Climate Change Arguing

[Socrates2]

The following is courtesy of Dinesh D'Souza.


View attachment 752137

She's got more courage than you champ. Calling her a Nazi? You're in Andrew Bolt territory there mate.

 

[Seeds]

The average Aussie can barely afford electricity and our elderly pensioners are being forced to freeze in winter coz they can't afford heating but why do you care when you want to condemn our children to a lifetime of national debt that they can never balance! I wouldn't want you to explain anything to your children tbh <_<

Cant afford electricity? Are you an idiot? Everyone can afford electricity.

 

[Seeds]

Climate change deniers are equivalent to anti-vaxxers and not really worth engaging with. Those that believe in climate change but think technology will solve it are optimistic, potentially right, but gambling everyone’s future on their own self interest. It’s worth doing as much as we can until said tech arrives.

They arent optimistic at all. Technology already exists to solve climate change. Atleast in terms of energy based emissions.

 

[Sainteric]

You don't understand the science so refrain from making things up please, it's embarrassing.

Dark in a hole isn't it. I haven't disagreed with any science. But unlike you I want practical action to reduce emissions now, not fantasy.

 

[Socrates2]

Dark in a hole isn't it. I haven't disagreed with any science. But unlike you I want practical action to reduce emissions now, not fantasy.

Why do you keep saying dark in a hole?

 

[Crankitup]

She's got more courage than you champ. Calling her a Nazi? You're in Andrew Bolt territory there mate.

Have I called her a Nazi? I don't think so. Nice, ironic, overreach there champ. Must have touched a nerve. I have quoted someone who has compared Goebbels' techniques to modern day, leftist, hysteria pumping, WARM-mongers.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

It's true. You are arguing againstt the vast majorityof sicentists and scinetific organizations.

In the orginal post I provided plenty of evidence fact to back it up.

The statement that you are aguying aginst ** *SCIENCE** is just true.

It's your 2 bit opinion versus ***SCIENCE***

***SCIENCE*** How many times can you misspell variations of the word ***SCIENCE*** in one, single post!!!!!

 

[the PILL]

I just don't know how taxing emissions helps when a volcano can just blow out any man made targets in a day. Do we tax the volcanoes? And why can a polluting company/corporation just steam ahead doing so much so called damage, simply pay a fee, and yet because it's finacialy stimulating economic coffers it's ok.

Seems very suss!

Island geography and shore lines have been changing for billions of years and as humans we have a very tiny window in the scale of it all.

My take is if we cut all emissions the climate will still change regardless and we are too arrogant of a species to accept this. Yes some beautiful man made shoreline developments will be lost, islands will disappear, species will become extinct and discovered but this is more to do with universal change and not humans thinking the can control the way the earth naturally morphs over such a much bigger window than our existence. I glaze over this stuff when 1. Money is involved 2. Two clear arguing factions form without being able to hear reason in the middle...

 

[Socrates2]

It's true. You are arguing againstt the vast majorityof sicentists and scinetific organizations.

In the orginal post I provided plenty of evidence fact to back it up.

The statement that you are aguying aginst ** *SCIENCE** is just true.

It's your 2 bit opinion versus ***SCIENCE***

Mate these morons won't believe basic science and they get their info from Alan Jones and Fox news, that's what we're dealing with, ignoramuses.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Mate these morons won't believe basic science and they get their info from Alan Jones and Fox news, that's what we're dealing with, ignoramuses.

It's a shame to see you struggling so badly that all you have left is to resort to personal attacks completely lacking in any substance...

 

[Socrates2]

It's a shame to see you struggling so badly that all you have left is to resort to personal attacks completely lacking in any substance...

It's a shame you troll serious threads.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

It's a shame you troll serious threads.

If this is such a serious thread, why have you failed to post anything of substance on the issue apart from one post with a few CSIRO charts? Is that all you have to offer?

 

[Socrates2]

If this is such a serious thread, why have you failed to post anything of substance on the issue apart from one post with a few CSIRO charts? Is that all you have to offer?

You're just trolling and looking to trigger someone. If you don't understand science or have never studied science then refer to the experts, it's called risk management 101! If you had a business it would fail within 6 months because you would take advice of any nuff nuff.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

You're just trolling and looking to trigger someone. If you don't understand science or have never studied science then refer to the experts, it's called risk management 101! If you had a business it would fail within 6 months because you would take advice of any nuff nuff.

