Climate Change Arguing

[Seeds]

Really ? Plenty of people are struggling with the costs of living with rising electricity costs being a major part of that.

If there were plenty then there would be demand for homes without electricity. Yet there is none.

 

[Seeds]

It's easy to be sceptical, when for many years, the science has pointed to climate catastrophes that have not eventuated.

Wrong Again: 50 Years of Failed Eco-pocalyptic Predictions - Competitive Enterprise Institute

Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from notable people in government and...

cei.org

Oh and whatever happened to the hole in the ozone layer?

I just don't know what to believe.

The ozone hole problem was solved by the Montreal Protocol which banned use of CFCs and it worked. Turns out the scientists were right and man did create the hole and when we stopped using CFCs the problem disappeared.

 

[Seeds]

Basically it was the reverse. At least five doctors and specialists ignored a key indicator, symptoms etc and/or requests for further examination. At the time, I was the only one correct and kept on pressing for the truth.

And when we found a decent doctor, he took one look and said this looks bad and initiated follow up action and diagnosis.

So I don't trust them and watch them closely. My friend would be dead now if it was not for me.

You get that isnt the norm right and most of the time its better to listen to the majority of experts.

 

[Seeds]

No it does not. Wind and solar are not reliable and cost a fortune to back up. We can't power a city the size of Melbourne with batteries.

A fortune? You would barely notice the difference in your cost of living.

 

[Crankitup]

The ozone hole problem was solved by the Montreal Protocol which banned use of CFCs and it worked. Turns out the scientists were right and man did create the hole and when we stopped using CFCs the problem disappeared.

There never was a hole in the first place. It was the prelude to the next alarmist scare campaign - Global Warming, which then became Anthropogenic Global Warming and then finally the much more nebulous 'Climate Change'.

 

[Crankitup]

It's easy to be sceptical, when for many years, the science has pointed to climate catastrophes that have not eventuated.
...

When Al Gore (the early public face of the cult of AGW) preached that "within 10 years we will reach a point of no return" (like he did in 2006 when promoting his propaganda movie) the world sat up and took notice. In his film he claimed a sea level rise of 20 feet was a possible scenario in our "near future". It's too bad that the world didn't take as much notice of his puzzling purchase a few years afterwards. A sprawling mansion in the seaside suburb of Montecito, no doubt funded in part by gullible moviegoers. The film cost $1.5 million to make and raked in $50 million worldwide.

James Hansen when reviewing Gore's book in 2006 said "We have at most ten years—not ten years to decide upon action, but ten years to alter fundamentally the trajectory of global greenhouse emissions.” The following year, the head of the IPCC at the time, Rajendra Pachauri, said without drastic action before 2012, it would be too late to save the planet. The only drastic action that subsequently occurred was Pachauri's resignation eight years later amid multiple sexual harassment allegations. If only Michael Mann (hockey stick) had been forced to produce the workings behind his reconstructed graph of global temperatures which featured so prominently in Gore's film and was the basis behind some of it's scarier predictions. Had he done so his claims could have been tested. The fact that he has refused to do so for many years even when it has cost him the dismissal of a court case he brought against one of his critics (with costs), speaks volumes.

In short, overblown cries of imminent catastrophe have been made for a long time. Several new ones have been made in this thread. It will be interesting to revisit the thread in years to come to see how many have of them have eventuated.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

There never was a hole in the first place. It was the prelude to the next alarmist scare campaign - Global Warming, which then became Anthropogenic Global Warming and then finally the much more nebulous 'Climate Change'.

Ah, OK, good to know.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

The ozone hole problem was solved by the Montreal Protocol which banned use of CFCs and it worked. Turns out the scientists were right and man did create the hole and when we stopped using CFCs the problem disappeared.

Where was the hole and how do we know it has been repaired? Did we experience any noticeable differences when the hole was repaired?

 

[Crankitup]

Ah, OK, good to know.

No problem at all. You're very welcome.

Always happy to clear up any other myths and misconceptions you might be labouring under.

 

[Mofra]

This debate is reminiscent of the conservatives denying the link between tobacco and cancer in the 60s and 70s.

It Took Ayn Rand's diagnosis to finally kill off the last of the stubborn anti-science sentiment at the time (of course in a stunning act of hypocrisy, she immediately entered the public healthcare system).

 

[Seeds]

There never was a hole in the first place. It was the prelude to the next alarmist scare campaign - Global Warming, which then became Anthropogenic Global Warming and then finally the much more nebulous 'Climate Change'.

You are an idiot if you think that. I just told you why it stopped being a problem and now you want to pretend it never existed. Pathetic.

As for what it does. Why the hell do you think its much more easy to get sunburnt in australia then it is in the northern hemisphere? We are forced to put sunscrean on everytime we got out in the sun for more then 5-10 minutes. That is not f*** normal.

 

[Seeds]

This debate is reminiscent of the conservatives denying the link between tobacco and cancer in the 60s and 70s.

