Discussion Random Discussion

[Yawkey way]

My wife has next years placement to finish before she's registered and a thesis to hand in. Anyway, most medical professionals would find it pretty ridiculous that you can diagnose a condition from a picture no matter how you phrase it. I'm not obsessed with her like you seem to be and don't actually care about her other than find it odd how upset she makes some people. I'm not part of some leftist group either. I think I'm a slightly left centrist with a pretty straight forward approach. You seem to accuse everyone of being indoctrinated then sound like some amalgam of repeated right wing memes and unchecked propaganda.

I was using Howard and phrenology to point out the ridiculousness of the idea of making assumptions from pics. If you want to get worked up about her it's your prerogative. I find it quite a fascinating thing looking at it without emotion.

To me Greta looks a lot like her father, can’t see what the fuss is about.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Yes. The climate has changed in the past. However, due to the extensive information we have about the level of atmospheric CO2 and greenhouses over tim in the last few hundred million years thanks the way ice sheets form, we can confidently say that the climate has never changed this fast. Not even close. It took millions of years for the earth to cool a few degrees for the last ice age to take place. We've raised the mean temperature on the planet by at least 1 degree since the industrial revolution, anout 150 years, some places much, much more than 1 degree. So tell me again how there's only a "component" of climate change that's manmade?

Another lie. Are you a mythomaniac?

In the last 200 000 years the following happened.
The earth, 4 degree's cooler than it is now, plunged into an ice age, until 50 000 years later it was around 10 degrees colder than it is now.
( at these low temperatures, the CO2 drops dramatically. If it gets too low all plant life will cease to exist, and hence animal /marine life and it has come close in the past ).
It then heated to a point 5 degrees warmer than it is now , in the space of 10 000 years or so.
Another cooling cycle then started , so that around 100 000 years ago it was once again 5 degrees cooler than it is now.
We then had another long ice age when it culminated in around 11 degrees cooler than now.
It then started heating again, and luckily for the evolution of StKilda football club, paused around 10 000 years ago. With a bit of variation , that's where its been since.

Anyway , 2 ice ages and a global warm period in between within 200 000 years, means that your suggested stable temperature for millions of years is complete hogwash.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

I can't remember the exact figures but during one of the dinosaur periods the CO2 levels were twice as high as it is around this period and much, much hotter across the globe.

The temps on Earth have fluctuated wildly up and down for billions of years.
E.g. we only had a global ice age 10k years ago

Good luck trying to stabilise temps on this planet. Its scientifically impossible.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I can't remember the exact figures but during one of the dinosaur periods the CO2 levels were twice as high as it is around this period and much, much hotter across the globe.

The temps on Earth have fluctuated wildly up and down for billions of years.
E.g. we only had a global ice age 10k years ago

Good luck trying to stabilise temps on this planet. Its scientifically impossible.

But its been stable for millions of years, just ask Crusty.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

But its been stable for millions of years, just ask Crusty.

Yeah because Greta said it was true.

 

[pebblesofsand]

No idea on the website.

The page merely shows real and actual articles and quotes which make global warming hysterics look like fools. So it continues in 2019....if it wasn't so serious it would be kind of funny.

Seriously - are you saying you don't look at the source of material as long as it agrees with your thinking - wow - that's a solid path to enlightenment.

With that sort of attitude its no wonder we still have flat earthers.

The path to knowledge comes from questioning Johnnyray - not blind acceptance of that which you currently believe in!!!

Always question the source - its a simple maxim of critical thinking.

When the principals of CEI produce some peer reviewed research in a field where they have experience I will listen them but they are not climate scientists they are nothing more than (paid) bloggers.

One question - when you are sick do you go the Doctor or the mechanic?

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

Seriously - are you saying you don't look at the source of material as long as it agrees with your thinking - wow - that's a solid path to enlightenment.

With that sort of attitude its no wonder we still have flat earthers.

