Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Fake News - Global Warming Consensus

Jump to new
cynic said:
Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?
Click to expand...

Always an interesting sign when a person spends so long thinking up a reply and the only one they can give is an antagonistic one.
 
cynic said:
Why aren’t you prepared to confess and receive absolution for all your sins, just in case Lucifer is real?
Click to expand...

Difference is that Lucifer would only be after the individual. Mother Nature, on the other hand, would literally wipe out towns and cities, cause famine, war, death, revolution...

Or has those human calamities always been around so stuff it, nothing we can do?
 
Laughable that the alarmists think a tax in Australia will make any difference, all the while refusing to take any personal responsibility for their own footprint (except for Plod, as much as I think he's on the wrong track, at least he practices what he preaches)
 
luutzu said:
They don't have TV, news and weather where you live?

Those are current event, not (fake scientific) Biblical revelations you know.
Click to expand...
Sure do. I watched a blind guy practicing law and moonlighting as a street vigilante last night. Daredevil must be real, because I saw him on television!!
 
SirRumpole said:
Good point, but they are still a result of human actions, and their relative importance compared to co2 is debatable.
Click to expand...

The fact that is even a debate shows how little people understand the situation and how much of a con the CO2 narrative is.

Maybe if humans were around at those times they would have been wiped out. If we want that to happen now, then we should just sit back and do nothing.
Click to expand...

Well bloody duh they would have been wiped out many times! Even in early human history it very nearly happened, and that was just recently. Just have a go at using your brain objectively for a moment. Consider that you have actually acknowledged that without any human influence at all, the climate routinely goes through massive changes. This means that even if humans reduced their impact to zero, which is completely impossible, the climate would still have wild fluctuations. This means that the whole concept of 'reduce CO2 to try to keep the climate close to pre industrial levels' makes absolutely positively zero sense. The whole narrative is a blatant lie. The notion that 'pre industrial levels' were stable or perfect or something is a nonsensical claim which literally no climate scientist makes.
 
Darc Knight said:
And herein lies the problem; the deniers, whatever their motives (financial or otherwise) are preventing change, change which is needed to protect the planet and ourselves.
Click to expand...

What do you call a 'denier'? I see no one claiming the climate is static. I don't consider myself a 'denier' at all, though I am usually called one by the alarmists. I understand the climate has always changed dramatically and humans are having an influence on the climate now. You can't clear huge amounts of land and encase the planet in concrete and turn forests into desert etc. without having an impact. The alarmist narrative though contains many blatant lies. The story is in some cases exaggerated and in some cases completely fabricated. After working as a scientist and working directly with climate scientists, with my own work directly related to climate, I can see the narrative is a lie. I like science, I like investigation for the purpose of identifying facts, it's one of my passions. That's my simple motive. Most people can't grasp that, they need a motive of doing something, and can't understand a simple motive of fact identification without a bias or purpose. Even in the science industry (maybe it's 'wrong' to call it an industry, but it really is one), they all follow underlying motivations which gives them bias, which is why I left.

The alarmists follow the mainstream narrative, which is a lie, and in doing so, in following a lie, they prevent the facts from being revealed. The politicians just want to make money, or if their hearts are in the right place (which is rare), they get sucked into the false narrative and CO2 myth. The scientists just want to make money and look after their job, and most of the time, if they speak against the CO2 myth they need to start a new career path. The scientifically illiterate masses just follow whatever story fits their own system of thinking, either the alarmist myth or the irrational denial narrative. Anyone looking objectively at the situation is hated by both sides, because both are a long way from the facts, which are in the middle, though the alarmists are further from the facts, greater in number and more vocal, so anyone rational and objective gets more hatred from them and seen more like a denier.
 
Sdajii said:
The fact that is even a debate shows how little people understand the situation and how much of a con the CO2 narrative is.

Well bloody duh they would have been wiped out many times! Even in early human history it very nearly happened, and that was just recently. Just have a go at using your brain objectively for a moment. Consider that you have actually acknowledged that without any human influence at all, the climate routinely goes through massive changes. This means that even if humans reduced their impact to zero, which is completely impossible, the climate would still have wild fluctuations. This means that the whole concept of 'reduce CO2 to try to keep the climate close to pre industrial levels' makes absolutely positively zero sense. The whole narrative is a blatant lie. The notion that 'pre industrial levels' were stable or perfect or something is a nonsensical claim which literally no climate scientist makes.
Click to expand...

