Tisme
Apathetic at Best
- Joined
- 27 August 2014
- Posts
- 8,954
- Reactions
- 1,152
You some kinda 'tard or something ... do I need to train you in the use of a genuine "Climate Denier Keyboard MKII" by Mattel?
Thanks for that, I checked the 3 most recent posts listed, and there doesn't appear to be any links to NOAA's, CSIRO's or NASA's websites where they "self-confessed to exaggerating and fiddling with the data" as per your claim. Do you have any direct links, rather than just media/random commentary? I was after what they actually said rather than what somebody else reckons they said/did. I have looked across their websites and have never seen any such 'self-confessions' so I 'm genuinely interested to see them if you have a link.
Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alonePerhaps you should read the link below where there are a lot of claims debunking the consensus........Please read right to the bottom and all the comments.
There are some 30,000 + scientist who are sceptical of man made Global Warming.
I believe the scientist mentioned are a very select few of which consensus has been taken while ignoring the opinion of those scientist who are sceptics.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
Climate Myth...
There is no consensus
The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)
Let's imagine that the 31,000 (approx.) signatures on the Oregon Petition are all from real people (they're not) who have some real qualification in science (they don't). They would then be 31,000 qualified people out of more than 10,000,000 qualified people in the US alone
(https://skepticalscience.com/OISM-Petition-Project.htm) i.e. 99.7% who didn't sign the petition.
That doesn't mean that there's a 99.7% consensus on global warming. Doesn't mean there isn't either. Yet.
Thanks for your response. I won't be able to reply further for a while.
During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.
One wonders just how many more individuals, families and townships ,are going to suffer the very real tragedies that occur consequent to the placation of others' delusional apocalyptic fantasies!
Whilst the alarmists continue to "selfrighteously" and arrogantly bluster about imagined future doom, they somehow fail to acknowledge the very real harm their crusade is presently visiting upon innocent communities.
Well I am now very, very, very alarmed by the very real and very destructive impact of climate alarmism!!
Nasty Greenies. Wanting to save lives instead of 270 jobs (that'll either go soon or are going to be located in Tasmania anyway).
....
As some recent greenie research have found, new jobs created in the US solar industry last year are greater than all coal mining jobs in the US currently available.
As Sun Tzu says, jobs lost can be found again; the dead can never be brought back to life. Neither can a family home swept with the wind and the seas.
As expected, another lame effort to justify abdication of personal responsibility for harm being inflicted upon others!
Do you truly believe that the people that just lost their jobs, and the local businesses that depend upon patronage, are going to come through this unscathed?
One doesn't require a consensus of scientists and mounds of academic research papers to recognise that people are being adversely impacted by your religion!
Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!That particular case you linked to doesn't really show the fault to be with the Greenies, does it? It seem as though the gov't put a quota on how much hardwood timber they'll be buying, so the company can still employ people, just make less money. But management decided that's it's not worth it so they're moving to Tasmania.
Yet somehow that's all "our" alarmist's fault? How long do you reckon those jobs will last anyway?
But main point is this: those people who lost their jobs can find new ones. Maybe the workers can work together, lobbied the gov't for some fund and set up their own sustainable timber farm. Maybe use their knowledge and experience of the forest and start an eco-tourism business. etc. etc.
As to those who would die when a freak storm hit; or die from drought and famine... what are their choices? Starve while they wait a few years for the rain to come back? Be homeless while the insurers ran out of wiggle room the fine prints will let them get away without paying their due? Come back to life if the water swept them away?
Oh yea, alarmist! Jobs, save the jobs. Screw the children.
Yet another lame effort to abdicate responsibility!
Concerns over environmental sustainability were most definitely cited as the reason for denying the ASH mill the resources it needed to be viable. So don't you dare pretend that your religion didn't put those people out of their jobs!
And don't you dare use your subscription to delusional apocalyptic fantasies as your justification for hurting people in the here and now!
And don't even try to pretend that your religion and its followers are concerned for the welfare of others and their families! The deeds that are done, in its name, speak strongly to the contrary!
This incident is just one of many examples of the devastation caused by unchecked religious zealousy!
Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.That's one way to spin it mate.
Save jobs, not lives.
No kidding the gov't's decision play a part in those lost jobs. But is that your final argument? If it is, it's pretty pizz weak.
What would happen if, say the gov't allow any company to log as much as their workers can swing them chainsaw. They'd clear the land in a few months.
Then say a normal rainstorm hit and, I don't know, mudslide happens, naturally.
Here's a trick question... if drought, famine, flood, storm kill a bunch of people, how many jobs were lost and how many jobs would it generate?
But anyway, it's only the coal, mining and logging jobs that counts. New jobs in greentech, new industry and innovation to improve and replace crumbling and obsolete infrastructures with those green tech... those don't count. Lives don't count too, apparently. I guess other people's lives don't count.
