Which question?You still haven't answered the first question i posed...
I'm not here to debate Scott Morrison.Which question?
As treasurer and then PM, he has skyrocketed our debt, even before covid. Nothing to show for it, except richer billionaires.
What are the good points you can say about him? He is a marketing fool, nothing else.
So you want to debate Greta, but not Morrison?I'm not here to debate Scott Morrison.
How many times does the boy have to cry wolf over man made climate change before we start to ask questions? I'm referring to the IPCC and its followers here...
How can you be sure how much the temperatures would have actually increased by?No impact on climate by 2050 would suggest we managed to slow/stop the temperature increase.
That would be a success. The air would be cleaner as an added bonus ie. less pollution.
Nah, the environment is much worse than when I was a kid. Time to start fixing it.How can you be sure how much the temperatures would have actually increased by?
Are we measuring this against the current IPCC alarmist projections because if so, I would argue that doing nothing would probably achieve a positive result in comparison.
A lot of these predictions are completely off the charts and are almost always supported with alarmist language. We've heard it all before, time and time again over the last 50 years and none of the predictions have ever come close to eventuating.
At the same time, anyone who dares to question these predictions is quickly silenced and ridiculed. Does this sound like how science is supposed to work to you?
A few reasons well founded reason to debate Greta.So you want to debate Greta, but not Morrison?
Who do you think would have a greater impact on policy?
Morrison has no qualifications either. He pretends to run a country with one of the highest per capita emissions.A few reasons well founded reason to debate Greta.
1. She is not a scientist. She has no qualifications.
2. If the IPCC are non-biased as they claim, why would they be entertaining activists like Greta and Extinction Rebellion whilst never allowing a reasoned debate amongst scientists on these issues?
Of global warming? Evidence. Of the potential ramifications? Predictions, because we can't tell the future.Evidence or predictions? The two are very different.
But there is a fair bit of conjecture about how much of a difference we can actually make amongst the scientific community.Nah, the environment is much worse than when I was a kid. Time to start fixing it.
I don't really care about the economic effect of that. Boomers have the most to lose economically, seems fair to me.
Feds just print more money, fu** the submarines and mining profits.
So you prefer to just give up and not try?But there is a fair bit of conjecture about how much of a difference we can actually make amongst the scientific community.
The IPCC tries to have us believe that we are almost solely responsible for the change in climate on the planet yet there are a few issues with this.
1. There are over 100 factors identified that effect climate on our planet. We as humans have some involvement in about a handful of these.
2. Our planet has gone through an everchanging climate for millions of years long before any human involvement. Many warm periods just like today.
But when you start modelling patterns that are just completely off the charts compared to any other time historically, surely you have to ask questions right?Of global warming? Evidence. Of the potential ramifications? Predictions, because we can't tell the future.
The thing about modelling is it's not exact because the data that feeds into it is ever changing. That doesn't make it useless. You're attempting to use the fact that modelling evolves to take into account new factors to do nothing. Given the potential consequences for all mankind of doing nothing, that's borderline sociopathic, all in the name of money.
I think we would get more benefit out of reforestation.So you prefer to just give up and not try?
Unaustralian attitude. We used to get sh*t done, what happened?
Industrialisation is 150 years old...the impact we are having on the environment is 'off the charts'.But when you start modelling patterns that are just completely off the charts compared to any other time historically, surely you have to ask questions right?