Is Global Warming becoming unstoppable?

[sptrawler]

This constant rhetoric, is just becoming an absolute farce, it wont be long before we have children using it as an excuse to miss school on a regular basis. The education standards are falling, our children can't do their times table and many are illiterate, but we encourage them to miss school. So now not only do the kids miss school for holidays, public holidays, student free days, now we have demonstration days, this Country is going down the toilet fast. IMO

https://www.schoolstrike4climate.com/

 

[cynic]

...
If you have evidence that The Conversation is not committed to academic rigour, please present it.

Can you see what I see?

 

[Smurf1976]

If we show there is no evidence that paedophilia is good for society, should we still give it a voice in forums?
We can apply the concept of "evidence" to many things wrt to functional societies.
If you thought the first example was a bit extreme, find a forum which gives air to the benefits of smoking for our overall health. Or maybe the use of asbestos, or many of the pesticides which have since been proven to be detrimental to health.

Paedophilia is different in that it’s an actual crime as per the law.

It’s also incidentally a word that seems to be not recognised by either my iPhone or Google so I’ll have to assume I’ve spelled it correctly. Interesting that it’s not recognised.

For the others though, I’d argue that vaping is a much closer analogy to climate change than smoking or asbestos.

With a very large sample size of exposed people, it can be clearly shown that health outcomes for those exposed to asbestos or tobacco smoke are different to those not exposed.

In contrast we don’t have a thousand Earths to alter the atmosphere of and see exactly what happens so it’s not a directly comparable situation.

What we do have is knowledge gained by other means and this says that changing the composition of the atmosphere isn’t a great idea.

Likewise we have knowledge gained from other means which says that heating a liquid other than water to produce vapour which is inhaled is also not a good idea since that liquid will partially condense in the lungs.

As with climate change, commonsense and knowledge from other sources says that vaping is probably a bad thing to be doing. We don’t have thousands of dead planets or bodies as proof but there’s an abundance of evidence to warrant concern.

That hasn’t stopped the range of mainstream media from doing their best to normalise vaping however. News Corp has given it plenty of time, so has Fairfax and the ABC refers to it matter of fact as though it’s something everyone does. Just as tobacco seemed to be finally on the way out, being addicted to nicotine seems to be back in fashion. Humans are silly yes.

That said, if someone did want to argue that smoking or asbestos has some benefits then I doubt they’d be stopped.

How many would have ever heard that there’s a movement against vaccination if the mainstream media hadn’t reported it?

For that matter, how many would have heard of climate change if the mainstream media hadn’t reported what seemed to most people a somewhat dubious concept at the time?

There’s bias in the media certainly but with the exception of things clearly illegal they seem willing to give coverage to most ideas.

 

[SirRumpole]

There’s bias in the media certainly but with the exception of things clearly illegal they seem willing to give coverage to most ideas.

I haven't heard any climate change sceptism on the ABC of late and very little anti gay marriage debate there either leading up to the plebiscite.

As far as climate change goes, as it's a matter of science I see no reason why sceptics without qualifications in the field should be given much time, but if a qualified scientist comes up with data that goes against the mainstream thinking then they should be given time, that's what science is about after all.

 

[sptrawler]

They are wreckers.

Climate change deniers are dangerous - they don’t deserve a place on our site

At The Conversation Australia we’ve recently vowed to improve our climate change coverage, and part of that means moderating comments with a similar degree of rigour.
Once upon a time, we might have viewed climate sceptics as merely frustrating. We relied on other commenters and authors to rebut sceptics and deniers, which often lead to endless back and forth.
But it’s 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse.
That’s why the editorial team in Australia is implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we’ll be locking their accounts.
We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous.
It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action.
As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don’t engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
https://theconversation.com/climate...-they-dont-deserve-a-place-on-our-site-123164

It sounds as though climate change ideology, is becoming a cult, well there have always been groups of people who like to congregate together and pedal their beliefs with fervor and fanaticism.
The only thing that has changed, is the medium, in which they associate.
Normal people accept that climate change is happening, and with that steps are being taken to mitigate it and also reduce our emissions, others have to riot in the streets it takes all kinds I guess.
What makes me smile, is when I see a pile of crap car blowing blue smoke out the exhaust and a save the whales sticker on the bumper.
How many of these 'chanters' are off the grid, drive an electric car and don't use fossil fuel? Not many is my guess.
I suppose they pay someone, to offset their carbon footprint, while they vent their anger on their keyboard while sitting on their pedestal, in an air conditioned nook.

