-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
It's *smile* hard to deal with people who claim it is racist to get "Aboriginal Corporation Tasmania" confused with "Tasmanian Aboriginal Corporation", even after posting a clarification, and their mates who take it as a signal to pile on. I've done more for Aboriginals than 99% of people on this forum and have the receipts to prove it, so for a poster (who knows a little of this from our private conversions) to hit me between the eyes with the "racist" tag then follow me around trying to get a reaction is not *smile* acceptable.
My online persona was dead from that point, so it's going up on the cross.
Thing is you give them too much credit. Just accept them for what they really are, don’t waste your time and move on.
I must say the government has improved its messaging.
(language warning)
www.thejuicemedia.com
(language warning)
Honest Government Ads - The Juice Media
Authorised by the Department of Genuine Satire. Produced by the Patrons of The Juice Media. Are you a teacher or community-radio host looking for PG / bleeped versions? Go here! All202120202019201820172016 Honest Government Ad | News Corp Bargaining Code February 26, 2021February 27, 2021 The...
www.thejuicemedia.com
I preference them because they are the only party trying to limit migration numbers. Originally a left wing policy to protect wages and conditions of local workers.
Lefties are having a grossly disproportionate say.
Yeah let’s shut down our coal industry because clearly no-one is buying anymore!
You do realise that in the context of science theory means hypothesis with evidence to back it up? It is not a belief it is the best explanation for observed changes in the climate - but of course, you don't believe the observations do you? Your last sentence is laughable given the number of times you have cherry picked the observations, the number of times you have made baseless assertions about the temperature record (ooh, they only measure temperature every minute it's a plot) ad nauseum. You want respect, earn it.
There are plenty of human fingerprints of climate change, I've detailed many of them here. We burn fossil fuels, it increases the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere, we know it is the burning of fossil fuels which has led to the increase in CO2 because of the CO2 isotopes, we know that increasing greenhouse gasses enhances the greenhouse effect. Clear causation, clear evidence, you do understand I am not trying to convince you because I know you are unwilling to listen, I'm arguing to convince those who may be trying to work out what is the most likely explanation for observed warming of the climate.
I have never argued climate is fragile. I do know that humans have not lived in a climate a lot warmer than what we have now. I also know that changes in the climate, especially quick changes like we are seeing now, will have a devastating effect on many plants and animals (we have seen this already, past changes in climate have led to large extinction events). Life on this planet will survive but a large extinction event is a high possibility. Do we really want to be the cause of this?
Deniers do not trust observations. We see this every day from you as you undermine and cherry pick data. You call yourself a skeptic and then quote mobs like the Cornwall Alliance? Give me a break, you are only skeptical about that which challenges your chosen position.
DS
It is the prevailing belief, which most people accept to some degree. But you can't rule out other explanations.
Fossil fuels leave a mark, but we're not talking about that are we? What is man's contribution to global warming as a percentage? You cannot say.
Yeah I know. Polar bears. Except they're actually going gangbusters.
Climatologists used to refer to warm intervals as "climate optima", although it's politically incorrect to do so these days. Warm periods facilitate explosions in biodiversity. During the Mesozoic when dinosaurs flourished, temperatures were at least 10 degrees warmer than today, and the level of CO2 was 9-10 times higher. (No I am not saying this is a desirable state of affairs.)
Life tends to enjoy the sun's crispy goodness.
I trust observations absolutely. But not after someone's tampered the *smile* out of them.
The 97% thing has been debunked countless times in this thread. But here it is again from yet another source. It demeans you to keep raising it.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#577cef653f9f
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/97_Consensus_Myth.pdf
Last edited:
What is the human contribution to climate change?
Bearing in mind that scientists are always careful, or more accurately conservative in the true sense of the word, in their assessments, this seems a good place to start, an abstract from an article published in December 2015 in Nature Climate Change:
Or, read this: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
In other words, go and read some real science and ignore the idiotic rantings of the denier sites.
