Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Number37]

More lies.

So those farmers should be locked up for blocking the road?

 

[Craven Morehead]

So those farmers should be locked up for blocking the road?

Show me one time where I have advocated that protesters should be locked up??

Just once.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So you support the Chinese government over Hong Kong people?

I said it before (but it sailed over your head), just because something is legal doesn’t make it moral, just because something is illegal doesn’t make it immoral. Slavery was legal. The Holocaust was legal. Laws are the product of lawmakers, sometimes they can be wrong. And protested against.

The Holocaust was legal.... you are f***ing joking. Heard of the Nuremberg trials, war crimes, crimes against humanity under internation law?

Please refrain from quoting any of my posts again. I don't wish to have to waste my time with you.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Yep... lets take CO2 readings from a volcanic island! Great idea!

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Approval from who? The govt?
Guess what genius, the govt gives approval to almost any protest because we are allowed to express our views, even if it means disrupting traffic.
But we know you just want to stop people protesting when their protest doesn't conform with your BS.
Laughable nonsense.

The last line of your post perfectly describes everything else that came before it.

 

[JackOutback]

The Holocaust was legal.... you are f***ing joking. Heard of the Nuremberg trials, war crimes, crimes against humanity under internation law?

Please refrain from quoting any of my posts again. I don't wish to have to waste my time with you.

Under German law; thought that would be ****ing obvious. But it does go to show the rubbery nature of laws. One country’s war hero is another’s war criminal.

 

[Number37]

The last line of your post perfectly describes everything else that came before it.

Indeed it does. That's why I put it last.
Thanks for stating the obvious, genius.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I wonder how they made up this 350ppm "safe level"? Seems like a very convenient number...

 

[sdfc]

I wonder how they made up this 350ppm "safe level"? Seems like a very convenient number...

I'm don't know about the 350 figure, but rising CO2 appears likely to heat the planet.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I'm don't know about the 350 figure, but rising CO2 appears likely to heat the planet.

Perhaps. But nobody really knows by how much. There are around 100 different factors involved in the climate change on our planet and when CO2 makes up around 0.04% of our total greenhouse gases, doesn't it sound a little ridiculous that we pin everything on that?

And even if it does have some sort of warming effect, it's also a building block of life. It's food for our plants and oceans, nothing survives without it. Not even us.

It seems like people are convinced that we as humans can control everything on this planet like we're trying to be some sort of hero in an apocalypse movie. It's complete bullsh'*t! If you get a chance tomorrow, go outside and look up in the sky. You will see this bright yellow ball. That thing called the sun will not be controlled by anyone and has a much greater influence than CO2 ever will.

People are becoming hysterical, making ridiculous suggestions like eating babies for christ sake. Our climate activist nufties are using this whole charade as an opportunity to act like complete dickheads. Our children are completely petrified. Surely we are smarter than this?

 

[Frank Bunn]

I'm don't know about the 350 figure, but rising CO2 appears likely to heat the planet.

Pretty much everyone agrees that i) CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased in recent years, ii) that the Earth has warmed a little and iii) that man's activities have played some part. But that needs to be put into context.

The world has been warming since the end of the Little Ice Age around 1870. There have been three significant warming periods since then. However, the IPCC's headline statement is that 'It is extremely likely that more than 50% of the warming since 1951 is due to the increase in greenhouse gases and other anthropogenic forcings together'. Since 1951, warming only occurred during 1975-1998. So effectively the IPCC are using a period of 23 years out of a much longer period of natural or unattributed warming to justify their conclusion. There is no evidence that increased CO2 caused the warming between 1975-1998. It is similar in length and rate of increase to other warming periods that the IPCC does not attribute to rising CO2.

The lack of evidence that rising CO2 levels has caused warming has moved the argument to rely on climate models. However, as the IPCC once stated

In climate research and modelling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.​

Mototaka Nakamura knows a thing or two about climate models, and says

These models completely lack some critically important climate processes and feedbacks, and represent some other critically important climate processes and feedbacks in grossly distorted manners to the extent that makes these models totally useless for any meaningful climate prediction.​

There is evidence to show that IPCC model projections all tend to overestimate temperature rises.

