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
-
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
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
Unbelievable isn't it antman.
These CC denying twats running around saying that 97% of the world's climate scientists are wrong and they are right. The sheer arrogance.
OK deniers, what are your credentials? How does your knowledge supersede 97% of the smartest climate scientists on the planet?
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 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?
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?
You sticking to facts is like getting Daniel Menzyl to lay a tackle.
From the hippies at the Fin Review:
www.afr.com
Coal-station rorts are Coalition's new pork
The Collinsville proposal makes Bridget McKenzie’s gift to the Mosman Rowing Club look like one of the federal government's better ideas.
You could break down suspects and terrorists
by making them
pick the biggest *smile* in the Liberal cabinet
'easy Its Michaela Cash, no, no, its matt caravan, no its not, Peter Dutton. 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. No, its. Cory Bernadi, no wait, hes gone to the gestapo. OK I'll tell you EVERYTHING, just down make me pick the biggest *smile* in the Liberal cabinet'
its been this way since Howard stacked the deck with christcons. that little *smile* set us back a century
by making them
pick the biggest *smile* in the Liberal cabinet
'easy Its Michaela Cash, no, no, its matt caravan, no its not, Peter Dutton. 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. No, its. Cory Bernadi, no wait, hes gone to the gestapo. OK I'll tell you EVERYTHING, just down make me pick the biggest *smile* in the Liberal cabinet'
its been this way since Howard stacked the deck with christcons. that little *smile* set us back a century
yeah you're right, that is out of Donald's playbook.
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.
Remember when it became fact that lung cancer was directly linked to smoking tobacco? Big tobacco spent millions, might have even been billions, suffice to say a sh!tload of $$$ to attempt to disprove this. They paid some doctors to actually say that smoking was good for your health. Of the bit and pieces from various sources....have you ever considered that they might be "sponsored" by the fossil fuel industry to write such garbage? Do you think the Saudis and other large fossil fuel producers are happy that their trillion dollar industry is at the crossroads?
You don't see any hypocrisy when you take the word of aircraft mechanics, but not climate scientists?
An opinion is a personal belief which can't be proved or disproved. In my opinion, the Tiges will be undefeated in 2020. This can't be proved or disproved. I would never call anyone a twat for their opinion or belief. I do call people a twat when they deny facts.
Racist? Court decision?......what the...?
From https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
“Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities.”
I'll allow that you're late to the discussion. That "factoid" is rarely trotted out these days for a reason.
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 contributed
cornwallalliance.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.
Yep. We got this.
Lefties are having a grossly disproportionate say.
Or just have compulsory euthanasia at around 65. Many problems solved. Retire earlier, live healthier, fewer inhabitants....so many benefits.
Australia is not closing coal plants TO SAVE THE WORLD, we're doing it because they're coming to the end of their lives. We're not building more because they're neither environmentally friendly nor economically viable.
I like my idea better.
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 contributed
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.
There is however the whole other side that says it is an emergency and that our left arms are expendable at any cost even if we dont know what the cost is yet.
Im with you, its not denialism is just not what the fundamemtalists want.
We will get where we need to be, just think back to each of the past "global" emergencies and look how we (mainly first world) have evolved. This will continue.
Nowhere have I denied unadulterated facts, that i am aware of either.
