Resisting Climate Hysteria

[mullokintyre]

By the way not cool to trash other posters Mick.

You mean commie Rob?
The bloke has trashed everyone he disagrees with.
According to him, everyone who disagrees with him does not understand anything, or is racist, or is deliberately disingenuous etc etc.
I am more than happy to dish it out to him as he has done to me and does to others.

This thread was started to undermine discussions on the reality and seriousness of global warming. It continues in that vein.

The person who started this thread goes by the name Mickel.
Has not posted for a while, but its a big call for you to decide his motives.
I posted something that was obviously climate alarmism, or climate hysteria as the thread says.
It highlights how the debate has been hijacked by extremists, doomsdayers and emd of the world cultists.
You like so many others, conflate climate change and global warming, with anthropogenic climate change.
There is no debate about the concept of climate change, it has changed in the past, is changing now, and will continue to change.
The questions are
(1) How much of climate change is due to natural forces and what is anthropogenic.
Models are not proof. The reality, anyone who says they know what proportion is anthropogenic and what is natural is not a scientist.
They are marketeers.
(2) why is any change in the climate inherently bad?
Who determined that the climate at time X is 'the best", and should not change?
There are numerous countries where a level of warming would be most welcome, some where a greater level of cooling would be welcomed. There are also countries where a greater level of rainfall would be welcomed, some where less would be welcomed.
Which set of citizens should be paramount?
The ones near the coast?
The ones who suffer the most in the cold? or just the wealthy Westerners who can easily cope with the demands of climate alarmism?
And ultimately, who will decide which of them are dispensable.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Is trashing posters only allowed if it's targeted at the skeptics?

While there's been a lot of posting questioning the veracity of the CAGW hypothesis in general, I think the purpose of this thread was to point out the hysterical claims made by warmists who continue to argue the World is going to explode, or oceans are going to boil, or ecosystems are being lost and billions of people will be displaced by XX year. The latest updated tipping point date seems to be 2030, just seven years away.

I think you are splitting hairs - down to a nano level Sean. If one accepts that you are intelligent and educated then I find it very hard to accept that this thread is just about blowing up "extremist" views on how soon the world will go to hell in a hand basket. I say that because even when one sees and highlights the extremes of forest fires across the Northern hemisphere in places that have never seen such activity they have been simply disregarded.

The nature of collapse is not necessarily "the world being flooded/burnedout/ stormed out" all at once. In the case of steadily increasing temperatures we are seeing more and more extreme events which leave a trail of devastation that undermines communities and resources. Each incident has an impact. The combination will inevitably cause systemic serious problems.

This was the perspective of the ADF when they identified CC as being a critical issue facing the country. It is the perspective of natural disaster organisations dealing with fires, floods and storms. It is shared by Insurance companies that have to manage and price risk as the critical role in their industry. Local communities dealing with thousands of people still homeless after successive fires, floods and storms also recognise the escalating stress CC related incidents are placing on their community.

 

[basilio]

(1) How much of climate change is due to natural forces and what is anthropogenic.
Models are not proof. The reality, anyone who says they know what proportion is anthropogenic and what is natural is not a scientist.
They are marketeers.
(2) why is any change in the climate inherently bad?

So are these your two main points Mike ? Firstly your dismissing all the work of the climate scientists who have investigated how climate has changed and what factors have been involved.

That's a big call isn't it ? The thousands, 10's of thousands of people who have studied the science, the history of changing climates, the range of impacts on our climate are in your eyes just marketeers ?

The work of the IPCC bringing together all the information on this topic since 1988 is effectively dismissed in a sentence. Effectively your not even giving the idea that human activity is currently the biggest driver in climate change any credence. "Who really knows ? For sure" seems to be the argument.

I could (and have) post a screed of analysis which breaks down the impacts different factors on the climate. They come to the same conclusion. Currently human emitted greenhouse gases are the overwhelming factor in accelerating global warming. But will that cut any ice when your certain view is that such an analysis is only the view of marketeers ?