 

[quotemokc]

I could maybe get on board this climate change movement if the movement was not baying for more government control.

Imagine a movement where you wanted to save the planet by encouraging the general public to put their words/$ in the free market instead of yelping for the government to step in.

 

[its free real estate]

I could maybe get on board this climate change movement if the movement was not baying for more government control.

I could deal with more government control if it wasn’t twinned with mass redistribution and advocation for open borders. The science is sound but the politics the science is used to justify are horrendous.

 

[Mike Smyth]

Joe Hildebrand has a message for the climate kids of Australia

ANALYSIS

www.news.com.au

 

[rumply]

 

[Snake_Baker]

 

[Better Loosen Up]

David Icke is a conspiracy theorist. Not a scientist.

 

[rumply]

David Icke is a conspiracy theorist. Not a scientist.

No flies on you.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

No flies on you.

Nah. I'm certainly no serial conspiracy theorist.

But when it comes to Climate Change/ Global Warming/ hole in the ozone layer etc, there have been so many lies and mistruths over time that i smell a rat.

The worst thing about all of this is that the whole thing is being driven by a government body (UN/ IPCC). Their hypothesis of man made emissions driving Climate Change is driving the science to prove that hypothesis. This is not the way science works! Never has and never should!

 

[rumply]

Nah. I'm certainly no serial conspiracy theorist.

But when it comes to Climate Change/ Global Warming/ hole in the ozone layer etc, there have been so many lies and mistruths over time that i smell a rat.

The worst thing about all of this is that the whole thing is being driven by a government body (UN/ IPCC). Their hypothesis of man made emissions driving Climate Change is driving the science to prove that hypothesis. This is not the way science works! Never has and never should!

The whole thing stinks.

 

[Goosecat]

David Icke is a conspiracy theorist. Not a scientist.

So.
You are not a scientist, Chief is not a scientist, The Pope is not one, neither is Putin, Trudeau, Xi or any number of herein unnamed capable, intelligent individuals (although the level of intelligence of some listed in that group is debatable).
Here's another name that is is not a scientist; David Attenborough.
Ah scientists, those irrefutable experts who for so long proved and insisted beyond all doubt, to the point of naysayers death, that the earth was FLAT.
Ah scientists, those irrefutable experts who for so long proved and insisted beyond doubt that Parkinsons disease was nothing more than a mental figmentation.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So.
You are not a scientist, Chief is not a scientist, The Pope is not one, neither is Putin, Trudeau, Xi or any number of herein unnamed capable, intelligent individuals (although the level of intelligence of some listed in that group is debatable).
Here's another name that is is not a scientist; David Attenborough.
Ah scientists, those irrefutable experts who for so long proved and insisted beyond all doubt, to the point of naysayers death, that the earth was FLAT.
Ah scientists, those irrefutable experts who for so long proved and insisted beyond doubt that Parkinsons disease was nothing more than a mental figmentation.

As a "denialist", i prefer "realist" personally, I seek out opinions from reputable scientists who feel equally aggrieved as i do about how this Climate Change issue makes a mockery of the scientific process.

 

[Goosecat]

As a "denialist", i prefer "realist" personally, I seek out opinions from reputable scientists who feel equally aggrieved as i do about how this Climate Change issue makes a mockery of the scientific process.

I have my own position, which is my version of a sensible centre.
Whatever an individuals position however, on any topic really. Attempting to dismiss the opinions of those other than "scientists" lays in the realms of simpleness.
If nothing else, accepting such a position, immediately removes the ability of many great and intelligent individuals (and BigFooty posters), including the brightest minds of the world, the vast majority of whom, never go on to become "scientists" from having important input.
It's a child-like position.

 

[Emptyorangeseat]

Yep... lets take CO2 readings from a volcanic island! Great idea!

They need something to keep the scaremongering up!

 

[Bradesmaen]

It's like listening to a nursing home in here.