The path to knowledge comes from questioning Johnnyray - not blind acceptance of that which you currently believe in!!!

Always question the source - its a simple maxim of critical thinking.

When the principals of CEI produce some peer reviewed research in a field where they have experience I will listen them but they are not climate scientists they are nothing more than (paid) bloggers.

One question - when you are sick do you go the Doctor or the mechanic?

Don't put words or thought into my mouth or mind thanks. Nor sidestep the real issue with innuendo nonsense.

Forget the website. I don't care about it.

Are those articles and quotes real or fake?
Pretty simple.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Keep playing the man when you can't win. Its the sign in someone that can't accept the truth.

Feel free to get duped by the latest catastrophe predictions. Your choice. We should have been wiped out a few hundred times by now but here we stand...as does the planet 4.5 billion years later. Lolololol!!!!

Johnny I'm playing the man because if I were to play the ball it'd go so far over your head you'd ask if the point was a bird or a plane.
Lolololol!!!!

 

[Crusty Undies]

Yes you did. You said it was in the last 6 years.
Its not semantics. You lied.

Mhmm, so what you're saying is that you think 1690 species going extinct ir virtually extinct in the past 6 years and another 110 in the 150 years before hand is flat out lying? Ok. Seems legit. No wonder you're a climate denier.

 

[Crusty Undies]

Another lie. Are you a mythomaniac?

In the last 200 000 years the following happened.
The earth, 4 degree's cooler than it is now, plunged into an ice age, until 50 000 years later it was around 10 degrees colder than it is now.
( at these low temperatures, the CO2 drops dramatically. If it gets too low all plant life will cease to exist, and hence animal /marine life and it has come close in the past ).
It then heated to a point 5 degrees warmer than it is now , in the space of 10 000 years or so.
Another cooling cycle then started , so that around 100 000 years ago it was once again 5 degrees cooler than it is now.
We then had another long ice age when it culminated in around 11 degrees cooler than now.
It then started heating again, and luckily for the evolution of StKilda football club, paused around 10 000 years ago. With a bit of variation , that's where its been since.

Anyway , 2 ice ages and a global warm period in between within 200 000 years, means that your suggested stable temperature for millions of years is complete hogwash.

Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere of Earth - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Oh yeh? And when was the last time the temperature changed by 1 degree in 100 years hey? You're talking a scale of tens of thousands of years at fastest to millions of years at slowest. I didn't day it was stable for millions of years I said change occurred over millions of years. And comparing that to. As I said before. The fastest rate of change of temperature that we're ever aware of occurring in the history of the planet. Seriously give it a rest with your flawed arguments, bad attempts at gotchas and straight up ad hominem. If you aren't capable of discussing the argument like an adult then go back to primary school until you can. Seriously it's like none of you ever learnt the meaning of respect which is ironic with how much you all babble on about how me and mine don't have any.

 

[Drake Huggins]

View attachment 794867

View attachment 794873

To me Greta looks a lot like her father, can’t see what the fuss is about.

Maybe he has FAS as well? Of course she looks la bit like her father. She is his daughter, but this nonsense of diagnosing her from a photo is just that. Nonsense.

We've seen her on video, of which there are hours on Youtube. We've heard her speak at length. We've observed her moving and next to others for physical comparison. We've seen her angry, overly emotional, calm and measured.

These are the very circumstances under which she'd be diagnosed before more specific tests were carried out.

She simply jumps off the page of the diagnostic manual for FAS. Terribly physically underdeveloped, due to annorexia, another marker of FAS, the distinctive facial features, the behavioural, learning and cognitive disabilities. The prosecution rests.

Anyway, her organ-grinders have got their way. We're all talking about an irrelevant little girl while the summit failed and their myths continue to be challenged and dismantled.

 

[pebblesofsand]

Don't put words or thought into my mouth or mind thanks. Nor sidestep the real issue with innuendo nonsense.

Forget the website. I don't care about it.

Are those articles and quotes real or fake?
Pretty simple.

