Climate Change Arguing

Remove this Banner Ad

its free real estate said:
Yes but even if the science shows that a GMO is safe to eat, that doesn’t mean you are wrong to refuse it. Science can only measure safety to a certain degree, and it’s up to to weigh those risks personally.

That doesn’t mean that the science is wrong.
Click to expand...

Kind of like saying we shouldnt wreck the economy and hurt poor people by introducing expensive policies which we have been told may do nothing for a thousand years (thanks Tim Flannery).
 
RICHOLEGEND12 said:
The majority of emissions come from electricity.. which yes is used by Australian industry... but if our electricity was generated with clean energy rather than fossil fuels that would have a massive effect on emissions.
Click to expand...
but it still only comes to 1.6% of global emissions where India & China are 1/2 of the pie so Aussie impression on global emissions is minimal and as you mentioned, there is no way of knowing for sure if it will have any effect on climate change at all. Now should Australia shoot itself in the foot and shun one of its biggest commodities, for renewables that are intermittent and us taxpayers would still be required to foot the bill for coal operated plants being on standby? Keep in mind that trees need Co2 to survive and it is said that if Co2 drops in the air much more than it is atm then it could kill our trees and cause a catastrophe to the other extreme, so why should we be prepared to risk that for something that hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of doubt yet is being used for fearmongering by the manipulative globalist commie Left? I think NOT in this country until the superpower China leads the way!
 
Last edited:
JackOutback said:
People who believe climate change is a hoax by scientists never seem to question any of their other discoveries like, you know, medicine and stuff. Get sick and they are all in on science.
Click to expand...
Climate science has been a big money spinner since the 70's.
Injections of large amounts of cash into science. Then business's starting sucking at the teat also. The dollars involved grew exponentially as the years went on. Governments started to find votes with it also.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the climate is changing. You only need to go outside in summer. You can feel the sting in the sun. You get sunburnt so much faster than 40 years ago it's crazy.

The money involved will always entice unscrupulous people.

Is it really 97% of the scientific community endorsing one view? Or just might there be some benefit to holding those views financially?
Realistically, it would be around 60 to 70 % percent support at best.

Can we please argue the points without the moral justification BS.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Man0gwaR74 said:
but it still only comes to 1.6% of global emissions where India & China are 3/4 of the pie so Aussie impression on global emissions is minimal and as you mentioned, there is no way of knowing for sure if it will have any effect on climate change at all. Now should Australia shoot itself in the foot and shun one of its biggest commodities, for renewables that are intermittent and us taxpayers would still be required to foot the bill for coal operated plants being on standby? Keep in mind that trees need Co2 to survive and it is said that if Co2 drops in the air much more than it is atm then it could kill our trees and cause a catastrophe to the other extreme, so why should we be prepared to risk that for something that hasn't been proven beyond a shadow of doubt yet is being used for fearmongering by the manipulative globalist commie Left? I think NOT in this country until the superpower China leads the way!
Click to expand...
I'm really tired so apologies in advance if my sentences are poor:
1) Australia per capita is as bad of a polluter as USA,China, UK, Japan and India. China and India have massive populations, hence bigger emissions, however per person Australia is on par with the top polluters. Per capita is a great measure as it normalises the data on a level playing field (for example per capita used to analyse cointries' GDP)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas_emissions_by_Australia
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/en.atm.co2e.pc?most_recent_value_desc=true

2) Nobody is saying to replacing coal and gas with 100% renewables. Australia is not Germany - we do not have the funds, vision, brains or resources to achieve that. Renewables however help shift the baseload so during peak hours it's not using as much coal as business as usual. But there are other approaches to it as well.

3) The CO2 organisms breathe out is not the same as the CO2 emitted by burning of fossil fuels.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...ange-fossil-fuels-co2-emissions-a8342521.html
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

I hope this helps, have a nice night. :)
 
Doc_ said:
Climate science has been a big money spinner since the 70's.
Injections of large amounts of cash into science. Then business's starting sucking at the teat also. The dollars involved grew exponentially as the years went on. Governments started to find votes with it also.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the climate is changing. You only need to go outside in summer. You can feel the sting in the sun. You get sunburnt so much faster than 40 years ago it's crazy.

The money involved will always entice unscrupulous people.

Is it really 97% of the scientific community endorsing one view? Or just might there be some benefit to holding those views financially?
Realistically, it would be around 60 to 70 % percent support at best.

Can we please argue the points without the moral justification BS.
Click to expand...
Sure:
https://skepticalscience.com/climate-scientists-in-it-for-the-money.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-scientific-consensus.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/co2-limits-economy.htm
 
Doc_ said:
Did I claim to be a sceptic?
No.
Did I claim that there was some fudging of figures to suit the agenda?
Yes.
Get off your high horse.
Click to expand...
Huh? Did you mistake the name of the website with me calling you a skeptic?
 
Doc_ said:
Probably.
I wouldnt even bother to click a link that has sceptic in it.
Click to expand...
*Skeptic.

