Climate Change Arguing

[SSwans2011]

It'd be nice to hear a moderate Liberal voters take on some of the garbage about climate change being spouted on here.

 

[Man0gwaR74]

This is remarkable logic. Climate change is the fault of corporate powers so let's elect a government in the pocket of these corporate powers.

Yes it is logical what I said but your logic to suggest that we get to make the rules for democracy, is flawed! Money determines the rules for democracy and we only get a choice of 2 parties that are corrupted by donors!

 

[Poor Form]

It'd be nice to hear a moderate Liberal voters take on some of the garbage about climate change being spouted on here.

I'm a moderate liberal, I think if you have such an issue you should fix yourself up with some batteries and solar panels then put much of your money into doing the same for your neighbours particularly those who can't afford/wont do it themselves.

 

[SSwans2011]

I'm a moderate liberal, I think if you have such an issue you should fix yourself up with some batteries and solar panels then put much of your money into doing the same for your neighbours particularly those who can't afford/wont do it themselves.

No you're not. Stop wasting my time. I'm done with people that think universities and climate change are some Communist conspiracy.

 

[JackOutback]

regardless of the deniers and whether climate change is as serious as the fearmongering, IT NOT OUR RESPONSIBILITY coz we didn't put ourselves in this position! The corporate powers that have been destroying our planet, are the ones that should be contributing to cleaning up the mess that THEY have made! For all the electricity that we save and carbon footprints that we try to avoid as individuals, THEY make thousands more through their industrial exploits and to be ignorant to that just shows how naive you choose to be!

Are you suggesting (gasp) a carbon tax on polluters?

 

[Lebbo73]

You're kidding me right? Let's not take action on climate change because less than 3% of scientists think it's not man-made. You have to be kidding. Surely.

The repeatability argument has no bearing here because it's scientist opinion not an experiment. What a bewildering response.

A total lie. The 97% has been debunked many times. Totally bogus to be sprouting that junk.

 

[darrenmorgan]

A total lie. The 97% has been debunked many times. Totally bogus to be sprouting that junk.

By any non Brietbart sources?


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[SSwans2011]

A total lie. The 97% has been debunked many times. Totally bogus to be sprouting that junk.

Citations required.

 

[Socrates2]

It'd be nice to hear a moderate Liberal voters take on some of the garbage about climate change being spouted on here.

Exactly, Liberal voters know exactly what the science says but they vote against it.That's the classic Liberal voter, self interest and no care for the future, use the environment until its ****ed up and bash minority groups. What a disgusting political party .

 

[Man0gwaR74]

Are you suggesting (gasp) a carbon tax on polluters?

If we as a popoulation of tree hugging Lefties, want to make a difference to the environment, then we need to boycott them and focus our efforts on making THEM change their ways! Does it have to be a carbon tax? Would you prefer them to do more than that?!? If you don't know then why are you trying to make it the people's problem, when it not us but them that you Lefties should be harassing until you get the desired result! We know that not what Lefties really care about coz the primary reason that they are trying to make it the government and us taxpayers' problem is to serve their Marxist agenda and destroy our nationality for the sake of Globalism!

 

[Turnover]

Exactly, Liberal voters know exactly what the science says but they vote against it.That's the classic Liberal voter, self interest and no care for the future, use the environment until its ****** up and bash minority groups. What a disgusting political party .

Can you say it again for the 12th time so we can understand what you’re saying.

 

[WA ROO]

This

Nobody said that. You've come to that conclusion yourself to be deliberately provocative. If you don't want to engage in worthwhile debate please don't waste my time.

Then this

No you're not. Stop wasting my time. I'm done with people that think universities and climate change are some Communist conspiracy.

Yes I will ignore you now
Go back to your tanty

 

[Socrates2]

Can you say it again for the 12th time so we can understand what you’re saying.

Who'd you vote for champ? Are you one of the silent majority who gets all courageous with his vote in the safety of the polling booth?

 

[Lebbo73]

No you're not. Stop wasting my time. I'm done with people that think universities and climate change are some Communist conspiracy.

Thank goodness. It’s about time you gave it a rest. Amongst other things, you’re about to get RSI

 

[Lebbo73]

Exactly, Liberal voters know exactly what the science says but they vote against it.That's the classic Liberal voter, self interest and no care for the future, use the environment until its ****** up and bash minority groups. What a disgusting political party .

