isnt stable - over very long periods of time it changes.

Climate scientists assert that we are going to change it radically over a period of <100 years.

4 degrees over 11000 years vs 4 degrees over a handful.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
View attachment 593315


Pay particular attention to the highlighted area 5000 years ago. As you can see - the cooling event you speak of.... well its less cool than the fonzie living in the garage of his friends parents place. Probably closer to tony abbott in budgie smugglers levels of cool.

Then cast your eyes from 16000 years ago to 5000 years ago where the temps slowly edge their way up 4 degrees over 11000 years.

Yes the climate isnt stable - over very long periods of time it changes.

Climate scientists assert that we are going to change it radically over a period of <100 years.

4 degrees over 11000 years vs 4 degrees over a handful.
Are you seriously suggesting a 4 degree change over a few years in average global temperature? Tell me your not please.

Many arguments have been made by people using Fonzies level of comfort in his parents garage
That's because there is a disturbingly large number of fools.
 
Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
0A8F6B42-2541-41B0-A7E5-6E8916B6B816.jpeg
Are you seriously suggesting a 4 degree change over a few years in average global temperature? Tell me your not please.

Many arguments have been made by people using Fonzies level of comfort in his parents garage
That's because there is a disturbingly large number of fools.

Graph of predictions by various agencies ranging from 2 to just under 5 degree change
 
Jun 18, 2003
1,536
1,183
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
The flat earth thing makes my point perfectly, tks. The resistance to Copernicus was largely driven by the church, and involved a lot of ignorant mocking.
How exactly does this make your point? Your case here is that you can identify one person in history who was mocked but should not have been. Therefore it's always dangerous to mock people. That logic doesn't follow - all it proves is that it is sometimes dangerous to mock people. But nobody here disagrees with that.

Also, you didn't answer my other questions about how you define mocking and where you draw the line.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
How exactly does this make your point? Your case here is that you can identify one person in history who was mocked but should not have been. Therefore it's always dangerous to mock people. That logic doesn't follow - all it proves is that it is sometimes dangerous to mock people. But nobody here disagrees with that.

Also, you didn't answer my other questions about how you define mocking and where you draw the line.
When you claim to speak for everyone, I just cant take anything you say seriously.
 
Jun 18, 2003
1,536
1,183
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Are you seriously suggesting a 4 degree change over a few years in average global temperature? Tell me your not please.

Many arguments have been made by people using Fonzies level of comfort in his parents garage
That's because there is a disturbingly large number of fools.
Sounds awfully like you're mocking somebody here.
 
Jun 30, 2009
30,327
41,691
Deroesfromgero
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
east perth
I'll take the last point first. It just isn't true to correlate the cause with whether we can do anything about it. No is seriously suggesting it was done deliberately for a start, if it was done. Any action now needs to be very deliberate.

The flat earth thing makes my point perfectly, tks. The resistance to Copernicus was largely driven by the church, and involved a lot of ignorant mocking.
The flat earth thing doesnt make your point


Once again its religious nutjobs decrying science.

Only difference now is the religious nutjobs are backed with fossil fuel money.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
View attachment 593317

Graph of predictions by various agencies ranging from 2 to just under 5 degree change
Ahhhh predictions.
Fair enough but you stated it as data.

I actually do get the logic if tipping points that may accelerate change, and the risks that holds.

I've read impressive research in the release of methane clathrates from the ocean floor at a defined ocean temperature.

Also the shutting down of the gulf stream when fresh water flows from Siberia driven by melting ice reach a defined volume. That causes a rapid drop in temperature in Europe without the warming effect if the current.

The reason this research is impressive to me is it is based of historical data, ie it has happened in the past. The effect lasts a long time but does reverse naturally. It is a huge risk and again I am not opposed to urgent action on climate change.

Take a look at some if the recent posts and tell me seriously I should respect those views though? That was my original point.
 

Isaac Cumming No 1

Cancelled
10k Posts
Mar 28, 2018
10,491
8,454
AFL Club
GWS
The flat earth thing doesnt make your point


Once again its religious nutjobs decrying science.

Only difference now is the religious nutjobs are backed with fossil fuel money.
Actually the religious nutjobs are in this thread arguing the other side in my opinion. I dont support religious nutjobs of any persuasion though, so I will acknowlege you have a point.
 
I agree that the logic isn't sound in all cases but in this case every solution being proposed involves a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions; we wouldn't be proposing solutions like that unless we believed (a) that carbon dioxide is the cause of CC and (b) we as humans have discretion over the collective volume of CO2 emissions being produced. That's why I found that other post hard to reconcile (i.e. why would anyone be open to investing so much into CO2 reduction, which is the only real solution being proposed, if they also were agnostic about whether humans were the cause of the problem?)
I can reconcile it as not 100% sure it is human only increasing co2 but wanting to have human component reduce?
 
Jun 18, 2003
1,536
1,183
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
I can reconcile it as not 100% sure it is human only increasing co2 but wanting to have human component reduce?
It still seems strange to me to believe that we could reduce CO2 emissions from humans enough to mitigate CC but also not be convinced that it has been human-emitted CO2 that is the cause of the problem. If someone didn't think the latter was true what would be the purpose of doing the former?
 
Feb 21, 2006
20,645
19,471
Muckertal
AFL Club
Melbourne
Other Teams
Turtles, NYJets, Celtics, Tottenham
It's always dangerous when people mock other views, and it's usually a sign they're wrong. I instinctively dont want to support an argument that's case is made by counting scientists in agreement. No step forward has ever been made by consensus, and it's much more often been done in face of mocking and denigration.

I think it's reasonable to conclude that the climate of the planet has never been stable and has swung wildly throughout history. That places a strong burden of proof on any claim that change is man made. Too often this argument is countered by evidence the planet is warming, which completely misses the point.

That said it's not entirely rational to think that given the scope of the change we haven't had any effect. Whether it's actually initiated by us doesn't matter anyway. If we can do anything to prevent the climate becoming less hospitable we clearly should.

I'm not negative about action, I actually align pretty closely with Turnbull's argument that if you doubt then view action as risk management, and it does need to be urgent.

Dont ask me to espect people mocking arguments and acting very much like preachers trying to shut down discussion though. That isn't going to happen

For me the issue of climate change is neither here nor there. The fact is rampant capitalism/consumerism and human nature in general has helped to destroy our natural habitat and create a terrible environment for humans to live in. Has that helped contribute to the planet warming? Probably but even if it didn't there would still need to be a move towards environmentally friendly policies.
 
Back