Politics Climate Change Paradox

Should we act now, or wait for a unified global approach


  • Total voters
    161

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
14,922
8,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
You talk a big game. Mate this stuff is in recent peer reviewed journals. It's not something you'll find on a basic google search. If HurleyHepsHird doesn't take up the offer perhaps you'd like to have that bet?
I don't talk a big game. I follow the science in this, health, fitness, nutrition & all things relevant to me & my work. I see the VAST majority of Climate scientists see a danger in increasingly rapid climate change.

Science is based on argument, peer reviewed research & unfortunately to some extent, politics.

One need only look at the example of the great 'smoking debate' over the causative effect of smoking on cancer to see the effects corporate interests can have. Money & greed speak all languages.

Many thousands of papers pointed to smoking as a cause of cancer. How hard the few paid scientists, lawyers & medical experts had to word against the smoking lobby's efforts to discredit them. Their lies & obfuscation caused countless extra lives & countless $millions in lost productivity & health costs. Let alone the misery of what they knew was addictive. They still fight the health lessons & messages.

So I take heed of the mass of research & of the huge concerns of the science community coming from such work.

Picking the odd recalcitrant is fine, if all it does is suit your belief system. In the end it will be the weight of the ecological, economic & health costs which will convinvc most of even the most obstinate know alls. Most, not all.

By then much damage will have been done on the poorest of us & huge costs & consequences for the rest of us too.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Crankitup

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2006
2,028
765
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
I don't talk a big game.
You said I was making a goose of myself because you read a wikipedia entry that disagreed with my claim about temperature and CO2 levels 100 million years ago. This was before you had any idea of what my source was.

Picking the odd recalcitrant is fine ...
This study/evidence is not from recalcitrants. It's from the mainstream. Experts with over 20 years study in their field of specialty. Ready for that bet now? Or are you willing to admit perhaps your presuppositions could be wrong or you were wrong to call me a goose?
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
14,922
8,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
You said I was making a goose of myself because you read a wikipedia entry that disagreed with my claim about temperature and CO2 levels 100 million years ago. This was before you had any idea of what my source was.



This study/evidence is not from recalcitrants. It's from the mainstream. Experts with over 20 years study in their field of specialty. Ready for that bet now? Or are you willing to admit perhaps your presuppositions could be wrong or you were wrong to call me a goose?
Admit what? I wasn't here 100 million years ago. How would I know? I looked at a number of sources. What did you do, go back in time? They all said the temperature was well above that of todays levels by about 6-8c. Current Co2 levels are the highest for millions of years(Zhang et al 2013), the result of human activity.

However, the point of MMCC is the rapidity of the changes to the earths environment in such a short period of time, & its effects on todays environment. Rapid species loss. Current effects on the planet, many irreversible.

So which novelist did you choose to read?
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2006
2,028
765
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
Admit what? I wasn't here 100 million years ago. How would I know?

Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?

I looked at a number of sources.

And the only one you thought to refer to is six years old.

What did you do, go back in time?

I told you already, can't you read or something? I'm relying on a recent study. One that turns on it's head estimations of temperature in the distant past because of a crucial issue past researchers failed to take into account.

So which novelist did you choose to read?

711054
Once again with the juvenile twatwaffle. I already told you that I'm referring to a study that is authored by experts with over 20 years study in their field of specialty. So do you want that bet now or do you want to apologise for prejudging? Or are you just a gutless scum sucking maggot that calls people a goose and then backpedals away at a million miles an hour when asked to put up or shut up.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,988
7,980
AFL Club
St Kilda
Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?



And the only one you thought to refer to is six years old.



I told you already, can't you read or something? I'm relying on a recent study. One that turns on it's head estimations of temperature in the distant past because of a crucial issue past researchers failed to take into account.



Once again with the juvenile twatwaffle. I already told you that I'm referring to a study that is authored by experts with over 20 years study in their field of specialty. So do you want that bet now or do you want to apologise for prejudging? Or are you just a gutless scum sucking maggot that calls people a goose and then backpedals away at a million miles an hour when asked to put up or shut up.
What study?
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2006
2,028
765
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
You mean be patient for you to reveal this study you've been talking about since yesterday?

Do you have a study or not?
What are you waiting for?

I've been talking with HurleyHepsHird and madmug about it yes and I'm awaiting replies from them. You're a blow in to the conversation. You can either wait or GAGF while I put you on ignore.
 

CM86

Anindilyakwa
Sep 21, 2009
9,988
7,980
AFL Club
St Kilda
I've been talking with HurleyHepsHird and madmug about it yes and I'm awaiting replies from them. You're a blow in to the conversation. You can either wait or GAGF while I put you on ignore.
I'll take your bet, if that's what you're holding out for.

I bet your study isn't the gotcha that you think it is.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
14,922
8,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
Are you always this stupid or is this a special occasion?




And the only one you thought to refer to is six years old.




I told you already, can't you read or something? I'm relying on a recent study. One that turns on it's head estimations of temperature in the distant past because of a crucial issue past researchers failed to take into account.




View attachment 711054 Once again with the juvenile twatwaffle. I already told you that I'm referring to a study that is authored by experts with over 20 years study in their field of specialty. So do you want that bet now or do you want to apologise for prejudging? Or are you just a gutless scum sucking maggot that calls people a goose and then backpedals away at a million miles an hour when asked to put up or shut up.
You have no sense of humor? Sorry.

A 6 year old study on the environment of 100 million years ago is out of date? So you do have a sense of humor after all. Very funny.

Yes funny, but clearly very sensitive. Your called a goose & reply with 'gutless scum sucking maggot' OMG are you touchy. Twatwaffle? WTF is that?

I haven't backed away, have I?

Anyway I have 97% of climate scientists on my side. You've got a recalcitrant, from a tiny tiny minority.
 

Fat Yak

Club Legend
Oct 4, 2017
1,950
2,699
AFL Club
Fremantle
Anyway I have 97% of climate scientists on my side. You've got a recalcitrant, from a tiny tiny minority.
:p:p:p:p:p:p
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2006
2,028
765
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
You have no sense of humor? Sorry.
711123


A 6 year old study on the environment of 100 million years ago is out of date? So you do have a sense of humor after all. Very funny.
No joke. The six year old study is superseded by later research.


I haven't backed away, have I?
So you are ready for that bet after all?

Anyway I have 97% of climate scientists on my side. You've got a recalcitrant, from a tiny tiny minority.
Wrong again. That claim has been shown to be in error so many times it's surprising anyone claiming to be informed on the issue would still hold onto it.
 

madmug

Brownlow Medallist
Mar 17, 2009
14,922
8,300
Hobart
AFL Club
Collingwood
View attachment 711123



No joke. The six year old study is superseded by later research.




So you are ready for that bet after all?

Wrong again. That claim has been shown to be in error so many times it's surprising anyone claiming to be informed on the issue would still hold onto it.

Apart from poor research method or 'dodgy' results, research isn't actually 'superseded' as you say. Its added to other papers & a scientific concensus is reached.

Ready for a bet? How about $100 million? 1$ per year. :)

Please show me/us where the vast majority of Climate researchers do not agree.
 

Crankitup

Club Legend
Sep 23, 2006
2,028
765
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Subiaco
Apart from poor research method or 'dodgy' results, research isn't actually 'superseded' as you say. Its added to other papers & a scientific concensus is reached.

Ready for a bet? How about $100 million? 1$ per year. :)

Please show me/us where the vast majority of Climate researchers do not agree.
Can you prove you have $100 million?
711464
 

Top Bottom