 

[rederob]

But for instance, the data does not bear out the alarmist narrative that extreme weather events have increased and that is one example only. Of course one must stray from The Guardian, Desmog and SS, to get a broader picture, bazzzz.

Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy. In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.
All you need to do is accurately convey the science, and you do not do this. Instead you demonise sites which actually quote from climate science, while drawing posts from sites which are dedicated to denialism.

 

[sptrawler]

I haven't heard any climate change sceptism on the ABC of late and very little anti gay marriage debate there either leading up to the plebiscite.

As far as climate change goes, as it's a matter of science I see no reason why sceptics without qualifications in the field should be given much time, but if a qualified scientist comes up with data that goes against the mainstream thinking then they should be given time, that's what science is about after all.

If a qualified scientist came up with data, that goes against mainstream thinking, they would be discredited by all and sundry. As has been shown in the Israel Folau case, you can say nothing, that conflicts with the "Agenda". IMO
The power of positive affirmation, even shows in your and my postings, when we call the 'chanters' mainstream for fear of retribution.
They used to be called 'bullies', now that term has been turned, to mean anyone who doesn't agree with 'them'.
It is quite funny, some are so used to getting away with saying what they like, that they get caught out saying something that can be perceived as slander.

 

[Smurf1976]

Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy. In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.

The trouble is that the overload of claims has left the general public absolutely confused on these sort of details.

I’m referring to those who try to blame every drought or flood on climate change or who contradict themselves by saying we’ll never have high rainfall events again. Stuff like that just undermines credibility of the whole issue since most people know we’ve had floods and droughts previously and will have them again.

The trouble with accurate reporting is that it’s not overly exciting and there’s no sensational headline to go with it.

 

[rederob]

If a qualified scientist came up with data, that goes against mainstream thinking, they would be discredited by all and sundry. As has been shown in the Israel Folau case, you can say nothing, that conflicts with the "Agenda". IMO

They would instead become wealthy and famous.
The first step, however, is to have the merits of their claims subject to peer review so they could be published.
In the post above I linked to a person who has made such a claim, reproduced in WUWT, but it fails every test of basic maths, logic and science. Despite that, there are people who propagate his ideas year after year. This is the real "cult" you need to address.

 

[sptrawler]

They would instead become wealthy and famous.
The first step, however, is to have the merits of their claims subject to peer review so they could be published.
In the post above I linked to a person who has made such a claim, reproduced in WUWT, but it fails every test of basic maths, logic and science. Despite that, there are people who propagate his ideas year after year. This is the real "cult" you need to address.

Not really because they aren't the ones taking kids out of school, causing the general public grief and going on endlessly, on any form of media that they can get on.
Climate activists are coming over as people with personality issues, associated with attention deficiency.IMO

 

[rederob]

The trouble is that the overload of claims has left the general public absolutely confused on these sort of details.
I’m referring to those who try to blame every drought or flood on climate change or who contradict themselves by saying we’ll never have high rainfall events again. Stuff like that just undermines credibility of the whole issue since most people know we’ve had floods and droughts previously and will have them again.
The trouble with accurate reporting is that it’s not overly exciting and there’s no sensational headline to go with it.

The trouble is that what the scientists say is not what is being reported.
Instead, we are fed a diet of junk science and misinformation by sections of the media with vested interests that will not and cannot present the evidence that makes their commentary credible.
School kids are not tuned in to twaddle from the likes of Bolt and Jones and, instead, are learning about climate change from a more balanced perspective, and deciding that they don't want to inherit a planet being screwed over by ignoramuses.

 

[IFocus]

Climate science does not propose that there will be more weather events such as hurricanes/cyclones, but that when they occur they will contain more energy. In lay terms, it means that on average a greater number of these events will be at the higher category.

May have said this before, note insurance companies are raising their premiums significantly for area's affected by cyclones some of the majors are not insuring in the areas due to your statement above.

Always a bun fight about climate change but need to comment on the younger generation using my kids as an example, they have access to more information than we ever did and are fully aware of bad and good information more so than our selves.