It Took Ayn Rand's diagnosis to finally kill off the last of the stubborn anti-science sentiment at the time (of course in a stunning act of hypocrisy, she immediately entered the public healthcare system).

Its only hypocrisy if she wasnt paying taxes. You can be against public health care but if you are forced to pay taxes for it the you would still use it and not be a hypocrite.

 

[Seeds]

Where was the hole and how do we know it has been repaired? Did we experience any noticeable differences when the hole was repaired?

Fuc*** me there is some stupid people on here. Use google for ffs.

The Ozone Hole: Closing the Gap

After thinning at alarming rates in the 1980s and 90s, the ozone layer over Antarctica is starting to recover. Watch how ozone concentrations in the stratosphere have changed from 1979 through 2018.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

 

[Kram]

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

If there were plenty then there would be demand for homes without electricity. Yet there is none.

Gee, this is dumb.

 

[Mofra]

Its only hypocrisy if she wasnt paying taxes. You can be against public health care but if you are forced to pay taxes for it the you would still use it and not be a hypocrite.

The 'do as I say, not as I do' argument. I respectfully disagree.

 

[Seeds]

Gee, this is dumb.

You think houses cant be built without electricity. Pretty sure they did it back before the 20th century. The definition of not being able to afford something is that you wont pay for it given your income constraint as you value other things more highly given your budget constraint. Yet everyone buys houses with electricity and no one demands it without. Its not electricity that people cant afford its other things.

 

[Seeds]

The 'do as I say, not as I do' argument. I respectfully disagree.

People against public funded services arent against the services they are against the taxes used to pay for those services. She doesnt want to pay the tax for health care. She would prefer to pay no health care tax and pay for private health instead. But if you are forced to pay for the tax then its ridiculous to say she shouldnt use it. Especially since her contribution to public taxes would of been far higher then almost everyone else.

 

[Crankitup]

You are an idiot if you think that. I just told you why it stopped being a problem and now you want to pretend it never existed. Pathetic.

As for what it does. Why the hell do you think its much more easy to get sunburnt in australia then it is in the northern hemisphere? We are forced to put sunscrean on everytime we got out in the sun for more then 5-10 minutes. That is not f*** normal.

Nothing to do with an ozone 'hole', which as I said before, never existed.

There's many reasons why Australia has a higher skin cancer rate.

Here's one.

The planet is about 1.7% closer to the sun in January, during the southern summer, and 1.7% further away in July – northern summer. So that means when the sun is strongest the southern hemisphere is 3.4% closer to the sun than the north is during their summer. This increases UV by about 7%.

More reasons discussed here http://theconversation.com/why-does...r-hint-its-not-because-of-an-ozone-hole-91850

Just keep slapping on that sunscreen (nanoparticles & oxybenzone) and keep hoping it will keep you safe.

 

[ablett09]

If there were plenty then there would be demand for homes without electricity. Yet there is none.

Having reliable electricity is one of biggest difference between living above or below the poverty line. People will go without other things or they will freeze in the cold and bake in the heat.

 

[Chief]

Nation Perplexed By 16-Year-Old Who Doesn’t Want World To End

NEW YORK—Following her U.N. address about the existential threat posed by a rapidly warming planet, citizens across the United States confirmed Monday they were perplexed by Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg, a 16-year-old who apparently has no desire to see the world end. “I know she’s...

www.theonion.com

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

No problem at all. You're very welcome.

Always happy to clear up any other myths and misconceptions you might be labouring under.

Thanks! It never ceases to amaze me what you can learn from anonymous uncredentialed posters on the internet.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Thanks! It never ceases to amaze me what you can learn from anonymous uncredentialed posters on the internet.

You're obviously relatively new to this thread... my guess is that Crankitup is more credentialed than you will ever be...

 

[medusala]

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

Nonsense. You cant even comprehend the basis of the discussion so like the unhinged Swedish nutter you just scream "science".

There is stuff all scientific about compute models which have been shown to have no predictive value.

She's got more courage than you champ.

pfft.

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

How is there even conjecture about whether the ozone layer was being depleted by CFCs?

"hOlE wAs nEvEr tHeRe"




Yeah, looks pretty depleted to me.

"yEaH bUt tHaTs nOt a LITERAL hOlE" **** off




Oh look, we phased out CFCs and now it's improving, what are the odds?!?

 

[JackOutback]

How is there even conjecture about whether the ozone layer was being depleted by CFCs?

"hOlE wAs nEvEr tHeRe"

View attachment 753859
View attachment 753861

Yeah, looks pretty depleted to me.

"yEaH bUt tHaTs nOt a LITERAL hOlE" fu** off

View attachment 753860


Oh look, we phased out CFCs and now it's improving, what are the odds?!?

Arguments like ‘the hole in the ozone layer doesn’t look like an actual hole’ and ‘how can it be global warming when it’s cold outside’ are a dead giveaway you’re arguing with a lightweight. Tripped up at the first hurdle by a failure to grasp nuance within their own language.