Yet more lame "cruel to be kind" and "ends justify means" style excuses. These won't wash when the "kind" "ends" are unfulfilled future promises based upon unproven and fantastical apocalyptic theories.
By now I would have hoped that you would realise that I do not consider fantasized future outcomes as justification for inflicting real harm on others in the present. It appears my hopes were in vain (but then what more could I reasonably expect from a religious zealot than proselytizing?).
Your responses show a callous disregard for the welfare of those directly impacted by actions taken pursuant to the apocalyptic fantasies (to which you have unfortunately chosen to subscribe).
From this, I can readily discern, that you care more for your chosen fantasy than you do for the welfare of others in the here and now!
I invite you to take the time to compare your beliefs and behaviour to that of certain zealous religious bodies during recent centuries. Organisations that thought that they knew better than the heretical skeptics (aka "deniers") and thus considered their destructive actions to be somehow justified by fantasised future outcomes!
On that particular sentence I can agree that the priorities and scale are indeed quite different....
Different priorities and scale I guess.
...
Thanks for chiming in on this one. Given your years of experience in the industry I value your input on this issue.The timber industry had many years to invest in plantation timber.However they assumed,as in this case a well,that they could always use the forest as they pleased.No matter what the cost to future generations and the maintenance of fauna diversification.
If the workers are upset,and I can understand that,they should direct a lot or their upset toward derelict timber companies.
I worked in the timber industries for over twenty years.
With all due respect, you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.During a recent telephone conversation (with a friend from the Gippsland region) in which mutual concerns about arrogant carbon crusaders were expressed, I was alerted to the following incident:
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/victorias-heyfield-mill-shut-2018
This is just one example of the tragic consequences of unchecked religious zealotry.
With all due respect, you've linked one article and you're using it to shout 'hysteria' (which is ummm an interesting tactic) where there is much, much more to this story.
It's a debate that has been going on for decades, far longer than the climate change debate you want to keenly insert it into.
The timber debate, especially the one in regards to the Heyfield Mill closure, isn't solely the domain of the global warming / climate change debate. Most of this debate has to do about forest sustainability.
It has to do with timber sustainable supply. The equation is simple: you cannot cut down trees quicker than they mature or the supply decreases and eventually becomes non-exist (ie. you run out of trees).
Rapid population growth in Australia and historic forest clearing mean there are obviously less trees but more demand.
There are two sources of timber: plantations and natural forests. Victoria has a big supply deficit from plantations so they need to cut down natural forests to make up supply.
Forests with the best types of wood can take 120 years to reach required maturity. Plantations are somewhere between 20-40 years.
Plantations have enormous trouble on a mass scale to encourage people to invest in them, because let's face it, due to the long pay-off date and big risks involved it's not necessarily attractive.
What has happened at Heyfield is that the State Government is concerned that the natural supply is decreasing way too fast so they have significantly reduced the contract supplied from state owned logging enterprises to the Mill. Both the Mill (especially when it was owned and sold by Gunns) and the Government have known about this dilemma for years. For instance, there was a Commission into this in 2005 if you want to read it.
Plantations have a quicker growth cycle, but the quality and type of wood make it much more limited in its final uses. This especially applies to hardwood. From what I recall most of the plantations in Victoria really aren't the right mix to fill the supply gap. I think there was some plantations made to fill some of this gap, but obviously these take 20-40 years to grow. But that doesn't provide a solution right now.
The issue, in my view, is a structural one, and really has little to do with 'Climate change', 'Carbon crusaders' and 'religious zealots.' That's wishful thinking of the type that achieves little else but impresses uninformed forum posters.
It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article. Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable! It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...Whilst I grant that this might not have been the best example to use (for some of the reasons you've mentioned) the phrase "not environmentally sustainable" features in the linked article.
There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place. Now, whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society, surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well? If those actions were never taken then no one would be adversely affected, would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.As an informed forum poster, I am sure that you are already aware of many instances from the past 20 years, where the environmental movement has influenced government (federal, state and local) in ways that resulted in lives being adversely impacted.
And what of lives that are being directly impacted through no fault of their own?It's fairly obvious to me why that phrase / terminology is in the article. Because chopping down more trees than you are growing isn't environmentally sustainable! It really doesn't matter who is influencing the change movement in this case...
There is a counter argument that lives were only adversely (economically) impacted because certain groups were suddenly restricted by the government from doing things that they never should have been allowed to do in the first place. Now, whilst the government does have responsibility for enforcing and making laws in society, surely those who take actions that are eventually banned/restricted should be taking their own individual responsibility as well? If those actions were never taken then no one would be adversely affected, would they? Strip the layer of 'permission' away and you get to the real heart of the issue.
But making that argument puts both corporate interests and government authorities into an awkward position so we will never hear that line of thinking in the media.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?