 

[rederob]

Not really because they aren't the ones taking kids out of school, causing the general public grief and going on endlessly, on any form of media that they can get on.
Climate activists are coming over as people with personality issues, associated with attention deficiency.IMO

I never raised those issues in my reply to you.
How about trying to address the point you raised about the science instead of bait and switch?

 

[sptrawler]

I never raised those issues in my reply to you.
How about trying to address the point you raised about the science instead of bait and switch?

There is no point in debating with you Rob, as you have shown on every subject, unless someone agrees with you, you it turn into a personal attack and I'm not on interested in that.

 

[rederob]

There is no point in debating with you Rob, as you have shown on every subject, unless someone agrees with you, you it turn into a personal attack and I'm not on interested in that.

A debate would be if two people addressed the same issue.
I cannot debate what you cannot or will not defend.

 

[Smurf1976]

The trouble is that what the scientists say is not what is being reported.
Instead, we are fed a diet of junk science and misinformation

Agreed.

Part of the problem is who gets the attention which tend to be pretty much everyone other than actual scientists.

With few exceptions politicians and business leaders are not experts in any scientific field even though they might hold a portfolio or run a business relating to it.

The public and media tend to forget that.

The Minister for Health, Environment or Finance in most governments has no medical, ecological or financial qualifications.

Etc. Those who get the spotlight generally aren’t actual experts in the field.

 

[sptrawler]

A debate would be if two people addressed the same issue.
I cannot debate what you cannot or will not defend.

Like I said, this isn't the only subject where you have shown your propensity to argue, whether you are right or wrong.
Your demeanor makes any discussion very unpleasant, so it is just easier to avoid them, as I have been doing.

 

[rederob]

Paedophilia is different in that it’s an actual crime as per the law.
It’s also incidentally a word that seems to be not recognised by either my iPhone or Google so I’ll have to assume I’ve spelled it correctly. Interesting that it’s not recognised.

The internet allows discussion/input on many things which are unlawful or contradictory.
Just as this website has a "stock" focus, The Conversation has an academic orientation slanted towards contributions specifically for lay readership. Joe can moderate this site as he sees fit. So can The Conversation.
Sites which do not have and uphold standards for contributions, including "comments," lose their credibility.
That said, some sites - like WUWT - cater for the incredible and prosper. Earlier this year I was banned from posting from such a site because, apparently, I disparaged posters when I suggested that if they had a better education they would know that melting sea ice cannot lead to increased sea levels (they were almost exactly the words I used).
It did not take long for The Conversation to become aware that denialism is rampant and well funded, and that the same chestnuts were being regurgitated ad infinitum in comments regarding their climate change contributions. Indeed, it's now coined as predatory denialism for good reason.
What The Conversation has stirred up internationally occasionally offers insights into the minds of those who, like here, indulge in "general chat" but have specific interests vastly different.

 

[moXJO]

The internet allows discussion/input on many things which are unlawful or contradictory.
Just as this website has a "stock" focus, The Conversation has an academic orientation slanted towards contributions specifically for lay readership. Joe can moderate this site as he sees fit. So can The Conversation.
Sites which do not have and uphold standards for contributions, including "comments," lose their credibility.
That said, some sites - like WUWT - cater for the incredible and prosper. Earlier this year I was banned from posting from such a site because, apparently, I disparaged posters when I suggested that if they had a better education they would know that melting sea ice cannot lead to increased sea levels (they were almost exactly the words I used).
It did not take long for The Conversation to become aware that denialism is rampant and well funded, and that the same chestnuts were being regurgitated ad infinitum in comments regarding their climate change contributions. Indeed, it's now coined as predatory denialism for good reason.
What The Conversation has stirred up internationally occasionally offers insights into the minds of those who, like here, indulge in "general chat" but have specific interests vastly different.

When did climate science become absolutism?
There is questionable data coming from all sides at one time or another. I'm surprised you think every aspect of climate science is hard fact.

 

[rederob]

When did climate science become absolutism?
There is questionable data coming from all sides at one time or another. I'm surprised you think every aspect of climate science is hard fact.

Rather than make new claims, why not present the questionable data that exists in climate science so we know what you are talking about.
And please do not assume things about what I think as you have been wrong on many occasions, including this one.