In any case, in the real world we all deal with the best information we have at the present. No one in any position of authority either has "all" the information or can wait until absolute certainty is established. In the case of CC the overwhelming information is that it is very real, has very dangerous consequences and has been caused by human activity. The last point also means that it could be addressed by changing human behaviour. It is not (necessarily) out of our control.

Why is any change in the climate inherently bad?

Human activity and the ecosystems that have enabled the flowering of civilization in the past few thousand years have flourished in the broad range of our our current climate. Plants, animals humans have adapted to the climatic conditions roughly present in their environment.

The changes in temperatures around the world in just the last 40 years has already created stresses in ecosystems that are threatening whole species. Just to be selfish as human beings, our bodies will not survive 37C temperatures at 100% humidity. In that environment people will die from heat stroke.

And yet that scenario is happening more and more as temperatures rise.

Adaptation can occur as climate changes. But this takes hundreds if not thousands of years. In the geologically short time frames we are currently seeing for CC effective adaptation is impossible. Indeed one of the critical responses to CC is creating connections between ecosystems in different environments to enable animals to migrate to cooler regions. (If we ever get a round Tuit.)

But there is one overaching unnegotiable reason why current warming is inherently bad.

Our current sea levels and therefore the built environment we have is based on a world that has immense amounts of ice stored at the poles. The current warming is melting these ice caps at an accelerating rate. The projected rate of melting is not linear. The evidence has been crystal clear that immense ice sheets are being undermined by warming Arctic and Antarctica ocean currents. The breakdown of these ice sheets will set off a relatively rapid increase in sea levels that will flood all coastal infrastructure. The timeline could be anything from 20 to a couple of hundred years.

So when some people attempt to posit that a bit of warming here and there could be "a good thing" I ask whether the recognise what effect that bit of warming is having on the whole picture.

Why not check out what the Australian Academy of Science has to say about the impact on Australia of a 3C increase in temperature ?

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2021-03-09-too-hot-to-live-in-tropics-climate-change-global-warming

The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world | Australian Academy of Science

www.science.org.au

Ice sheets can collapse faster than previously thought possible​

Date: April 5, 2023 Source: Newcastle University Summary:

Ice sheets can retreat up to 600 meters a day during periods of climate warming, 20 times faster than the highest rate of retreat previously measured. An international team of researchers used high-resolution imagery of the seafloor to reveal just how quickly a former ice sheet that extended from Norway retreated at the end of the last Ice Age, about 20,000 years ago.

Ice sheets can collapse faster than previously thought possible

Ice sheets can retreat up to 600 meters a day during periods of climate warming, 20 times faster than the highest rate of retreat previously measured. An international team of researchers used high-resolution imagery of the seafloor to reveal just how quickly a former ice sheet that extended...

www.sciencedaily.com

 

[basilio]

This is the Press Release synthesis of the Australian Academy of Science report on Australia's future in a rapidly warming climate.

The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world | Australian Academy of Science

Scientists release landmark climate change report

www.science.org.au

 

[mullokintyre]

So are these your two main points Mike ? Firstly your dismissing all the work of the climate scientists who have investigated how climate has changed and what factors have been involved.

That's a big call isn't it ? The thousands, 10's of thousands of people who have studied the science, the history of changing climates, the range of impacts on our climate are in your eyes just marketeers ?

The work of the IPCC bringing together all the information on this topic since 1988 is effectively dismissed in a sentence. Effectively your not even giving the idea that human activity is currently the biggest driver in climate change any credence. "Who really knows ? For sure" seems to be the argument.

I could (and have) post a screed of analysis which breaks down the impacts different factors on the climate. They come to the same conclusion. Currently human emitted greenhouse gases are the overwhelming factor in accelerating global warming. But will that cut any ice when your certain view is that such an analysis is only the view of marketeers ?