I have no doubt the articles were "real" and highlighting some wrong predictions.

But the real question is what was the relevance of your post - what were you trying to convey?

Was it that sometimes scientists don't always get it right? Well knock me down with a feather - startling observation!!!

Or was it to then to make the quantum leap that therefore all scientists get all things wrong and therefore everything they say should be dismissed. I hope that's not what you were suggesting because that's serious tin hat and edge of the flat earth territory.

I did notice you conveniently didn't include references to predictions made by scientists which have already been proven to be correct. Sloppy sloppy science !!!!

Perhaps you could comment on John Sawyers 1972 prediction that with the current CO2 emissions, concentrations would increase by 25% with a subsequent increase in global temps of 0.6C by the end of the 20th century. And that that the rate of increase would be inconsistent with the natural rate of change seen in past centuries.

Outcome 38 years later - CO2 levels had increased by 21% and global temp increased by 0.66 degree's

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Mhmm, so what you're saying is that you think 1690 species going extinct ir virtually extinct in the past 6 years and another 110 in the 150 years before hand is flat out lying? Ok. Seems legit. No wonder you're a climate denier.

What i'm saying is that you keep lying.
I've found you blatently lying twice, then trying to loophole your way out of it. You are over representing the truth to make it sound more spectacular.
Now i don't bother to check your figures. You are in the bullshitter department.

Read your original post.
Now....tell me exactly how many Australian species went extinct in the last 6 years.

And you have the audacity to laugh at other posters. You are like the village idiot laughing at passers bye.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Oh yeh? And when was the last time the temperature changed by 1 degree in 100 years hey? You're talking a scale of tens of thousands of years at fastest to millions of years at slowest. I didn't day it was stable for millions of years I said change occurred over millions of years. And comparing that to. As I said before. The fastest rate of change of temperature that we're ever aware of occurring in the history of the planet. Seriously give it a rest with your flawed arguments, bad attempts at gotchas and straight up ad hominem. If you aren't capable of discussing the argument like an adult then go back to primary school until you can. Seriously it's like none of you ever learnt the meaning of respect which is ironic with how much you all babble on about how me and mine don't have any.

Your whole MILLIONS of year thing was bullshit.
Stop exaggerating the truth. As far as primary school, i suspect i progressed a lot further with science subjects than you did.
You sir...are a bullshitter.

Post the truth and you get respect. Try to keep it credible rather than post hysterical nonsense and people may listen.
---------------------
At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.
---------------------
Question for you Crusty
What is the longest one of these warm inter glacial periods has ever lasted in the history of the planet?

 

[StFly]

So, I had one of those chocolate iced vovo bars and it reminded me of a Freddo.

Mind blown.

Also, big boy Jupiter got this, the Romans didn't name him king for shit and giggles, those asteroids got nothing on us but pretty lights and teen drama movies.

 

[gringo2011]

Whatever "doomer". Disappointing, to say the least. Can't listen. Can't argue properly. Back to the echo chamber where facts that destroy your arguments can't harm you. At least your views are increasingly irrelevant and rejected by the wider society.

I know that stings, especially when you are of the "everyone gets a trophy" movement. You're not obsessed with little Greta? Funny that. You've spent so much time defending her propoganda machine.

You're slightly left of centre? Too embarrassed to admit what you really are? No wonder. I would be too, if I was you.

Enjoy Trump, Scomo, Boris et al. Oh the pain! No wonder you're perpetually angry like all those ... I am too foolish to read the site rules who are protesting yet another devastating rejection of their nonsense.

A man who is not a socialist at twenty has no heart. A man who is a socialist at 40 has no brain. Wish your wife all the best with her studies. One day, in the distant future when she actually qualifies and has worked in the area, she'll no doubt be able to speak on the subject with some authority, unlike you. Back to crying over Boris.