DS
Bearing in mind that scientists are always careful, or more accurately conservative in the true sense of the word, in their assessments, this seems a good place to start, an abstract from an article published in December 2015 in Nature Climate Change:
Or, read this: https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/are-humans-major-cause-global-warming
In other words, go and read some real science and ignore the idiotic rantings of the denier sites.
DS
So... about 65% ? This site says 100%
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-why-scientists-think-100-of-global-warming-is-due-to-humans
The IPCC still cites the range of warming as a result of doubling CO2 as between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees Celsius - the same range they proposed in 1988. They simply do not know. But that's good for business.
Here, have a listen to the track record of Tim The Clairvoyant. Take note of the dollar amounts - this is the cost of alarmism, coming from your pocket.
Mmm, yeah, it’s not good. I’d apologise, but I have no regrets.
I’ve helped more people on this forum than I could poke a stick at (and been helped by plenty in return), but after 14 years it’s nearing an end. I shouldn’t have to put up with the *smile* that’s going on, and won’t.
I’ve helped more people on this forum than I could poke a stick at (and been helped by plenty in return), but after 14 years it’s nearing an end. I shouldn’t have to put up with the *smile* that’s going on, and won’t.
funnily enough, while Flannery is a scientist, i dont believe he has any particular quals in climate science.
Hard to take his climate proclamations seriously, yet he has held serious advisory positions. I've hardly touched on Flannery and don't want to make it about politics again, but when you look at who employed him, funded him and sacked him, it's totally consistent. He's smart, he's passionate and it hasn't been enough for him to see the future. People like Flannery have a place, but it's not policy-making.
I've only strayed away from the footy boards recently and I have to say i'm finding it a bit depressing reading this thread. I'm not a very prolific poster, but I have really enjoyed reading the posts about the tigers from a lot of you guys.
The opinions expressed here seem to be getting more and more extreme and I've being trying to identify some middle ground that is not contentious to either side. So here goes.
I don't think anybody could deny that humans are at least slowly destroying the environment that we live in. I could quote any number of statistics that are completely uncontroversial to support this statement. Personally, I lived for a number of year in Sumatra and the natural environment there has been all but wiped out in just 50 years.
My second point is, despite whether climate change is natural or man-made, happening slowly or quickly or catastrophic or mild, we as a global community are not well placed to deal with either its cause or effect on a global level. My own opinion is that the rich will get by whilst the poor bear the brunt of whatever happens in the near or distant future. Unfortunately, there is no existing 'world government' to take whatever action may be required. Each state will relentlessly pursue it's own interests. For me this is the ultimate problem. The present geo-political reality does note bode well for any unified human action.
Forget all the graphs and changes in average temperature by 0.1 degree. If you get off your arse and go for a look around the planet it will soon become pretty apparent that unless the human species starts to work together we are all either ****ed ourselves, or we will be leaving a situation that will mean our kids or grand kids will be ****ed at some future .
The IPCC is giving a range, they are being honest about the uncertainties. If they gave a definitive number you would be after them if they were 0.00001 degree out, they give a range you claim they have no idea.
Meanwhile, the effects are getting more obvious by the day.
This is from a recent report on how farmers are suffering as a result of climate change, you can see it here: https://www.agriculture.gov.au/abar...t-and-climate-variability-on-Australian-farms
While the deniersphere keeps sowing doubt, attacking the science, questioning observations, people are suffering now.
This is climate change.
DS
Once again I apologise to all and am happy for admin to delete the offending posts. At the same time, they were 100% sincere.
It's one thing to say a comment is racist, which can be debated; another entirely to label a person racist for which the only comeback is to attempt to prove they are not what has been alleged, which is impossible. Instead I've elected to own the slur and that is what you see beneath my avatar. It is grossly unfair, especially when you've never met the person and then proceed to get in their face on different threads. It just so happened that it boiled over on this thread.
Given the poster concerned is apparently a wealthy cattle farmer, I am happy as a gesture of goodwill to invite him to donate $100 to the AIEF and post the receipt here, and I'll respond in kind. There will no doubt be tumbleweeds.
Dedicated to me.