In any case, in the real world we all deal with the best information we have at the present. No one in any position of authority either has "all" the information or can wait until absolute certainty is established. In the case of CC the overwhelming information is that it is very real, has very dangerous consequences and has been caused by human activity. The last point also means that it could be addressed by changing human behaviour. It is not (necessarily) out of our control.

Why is any change in the climate inherently bad?

Human activity and the ecosystems that have enabled the flowering of civilization in the past few thousand years have flourished in the broad range of our our current climate. Plants, animals humans have adapted to the climatic conditions roughly present in their environment.

The changes in temperatures around the world in just the last 40 years has already created stresses in ecosystems that are threatening whole species. Just to be selfish as human beings, our bodies will not survive 37C temperatures at 100% humidity. In that environment people will die from heat stroke.

And yet that scenario is happening more and more as temperatures rise.

Adaptation can occur as climate changes. But this takes hundreds if not thousands of years. In the geologically short time frames we are currently seeing for CC effective adaptation is impossible. Indeed one of the critical responses to CC is creating connections between ecosystems in different environments to enable animals to migrate to cooler regions. (If we ever get a round Tuit.)

But there is one overaching unnegotiable reason why current warming is inherently bad.

Our current sea levels and therefore the built environment we have is based on a world that has immense amounts of ice stored at the poles. The current warming is melting these ice caps at an accelerating rate. The projected rate of melting is not linear. The evidence has been crystal clear that immense ice sheets are being undermined by warming Arctic and Antarctica ocean currents. The breakdown of these ice sheets will set off a relatively rapid increase in sea levels that will flood all coastal infrastructure. The timeline could be anything from 20 to a couple of hundred years.

So when some people attempt to posit that a bit of warming here and there could be "a good thing" I ask whether the recognise what effect that bit of warming is having on the whole picture.

Why not check out what the Australian Academy of Science has to say about the impact on Australia of a 3C increase in temperature ?

More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change | Cornell Chronicle

More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.

news.cornell.edu

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/2021-03-09-too-hot-to-live-in-tropics-climate-change-global-warming

The risks to Australia of a 3°C warmer world | Australian Academy of Science

www.science.org.au

Ice sheets can collapse faster than previously thought possible​

Date: April 5, 2023 Source: Newcastle University Summary:

Ice sheets can retreat up to 600 meters a day during periods of climate warming, 20 times faster than the highest rate of retreat previously measured. An international team of researchers used high-resolution imagery of the seafloor to reveal just how quickly a former ice sheet that extended from Norway retreated at the end of the last Ice Age, about 20,000 years ago.

Ice sheets can collapse faster than previously thought possible

Ice sheets can retreat up to 600 meters a day during periods of climate warming, 20 times faster than the highest rate of retreat previously measured. An international team of researchers used high-resolution imagery of the seafloor to reveal just how quickly a former ice sheet that extended...

www.sciencedaily.com

So i could post a bunch of URL's from other scientists who dispute many of the claims from the IPCC and others, but what is the point?
If the climate change is such a world ending phenomenon, why is China , India, Russia, etc chucking out CO2 like there is no tomorrow?
If the IPCC and obviously you are so concerned about what happens to the earth due to anthropogenic climate change, why are they and you not marching on the Chinese embassy? Why are there no climate warriors gluing themselves to roads in India?
Because of the Politics, not the science.
Mick

 

[wayneL]

So i could post a bunch of URL's from other scientists who dispute many of the claims from the IPCC and others, but what is the point?
If the climate change is such a world ending phenomenon, why is China , India, Russia, etc chucking out CO2 like there is no tomorrow?
If the IPCC and obviously you are so concerned about what happens to the earth due to anthropogenic climate change, why are they and you not marching on the Chinese embassy? Why are there no climate warriors gluing themselves to roads in India?
Because of the Politics, not the science.
Mick

Yes... I can't remember the European politician, but it was a woman who said (paraphrasing):

This is not about saving the planet but about re-distributing wealth.