We have been around and around on this subject, I agree with your narrow focus on looking at one element CO2, but I ask you this :

Are humans polluting the planet?

If Yes, should we be trying to make changes, to stop polluting the planet?
 
Darc Knight said:
Better to err on the side of caution and take a bit pain than to risk the possible consequences of doing nothing.
Click to expand...

By 'caution' you mean ignoring the actual problems, following the CO2 myth narrative, and putting a whole lot of fuss around an irrelevant distraction into a pursuit which will achieve nothing? Ignoring the fact that climate change is a natural process and if it simply does what it always has done with zero human influence, it's going to change dramatically as it always does?

Doing nothing would literally be better than that. Objectively looking at the situation and taking a logical, fact-based approach would be better, but virtually no one seems interested in that. Not the deniers, not the alarmists, not the climate scientists, not the media...

For me it's just an interesting situation to observe. I see an understand the insanity, understand my inability to change anything, but along the way, talking about it objectively, I occasionally meet a person who uses their brain for something other than thoughtless following.
 
satanoperca said:
We have been around and around on this subject, I agree with your narrow focus on looking at one element CO2, but I ask you this :

Are humans polluting the planet?

If Yes, should we be trying to make changes, to stop polluting the planet?
Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely. Yes, absolutely. No, CO2 isn't the 'pollutant' we should be worried about, and pollution isn't even the biggest problem. CO2 is a naturally occurring part of the atmosphere, its role in the natural greenhouse phenomenon is minor, it is nowhere near toxic levels and there is no risk of that. Other pollutants actually are causing problems.
 
SirRumpole said:
What do you consider the main driving force of climate change ?
Click to expand...

This is a highly complex and controversial topic, but it sure as heck is not CO2. If you look at CO2 and temperature, there is a correlation, but temperature leads CO2, not the other way around (don't believe me, just google some graphs of CO2 and climate throughout prehistory and you'll see the pattern). CO2 has a negligible impact on the greenhouse phenomenon.

Many dramatic events which occur rarely (extreme solar flares, celestial impacts, etc) can temporarily be the primary driving impact on climate and cause mass extinction events, but looking back at all the dramatic thrashing of climate over the last billion or two years, it's really very difficult to say what the primary causes are, no one knows, and even if someone did, it would be extremely difficult to describe such a complex, dynamic situation. One thing we can be certain of is that unless it is simply the fluctuations of solar radiation, there is no one simple thing causing the majority of it, and it is the result of many things interaction with each other in a chaotic way.
 
So Sdaji, the effect of trees is ignored.

Over the last 100 years here in Western Victoria the increasing dryer periods correlate with the thinning out of trees. I've put up on ASF many times the anger of my Father at Premier Henry Bolte allowing the ball and chains to clear the Heytesbury area. The farmers way back knew and in fact 10 years later we had our first drought there (1966/7). My Grandfather on a farm at Diggera West, north west of Bendigo was likewise political on this subject. You can have your scientists no worries but the people on the land (on the ground if you like) see, feel and are directly affected by it, they know.

Many of our showers in Melbourne emanate from the forests of the Otway ranges. To the eye of those who know their country it is clear. From 30 kms back from my work period at Camperdown I could see the moisture rising off the Otways. My interest, I grew up with it.

These issues are not as you infer all natural, most is man made and the rain problem of course is just one.
 
SirRumpole said:
What do you consider the main driving force of climate change ?
Click to expand...
Explod saiD:
Humans have poured billions of extra tons of GG into the atmosphere in the last 50-100 years and as a direct consequence
1) CO2 levels are now at their highest level for 800,000 years
2) We are cooking
fine point but I truely believe the cooking is caused directly by the heat released in the first place, not the glasshouse effect of the CO2 still minimal vs cloud cover and reflection effect on the snow.
You can match the increased warming to the basic model of an isolated system if you add the mankind extra heat generated... But not a PC or popular view at all.

Why this is important it that except solar and wind, it does not matter if you burn coal or use nuclear, you increase the temperature of the overall system, it also means I can still eat meat:) and effort should be more on efficiency and reduce use..and basically reducing population..
Not that I like coal for the other side effects..but that is a different story
 

Similar threads

basilio
Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?
220 221 222
Replies
4K
Views
302K
basilio
basilio
Top