Also, that's a rather poor and anomalous mindset, to disregard the information based on the website name. If I had to spoon feed it to you, the reason behind the website name is this:
1558446061206.png

Now as for your claim, they already answer it for you.
https://skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/sea-level-rise-predictions.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/ipcc-overestimate-global-warming.htm
https://skepticalscience.com/Peer-review-process.htm

If you still don't want to read it just because you don't like the website name then there is not much I can do, as I do not wish to baby you.
 
Imagine a packed MCG with a 100,000 people in it. 99,970 of those people are wearing white t-shirts. 30 are wearing black.

The black shirts are the same proportion of carbon molecules in the air pre industrial revolution.

10 more people with black shirts walk into MCG.

Thats the number of carbon molecules now.

I really do try.. but just find it a bit hard to believe with all factors that drive climate (and how much climate change there's always been) that the recent temperature change is driven just by those 10 extra molecules/people. And Australia's contribution? One tenth of one of those people? Perhaps one person's arm in context of a packed MCG? Lets not kid ourselves about saving the world down here!

The whole thing feels so much like the y2k bug.. 97% of computer experts thought that would cause problems too!

I support renewables irrespective as we need the technology in the long run anyway.. just don't have blackouts and pensioners sitting in the freezing cold to save on their power bills in the meantime.
 
Tiger08 said:
Imagine a packed MCG with a 100,000 people in it. 99,970 of those people are wearing white t-shirts. 30 are wearing black.

The black shirts are the same proportion of carbon molecules in the air pre industrial revolution.

10 more people with black shirts walk into MCG.

Thats the number of carbon molecules now.

I really do try.. but just find it a bit hard to believe with all factors that drive climate (and how much climate change there's always been) that the recent temperature change is driven just by those 10 extra molecules/people. And Australia's contribution? One tenth of one of those people? Perhaps one person's arm in context of a packed MCG? Lets not kid ourselves about saving the world down here!

The whole thing feels so much like the y2k bug.. 97% of computer experts thought that would cause problems too!

I support renewables irrespective as we need the technology in the long run anyway.. just don't have blackouts and pensioners sitting in the freezing cold to save on their power bills in the meantime.
Click to expand...
I'm going to sleep soon and wil lget to this later
1) Please read my links provided in earlier posts
2) We had blackouts in Vic and NSW already, remember?

Goodnight everyone.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

JackOutback said:
Now we’re motoring; climate change is one giant conspiracy, despite scientists working for different organisations in different countries, bankrolled by either the UN or globalist banksters. Keep it coming, this is interesting.
Click to expand...
Does that suit your agenda better?
Do you have any of your own thoughts about how the climate has changed in your lifetime?
 
Last edited:
Doc_ said:
Climate science has been a big money spinner since the 70's.
Injections of large amounts of cash into science. Then business's starting sucking at the teat also. The dollars involved grew exponentially as the years went on. Governments started to find votes with it also.
Don't get me wrong, I agree the climate is changing. You only need to go outside in summer. You can feel the sting in the sun. You get sunburnt so much faster than 40 years ago it's crazy.

The money involved will always entice unscrupulous people.

Is it really 97% of the scientific community endorsing one view? Or just might there be some benefit to holding those views financially?
Realistically, it would be around 60 to 70 % percent support at best.

Can we please argue the points without the moral justification BS.
Click to expand...
You're right off chops mate, don't print bs alternative facts.
 
Socrates2 said:
You're right off chops mate, don't print bs alternative facts.
Click to expand...
You didn't read all of my post did you junior.
How, have you yourself experienced climate change? I don't want rhetoric. In your lifetime, what effects have you felt?
For the record, in my post, I stated I have felt the climate change. That say's I believe in climate change.
What I dont believe, is that 97% of the scientists believe in climate change. It's just not humanely possible regardless of the money involved.
But I guess you're not interested in thinking for yourself. You're too busy cheering for your team.
 
JackOutback said:
People who believe climate change is a hoax by scientists never seem to question any of their other discoveries like, you know, medicine and stuff. Get sick and they are all in on science.
Click to expand...
Climate change propagandists are funded to the tune of billions of dollars. Those scientists who have said that man made climate change is minimal at best receive a fraction of the funding from resource and energy companies.
 
Lebbo73 said:
Climate change propagandists are funded to the tune of billions of dollars. Those scientists who have said that man made climate change is minimal at best receive a fraction of the funding from resource and energy companies.
Click to expand...

Not to mention all those conferences where you get to travel business class and stay in 5 star hotels and sit around for a week blaming others for their excesses.
 
HairyO said:
Not to mention all those conferences where you get to travel business class and stay in 5 star hotels and sit around for a week blaming others for their excesses.
Click to expand...

Saving the world one canape at a time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CakeEater
New Immigration changes
Replies
6
Views
740
Carringbush2010
Carringbush2010
nut
Labors Super changes
11 12 13 14 15
Replies
372
Views
11K
Kwality
K

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top