Too quiet part is said out loud, yet people like our climate alarmists here on ASF continue to be totally sucked in.

 

[basilio]

So clearly there will never ever be sufficient evidence to cause Mick, or Wayne and probably many others on ASF to reassess what is happening to our climate and effectively us our children and whoever might come later.

The most momentous events in our history. Recorded, analysed and affecting every part of our lives. Ignored.

The thousands of scientists whose careers are based on understanding how the world works and explaining their findings to the community. Disregarded.

Not a single response to any of the effects of the rapidly heating environment.

Ce La vie.
__________________
One final request.
Never, ever, ever pretend that you are somehow scientifically open minded or just a genuine climate skeptic who is somehow open to "fresh evidence" on this topic. That boat has sailed and sank.

 

[Sean K]

If the climate change is such a world ending phenomenon, why is China , India, Russia, etc chucking out CO2 like there is no tomorrow?
If the IPCC and obviously you are so concerned about what happens to the earth due to anthropogenic climate change, why are they and you not marching on the Chinese embassy? Why are there no climate warriors gluing themselves to roads in India?
Because of the Politics, not the science.
Mick

The warmists continue to fail in addressing this issue. If they truly believe the IPCC sponsored science then they MUST support stopping all emissions immediately. But, no. Chindia et al can keep building coal plants which are replacing the rest of the World's emissions annually and no problem. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

 

[mullokintyre]

So clearly there will never ever be sufficient evidence to cause Mick, or Wayne and probably many others on ASF to reassess what is happening to our climate and effectively us our children and whoever might come later.

The most momentous events in our history. Recorded, analysed and affecting every part of our lives. Ignored.

The thousands of scientists whose careers are based on understanding how the world works and explaining their findings to the community. Disregarded.

Not a single response to any of the effects of the rapidly heating environment.

Ce La vie.

There reaches a point when further discussion is pointless.

__________________
One final request.
Never, ever, ever pretend that you are somehow scientifically open minded or just a genuine climate skeptic who is somehow open to "fresh evidence" on this topic. That boat has sailed and sank.

That is a tad arrogant Bas, you are sounding like Commie Rob.
Has it ever crossed your mind that other folks may see you in exactly that same light?
Mick

 

[IFocus]

Is trashing posters only allowed if it's targeted at the skeptics?

While there's been a lot of posting questioning the veracity of the CAGW hypothesis in general, I think the purpose of this thread was to point out the hysterical claims made by warmists who continue to argue the World is going to explode, or oceans are going to boil, or ecosystems are being lost and billions of people will be displaced by XX year. The latest updated tipping point date seems to be 2030, just seven years away.

1ST post of the thread that started it


Resisting climate hysteria
by Richard S. Lindzen

July 26, 2009

A Case Against Precipitous Climate Action

 

[basilio]

There reaches a point when further discussion is pointless.

That is a tad arrogant Bas, you are sounding like Commie Rob.
Has it ever crossed your mind that other folks may see you in exactly that same light?
Mick

I agree further discussion on this topic is pointless.

I will say again that your reluctance to even acknowledge any of the issues I raised, and they were not "models", seems at odds with someone who would seem to be an evidence based person.
_______________________
Regarding climate skepticism

I joined ASF around 2008. In some of the robust discussions around global warming there was a reiteration of talking points that said "The world isn't warming" "The temperature figures are historically distorted" " There are problems with many urban heat islands effects" "GLOBAL WARMING ISN'T HAPPENING"

During that period of discussion a well known Physicist, Richard Mullar, shared some of the skepticism of the temperature records presented as evidence of global warming.

Richard and his wife Elizabeth then initiated The Berkley Project which collected and interrogated all the climate records available and went back further than many of the other climate temperature measures. Interestingly enough his project was partially funded by the Koch brothers who to that point were strong deniers of the reality of global warming. Its fair to say many CC scientists reserved their judgement on how this reanalysis of global temperatures would be conducted.

