Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Better Loosen Up]

Scott Morrison is an unhinged activist. Do you trust him to do the right thing?

You are kidding right?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You are kidding right?

No. His best mate is a qanon nutter, and his mentor is currently facing child sex charges.

 

[Gough]

You are kidding right?

The naysayers in our government are far more radical than Thunberg. They're global outliers.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

No. His best mate is a qanon nutter, and his mentor is currently facing child sex charges.

You still haven't answered the first question i posed...

 

[Ghost Patrol]

You still haven't answered the first question i posed...

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.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

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.

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...

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So hypothetically, we get to 2050, countries are meeting their emissions targets and there's no real impact on climate...

Trillions of $$$ down the drain. Then what?

This was my question Ghost Patrol

 

[Ghost Patrol]

This was my question Ghost Patrol

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.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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...

So you want to debate Greta, but not Morrison?

Who do you think would have a greater impact on policy?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

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.

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?

 

[JackOutback]

So hypothetically, we get to 2050, countries are meeting their emissions targets and there's no real impact on climate...

Trillions of $$$ down the drain. Then what?

So let the world burn because hypothetically it may not (despite the evidence)?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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?

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 anyway. * the submarines and mining profits.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So you want to debate Greta, but not Morrison?

Who do you think would have a greater impact on policy?

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?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So let the world burn because hypothetically it may not (despite the evidence)?

Evidence or predictions? The two are very different.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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?

Morrison has no qualifications either. He pretends to run a country with one of the highest per capita emissions.

Pretend PM vs Greta, I'd vote for Greta.

 

[JackOutback]

Evidence or predictions? The two are very different.

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.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

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.

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.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Morrison has no qualifications either. He pretends to run a country with one of the highest per capita emissions.

Pretend PM vs Greta, I'd vote for Greta.

Are you willing to have a reasonable discussion or not?

 

[Ghost Patrol]

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.

So you prefer to just give up and not try?

Unaustralian attitude. We used to get s**t done, what happened?

 

[Better Loosen Up]

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.

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?

 

[Fadge]

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?

You either ask questions or blindingly accept it because it suits your narrative.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So you prefer to just give up and not try?

Unaustralian attitude. We used to get sh*t done, what happened?

I think we would get more benefit out of reforestation.

Renewable energies make sense and should be explored. But the transition should be done in a responsible manner financially. You don't go out and mortgage a $10M house when you're only earning $500 a week.

But we need to encourage serious scientific debate rather than unnecessarily scaring the living daylights out of our kids by using alarmist language and ridiculous, off the charts modelling. We can make a difference without all of this crap surely! All it's doing is sending kids to psychologists.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

So you prefer to just give up and not try?

Unaustralian attitude. We used to get sh*t done, what happened?

A sensible and reasoned approach to things has also been an Australian attitude. Well, it was.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

The other thing a can't get my head around with this is that a certain small number of people and organisations stand to make big money out of all of this while the little guy (us) gets to pay for it. And yet people fanatically support it?

 

[JackOutback]

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?

Industrialisation is 150 years old...the impact we are having on the environment is 'off the charts'.