Lol. Me apparently taking advice from any nuff nuff, yet at the same time you're swallowing all this climate apocalypse bulls***. Do you ever think before you post?

 

[quotemokc]

 

[Socrates2]

Lol. Me apparently taking advice from any nuff nuff, yet at the same time you're swallowing all this climate apocalypse bulls***. Do you ever think before you post?

"Climate apocalypse bullshit" lol, see, you don't even realise we are in the 6th great extinction period.Your juvenile arguments were disproven 20 years ago ,you're an embarrassment. Open your alt-right eyes and speak the truth for once. As water tight evidence becomes universally accepted in the science community you madly go through the internet looking for evidence to back your ignorant theories and it's embarrassing for you personally. You are a zealot.

 

[Mitchell54]

The climate is neither going to be dead in 30 years and nor will it have not have changed at all due to human influence.

 

[Power Raid]

Marketing rubbish.provide an independent evaluation.

Giggle

They are a listed entity and bound by many laws that prohibit misleading and deceptive conduct

 

[Seeds]

I just don't know how taxing emissions helps when a volcano can just blow out any man made targets in a day. Do we tax the volcanoes? And why can a polluting company/corporation just steam ahead doing so much so called damage, simply pay a fee, and yet because it's finacialy stimulating economic coffers it's ok.

Seems very suss!

Island geography and shore lines have been changing for billions of years and as humans we have a very tiny window in the scale of it all.

My take is if we cut all emissions the climate will still change regardless and we are too arrogant of a species to accept this. Yes some beautiful man made shoreline developments will be lost, islands will disappear, species will become extinct and discovered but this is more to do with universal change and not humans thinking the can control the way the earth naturally morphs over such a much bigger window than our existence. I glaze over this stuff when 1. Money is involved 2. Two clear arguing factions form without being able to hear reason in the middle...

I think co2 impacts are dramtically overstated but your committing horrible logical fallacies in this post. Man made induced co2 concentration rises accelerates climate changerequiring much quicker adaptation then in the past. You cant just pretend that man mad climate changes taking place over a 100 year period are equivalent to similar climate changes that took 10 thousand years. Its the time to adapt that makes it a problem.

 

[Lebbo73]

She's got more courage than you champ. Calling her a Nazi? You're in Andrew Bolt territory there mate.

She’s unhinged because of people like you Socrates.

 

[Credit2thaB0is]

The whole "if you don't understand the science shut up" mantra is classic cult leader tactics.

 

[the PILL]

I think co2 impacts are dramtically overstated but your committing horrible logical fallacies in this post. Man made induced co2 concentration rises accelerates climate changerequiring much quicker adaptation then in the past. You cant just pretend that man mad climate changes taking place over a 100 year period are equivalent to similar climate changes that took 10 thousand years. Its the time to adapt that makes it a problem.

Ummmm, I'm not on about the acceleration or repair time which i can easily quantify by man made inclusions, timeframes v natural phenomenon. I'm looking at another angle of taxation somehow being of some benifit in a sense that industry may or may not slow its emissions as long as some forms of finacial penalty apply? Which you have not addressed at all in your highroad response.

This will only cause the costing to be handed down the line to the consumer base. If its still financially viable no company (especially the growing economies ) will care too much at all.

I'm actually trying to learn by discussion and reasoned factual interpretation, not stating absolutes like each pick a side argument seems to degenerate into...

This is a staight up capitalist v consumer problem and thanks for your timeline highlight prowess etc but your response has nothing to do with my query.

 

[Mahlepi]

You're just trolling and looking to trigger someone. If you don't understand science or have never studied science then refer to the experts, it's called risk management 101! If you had a business it would fail within 6 months because you would take advice of any nuff nuff.

yup, seems like a guy that would listen to you

 

[Mahlepi]

The whole "if you don't understand the science shut up" mantra is classic cult leader tactics.

these intellectuals method of operating is to abuse as soon as the going gets tough

 

[Mahlepi]

Why do you keep saying dark in a hole?

as one as intellectual as you would have solved
you are to science what the gc is to afl