Anyhow Richard did his study. The result was a complete validation of what Climate scientists had already said. Richard Mullar acknowledged that current global warming was very real and that human activity the main driver. No surprise that he was dropped off the christmas card list of then thinning ranks of CC skeptics. According to them he just wasn't a true skeptic. The Berkley Institute figures now stand alongside the other major climate temperature measures.

There have been other people who expressed concern/skepticism on this issue and after time and further evidence changed their view.

OUR HISTORY​

Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of climate skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in August 2013.

From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forces. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.

We released our analysis, programs and established an open database with all the raw data used in our studies. We believe that now it is our responsibility to communicate our findings, in particular with prominent stakeholders familiar with the reasons for global warming skepticism that Berkeley Earth addressed.

About Berkeley Earth - Berkeley Earth

Berkeley Earth is an independent U.S. non-profit organization focused on environmental data science and analysis. OUR MISSION AND PURPOSE Global warming is the defining environmental challenge of our time. The need for quality, accessible scientific data about global warming could not be more...

berkeleyearth.org

Our Impact - Berkeley Earth

As the world’s only independent, non-governmental source of comprehensive environmental data and analysis, our impact is fundamental: Our global warming and air pollution data sets and research inform high-level policy decisions, support academic research, provides inputs for education, and...

berkeleyearth.org

 

[mullokintyre]

I agree further discussion on this topic is pointless.

Well at least we agree on something
I had already said it was pointless, and now you agree.
Then why go on and add some more talking points if its pointless?
Sorry, not playing that game.
I disagree with you, you disagree with me.

Mick

 

[basilio]

If I post additional information on this thread it is for all posters interest. I take the view that while discussions make seem to be taking place between 2 people on an open thread plenty of other people could be interested in the content.

 

[mullokintyre]

If I post additional information on this thread it is for all posters interest. I take the view that while discussions make seem to be taking place between 2 people on an open thread plenty of other people could be interested in the content.

Yeah, but your reply was to me.
Mick

 

[basilio]

Yeah, but your reply was to me.
Mick

I should have split the comment and the additional information.

 

[Smurf1976]

If they truly believe the IPCC sponsored science then they MUST support stopping all emissions immediately. But, no. Chindia et al can keep building coal plants which are replacing the rest of the World's emissions annually and no problem. The hypocrisy is mind blowing.

I'll simply say that I've read plenty on the subject, done my best to understand the science, and went as far as setting up my own lab experiments to see what happened. Imperfect they were but they did show results matching the theory - messing about the the atmosphere warmed my model planet.

So I wouldn't put myself in the "denier" camp. Someone who questions everything and wants to see the basis of claims yes, but not a denier when the available evidence supports reasons for being concerned.

What I will note though, from a practical perspective, is the mainstream environmental movement doesn't seem so convinced. Put forward real, serious proposals for solutions and all too often it ends with:

But there's a bird there and that's more important.

Wind turbines might spoil the scenery.

We can't have nuclear.

No Dams.

Developing China's a higher priority.

And so on. I've seen this one, personally and professionally, far too many times now. On one hand it's "climate emergency" but on the other there's always some excuse for "but not right here".

As with anything, if you say something's really important but then keep rejecting solutions to it, after a while people start doubting how serious it really is. Most accept that sometimes yes there will be valid reasons to not build something but that loses credibility when opposition becomes routine and predictable.

Whether sowing the seeds of doubt is the aim or not I really don't know, but I'm very sure it's what's been achieved and it has seen business lose their nerve over some projects that I'm certain of.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

 

[Sean K]

I'll simply say that I've read plenty on the subject, done my best to understand the science, and went as far as setting up my own lab experiments to see what happened. Imperfect they were but they did show results matching the theory - messing about the the atmosphere warmed my model planet.

So I wouldn't put myself in the "denier" camp. Someone who questions everything and wants to see the basis of claims yes, but not a denier when the available evidence supports reasons for being concerned.