I'm not a doomer or an anything. I'm not in an echo chamber either. I see people post stuff on facebook about her but don't generally even open them. I have no affiliation with her in any way. You seem to be echoing Sam Newman and Andrew Bolt is the irony. I have people who post the same stuff you do with a right wing agenda. It seems just as crazy as the hard left stuff to me. The irony is I'm a bit of a nihilist who can't see humans doing any about climate change and having to patch it up later or eradicate a large amount of the world population. Evidence suggests that scientific data says we have caused the global warming event we are living through, predictions that it will get worse, the temperatures are rising. Climactic change is obvious in my life time as well.

I have checked out of politics generally and sit as an observer with very little emotion other than a sense of astounded fatalism about the stupidity of people voting against their own best interests.

You really should be sceptical about you sources of the stuff you read, the internet is a very poor source of facts. I have an uncle who recently retired as a magistrate in the UK, he posts all the stuff you echo. I have to pull him up with stuff that a man of his education level and job that relies on evidence would know better than to post. One was Jeremy Corben in an I love the IRA T shirt in front of a funeral. It was so fake that you could see the clipped outline but it set him off that they should jail him and all sorts of madness that was fed by other nutters.

My wife is smart enough to know that you can't make an assessment from a photo. I think when you realise how brainwashed you are you'll probably be embarrassed by it.

Anyway I have a 16 year old daughter, I find the way people treat this other 16 year old bordering on mass hysteria. I'm not telling you how to live your life but it's not for me.

 

[Yawkey way]

Maybe he has FAS as well? Of course she looks la bit like her father. She is his daughter, but this nonsense of diagnosing her from a photo is just that. Nonsense.

We've seen her on video, of which there are hours on Youtube. We've heard her speak at length. We've observed her moving and next to others for physical comparison. We've seen her angry, overly emotional, calm and measured.

These are the very circumstances under which she'd be diagnosed before more specific tests were carried out.

She simply jumps off the page of the diagnostic manual for FAS. Terribly physically underdeveloped, due to annorexia, another marker of FAS, the distinctive facial features, the behavioural, learning and cognitive disabilities. The prosecution rests.

Anyway, her organ-grinders have got their way. We're all talking about an irrelevant little girl while the summit failed and their myths continue to be challenged and dismantled.

I’m not buying the message and don’t see anything wrong with criticism of the message.

What I don’t see any point in is a personal takedown of Greta Thunberg, what’s the point?. The people who idolise Greta are the same ones who believe the message she and those surrounding her are pushing. She has presumably already been diagnosed with high functioning autism and several comorbidities which fit neatly into what we’ve seen of Greta.

Personally I think her facial features are completely normal and common enough for the region she comes from, given her father and mothers appearance her looks are unremarkable. I have just looked through 100 plus pictures of typical FAS children and I’m sorry I just don’t see it.

Anyway it’s a pretty pointless exercise imo, let’s concentrate on the merits of the message and the motivation of those using Greta to promote it. I’m not a climate change denier either, I’m just not on board with the wealth redistribution scheme dressed up as a climate crisis and the more sensational claims being used to drive that agenda.

I have my own ideas about clean energy research, research funding and access to intellectual property as it relates to climate change, hell the U.N. might even like some of them.

 

[gringo2011]

But its been stable for millions of years, just ask Crusty.

That's the spirit, ridicule people about their lack of knowledge. Obviously you are a climate scientist or geologist.

 

[gringo2011]

I’m not buying the message and don’t see anything wrong with criticism of the message.

What I don’t see any point in is a personal takedown of Greta Thunberg, what’s the point?. The people who idolise Greta are the same ones who believe the message she and those surrounding her are pushing. She has presumably already been diagnosed with high functioning autism and several comorbidities which fit neatly into what we’ve seen of Greta.

Personally I think her facial features are completely normal and common enough for the region she comes from, given her father and mothers appearance her looks are unremarkable. I have just looked through 100 plus pictures of typical FAS children and I’m sorry I just don’t see it.

