Let's see what the Royal Commission has to say. Watch Dan Andrews put up the shutters.
That's around bushfires which blokes like you reckon have nothing to do with CC.
Here's an idea to break this tired deadlock. LISTEN TO THE FARKIN' SCIENTISTS
Let's see what the Royal Commission has to say. Watch Dan Andrews put up the shutters.
Unbelievable isn't it antman.That's around bushfires which blokes like you reckon have nothing to do with CC.
Here's an idea to break this tired deadlock. LISTEN TO THE FARKIN' SCIENTISTS
Let me pose a question. 97% of aircraft mechanics are saying "Don't get on that plane!". There's a few people without any background in the mechanics of aircrafts saying "The plane is fine, get on". So to the CC deniers on this forum, would you get on?
You conveniently didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat them.You put your life in the hands of the mechanics, the pilots, the ATC, the safety regulators every time you fly - and that's after they've given the green light. Consequently I'm an uncomfortable flyer!
There are six millions components on a commercial airliner, but that pales into insignificance compared with the complexity of climate science. When someone claims to be an expert on it, they are speaking in relative terms. When they branch into prophecy, they are largely speculating.
You conveniently didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat them.
1. What are your credentials?
2. Would you get on that plane?
How about if I labelled you a racist because you didn't agree with a court decision?
You sticking to facts is like getting Daniel Menzyl to lay a tackle.
If you think ministers handing out sports grants to marginal electorates is a waste of taxpayer money, you need to take a look at the Coalition’s plans to hand out coal-fired power stations as well.
The former free marketeers in the Coalition literally went to the last election promising to subsidise the business case for a new coal-fired power station in Collinsville, Queensland, which – as luck would have it – was in one of the most marginal federal electorates.
While virtually every economist (other than Canavan) agrees that the best way to deal with such a "negative externality" is to tax CO2 emissions, the Coalition makes a virtue out of ignoring the overwhelming economic advice.
The second-best solution is to subsidise alternatives to coal, such as renewables – but for Canavan to argue that we should subsidise polluting coal because we support its clean substitutes is simply absurd.
No, Barnaby rejoice. No, No, wait its that boss bloke, Scott corrosion (sic, sometimes spell checker is your Freudian friend), no it not, its David littleyeyes.
That was very Trump-like of you. Kudos.
My credentials are the same as yours. I've picked up bits and pieces from various sources, such that I'm conversant at a basic level on "climate change".
No I wouldn't get on the plane if mechanics advised it was unsafe.
A question for you - if I called you a "twat" simply because you had a different opinion about something, would you take offence?
How about if I labelled you a racist because you didn't agree with a court decision?
From https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/OK so we are both non-climate scientists. I therefore defer to the 97% of climate scientist who have concluded that climate change is unequivocally man made. You think you know better than them.
OK so we are both non-climate scientists. I therefore defer to the 97% of climate scientist who have concluded that climate change is unequivocally man made. You think you know better than them.
You don't see any hypocrisy when you take the word of aircraft mechanics, but not climate scientists?
Yep. We got this.
Lefties are having a grossly disproportionate say.
Yep. We got this.
True. We should cut their heads off.
I like my idea better.Or just have compulsory euthanasia at around 65. Many problems solved. Retire earlier, live healthier, fewer inhabitants....so many benefits.
There is nothing unreasonable in this L2, nothing at all.I'll allow that you're late to the discussion. That "factoid" is rarely trotted out these days for a reason.
Platitudes aren't enough, you need some substance now.What's Wrong with the Claim that "97% of Climate Scientists Agree" about Global Warming?
A variety of studies have purported to find an overwhelming consensus among climate scientists on global warming. However, the studies rarely specify what it is to which the scientists agree. Usually it is nothing more than that the earth has warmed since 1800 and that human activity has contributedcornwallalliance.org
No hypocrisy whatsoever. I'm a discerning interpreter of information.
If I'm a "denier", it's only that I deny there is currently an emergency or indeed any pressing need to cut off our left arms, economically speaking. Nowhere have I denied unadulterated facts; I'm skeptical of some opinions.
- it's warming gradually
- the prevailing belief is that man is a signifcant contributor to the warming (nobody can confirm it beyond reasonable doubt - you can't measure it, and there's almost no research being funded into natural causes)
- the prevailing belief is that warming will continue (I have no basis for seriously contesting this and don't have an opinion; I simply watch the observations come in)
- warming should not be allowed to continue indefinitely if it's within our capability to alter global climate (unproven)
I welcome practical suggestions for making the planet more liveable.
Twat out.