All mining has to pass rigorous environmental standards but you keep beating that drum for the next 363 days!

 

[Lebbo73]

The existential problem for Labor is being wedged by the Greens on the left and the Coalition on the right.

The way I see it is that the ALP needs to be the voice of reason. They need to provide jobs and hope to the regions without destroying the environment.

Adani does offend my northern Melbourne suburbs sensibilities. I don’t see the point of taxpayers’ money underwriting a project into a soon to be worthless resource that could also cause environmental disaster in one of biggest natural assets.

That said, I get why someone who lives in rural Queensland might be pro-Adani because it could mean a job for them or a family, it could also be a boost if they own a business in the area etc.

A worthless resource hey! Does anyone want to tell him what coal is used for besides producing electricity? Does anyone want to tell him how many more coal fired power stations are under construction in the world? Does anyone want to tell him how many more are being planned?

 

[Socrates2]

All mining has to pass rigorous environmental standards but you keep beating that drum for the next 363 days!

But you are happy to ignore the scientific consensus on CO2 emmisions? That's where your argument breaks down and you have to admit you either 1/Don't believe the science or 2/ You don't give a shit about the science.Which one?

 

[FireKrakouer]

Where are your citations to show that less than 97% of scientists believing in man-made climate change?

I personally believe in climate change, believe that it is significantly man-made, and I work in the renewables industry. I still vote liberal, because f*** the left. U mad?

 

[SSwans2011]

I personally believe in climate change, believe that it is significantly man-made, and I work in the renewables industry. I still vote liberal, because f*** the left. U mad?

Not really. I don't know enough about you, nor do I know if any of that's true, so why would I actually care. I'm here to have actual conversation and debate though, so won't continue to respond to you if you're just going to troll.

 

[Chief]

I personally believe in climate change, believe that it is significantly man-made, and I work in the renewables industry. I still vote liberal, because f*** the left. U mad?

Checking if this is lifted from Quora.

 

[Lebbo73]

Where are your citations to show that less than 97% of scientists believe in man-made climate change?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#390ce5c33f9f

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.

 

[Lebbo73]

But you are happy to ignore the scientific consensus on CO2 emmisions? That's where your argument breaks down and you have to admit you either 1/Don't believe the science or 2/ You don't give a **** about the science.Which one?

3. I don’t believe the lie pushed by the UN, a body that doesn’t represent the best interests of humanity, so as to enslave and impoverish mankind.

 

[Man0gwaR74]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#390ce5c33f9f

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.

Ahh thank you for clearing up that misrepresentation for the misrepresentationist SSwans2011 and again:

I made my point and you have made baseless claims! You got burnt, just accept it!

 

[Man0gwaR74]

3. I don’t believe the lie pushed by the UN, a body that doesn’t represent the best interests of humanity, so as to enslave and impoverish mankind.

It funny that Socrates2 is using science that doesn't even take the sun's rays into consideration LOL <_<

 

[SSwans2011]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#390ce5c33f9f

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”
—Dr. Richard Tol
“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”
—Dr. Craig Idso
“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”
—Dr. Nir Shaviv
“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”
—Dr. Nicola Scafetta
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
It’s time to revoke that license.

There's a start. Although you chose to stop quoting that article at an opportunistic time.

"Alex Epstein is founder of the Center for Industrial Progress and author of The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels."

I daresay Alex Epstein has a vested interest when it comes to this topic. Let's see what Science Societies have to say about it:

Statement on Climate Change from 18 Scientific Associations
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver."

If you want to read what each of these 18 societies have to say individually (I'm sure you can guess):
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

It's a scientific consensus and disingenuous and flat-out wrong to suggest otherwise.

Ahh thank you for clearing up that misrepresentation for the misrepresentationist
SSwans2011 and again:

I didn't misrepresent anything. Show me where I did. Even Alex Epstein would laugh at your ridiculous assertion that climate change is a Communist conspiracy. Anyway post some compelling factual evidence that climate change is a Commumist conspiracy taught by Communist universities or I'll put you on ignore so I can focus on people interested in rational conversation.