Anyway it’s a pretty pointless exercise imo, let’s concentrate on the merits of the message and the motivation of those using Greta to promote it. I’m not a climate change denier either, I’m just not on board with the wealth redistribution scheme dressed up as a climate crisis and the more sensational claims being used to drive that agenda.

I have my own ideas about clean energy research, research funding and access to intellectual property as it relates to climate change, hell the U.N. might even like some of them.

I care more about wealth distribution than the climate stuff. The climate is ****ed, might as well share the money so we can all get drunk together and see the world out.

 

[Johnnyrayflamingo]

I have no doubt the articles were "real" and highlighting some wrong predictions.

But the real question is what was the relevance of your post - what were you trying to convey?

Was it that sometimes scientists don't always get it right? Well knock me down with a feather - startling observation!!!

Or was it to then to make the quantum leap that therefore all scientists get all things wrong and therefore everything they say should be dismissed. I hope that's not what you were suggesting because that's serious tin hat and edge of the flat earth territory.

I did notice you conveniently didn't include references to predictions made by scientists which have already been proven to be correct. Sloppy sloppy science !!!!

Perhaps you could comment on John Sawyers 1972 prediction that with the current CO2 emissions, concentrations would increase by 25% with a subsequent increase in global temps of 0.6C by the end of the 20th century. And that that the rate of increase would be inconsistent with the natural rate of change seen in past centuries.

Outcome 38 years later - CO2 levels had increased by 21% and global temp increased by 0.66 degree's

Simply highlighting that self interest groups and climate catastrophe nutters are full of shit...just like Greta, a 15 year old kid that lives in a first world country and has been brainwashed and used by the same.

Plus scientists can be wrong, probably like the current situation where they think they are the scientific pinnacle of Earth's history like those scientists in the articles.

X Files? I love that show. Too bad the last season wasn't that good. But I guess it's more realistic a plot than the stuff highlighted in the doomer climate articles over the last 100+ years.

I'm still waiting for the ice age, acid rain, famines, ice caps disappearing, etc. to actually happen...

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That's the spirit, ridicule people about their lack of knowledge. Obviously you are a climate scientist or geologist.

No i'm just not posting false information as a fact, when it is blatantly wrong.
I haven't argued anything that requires technical expertise.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

I care more about wealth distribution than the climate stuff. The climate is f’ed, might as well share the money so we can all get drunk together and see the world out.

There's the stupid stuff , like how much big executives of multinationals earn.

But if you pooled all the income from Australia and CHina , including those guys, then averaged it out, you'd be on a pretty low level of wealth.
Personally i think there are issues with everyone being on the same "share".
Part of it is ambition and motivation, but only part of it.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

That's the spirit, ridicule people about their lack of knowledge. Obviously you are a climate scientist or geologist.

Johnny I'm playing the man because if I were to play the ball it'd go so far over your head you'd ask if the point was a bird or a plane.
Lolololol!!!!

See the guy is a self declared genius.

He clearly has no lack of knowledge

 

[gringo2011]

There's the stupid stuff , like how much big executives of multinationals earn.

But if you pooled all the income from Australia and CHina , including those guys, then averaged it out, you'd be on a pretty low level of wealth.
Personally i think there are issues with everyone being on the same "share".
Part of it is ambition and motivation, but only part of it.

Taxing billionaires and big corporations would just be good governance to me. Billionaires are actually an abomination. It is crazy how much a billion dollars actually is. I know mega rich people in Oz and that's like $20 million in assets. That will see you live a high enough standard of living that you couldn't wish for anything more. They should be taxed at a stupid rate on all new profit. At the moment they pay nothing and most are getting there through exploiting natural resources or extremely beneficial assets usually handed to them through shit government decision making.

 

[gringo2011]

See the guy is a self declared genius.

He clearly has no lack of knowledge

You think that's bad, I'm so arrogant I don't even bother telling you all about my superior intellect.... it's beneath me to brag to the simple.