What I will note though, from a practical perspective, is the mainstream environmental movement doesn't seem so convinced. Put forward real, serious proposals for solutions and all too often it ends with:

But there's a bird there and that's more important.

Wind turbines might spoil the scenery.

We can't have nuclear.

No Dams.

Developing China's a higher priority.

And so on. I've seen this one, personally and professionally, far too many times now. On one hand it's "climate emergency" but on the other there's always some excuse for "but not right here".

As with anything, if you say something's really important but then keep rejecting solutions to it, after a while people start doubting how serious it really is. Most accept that sometimes yes there will be valid reasons to not build something but that loses credibility when opposition becomes routine and predictable.

Whether sowing the seeds of doubt is the aim or not I really don't know, but I'm very sure it's what's been achieved and it has seen business lose their nerve over some projects that I'm certain of.

Don't let perfect be the enemy of good.

Case in point the apron of the airport at Davos for the WEF filled with private planes.

How can anyone really take them seriously?

 

[Sean K]

Historical temperature records are pure science, yes?

It's data in a filing cabinet. Maybe on a floppy disc? Even in the cloud, maybe.

Why does the BOM not release data under FOI when requested?

A dispute over how the Bureau of Meteorology records daily temperatures is hotting up, with the release of more than 1000 pages of data that show new probes can record different temperatures to mercury thermometers in the same location at the same time.

The documents, released after a years-long Freedom of Information campaign, show temperature measurements taken using updated BOM probes in automatic weather stations at the Brisbane Airport site could be up to 0.7C warmer than the temperature taken using a traditional thermometer at the same time at the same site.

More than three years after a FOI request for parallel data was lodged by scientist John Abbot, the BOM released three years of data on Easter eve after the matter was taken to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

In the end, the BOM released only limited data, paving the way for a wave of FOI demands that full records be released in the public interest.

Release of the data is the first opportunity to analyse the performance of BOM probes alongside mercury thermometers. The bureau has long claimed the readings are identical but critics have said the BOM was not following World Meteorological Organisation guidelines on how they should be used.

Given that even small variations in temperature recordings can have an impact on the long-term record, accuracy is vital.

The main issue is how well temperatures recorded by new technologies can be compared to earlier methods to establish a continuous record.

The BOM maintains that an assessment of the full 2019-22 period at Brisbane Airport finds no significant difference between the probe and mercury thermometers.

Yet analysis of the data by scientist Jennifer Marohasy has found a statistically significant difference exists. Over the three-year period for which records have been made available, probes returned temperatures higher than the mercury thermometers placed alongside them 41 per cent of the time.

Recordings were the same 32.8 per cent of the time and lower 25.9 per cent of the time.

Dr Marohasy said the BOM had not disputed that the probe at Brisbane Airport had recorded up to 0.7C warmer than the mercury at the same site at the same time.

She said the bureau had not provided comment on the actual difference daily between temperatures as measured by the probe and the mercury, nor the average monthly or annual difference between the probe and the mercury.

In response to questions from The Weekend Australian, the bureau said it “verifies temperature probes to ensure that they are within specification”. The BOM said the temperature measurement system at Brisbane Airport was verified 24 times between January 2008 and July last year.

“Probes undergo a verification test in situ to ensure the probe is operating within specification”, it said. “If the result of this test is that the probe is outside of its operating specification, it is replaced with a laboratory-verified probe.

“A second verification test is undertaken to ensure it is compliant with the specification.

“This verification process is more rigorous and reliable than recalibration.”

 

[Knobby22]

If I post additional information on this thread it is for all posters interest. I take the view that while discussions make seem to be taking place between 2 people on an open thread plenty of other people could be interested in the content.

Don't stress on it Bas.

8/10 people in Australia know it's real and of the 2/10 , 1/10 just don't care about it so it is a very small percentage of people that still are believing this mumbo jumbo that was invented for them and that is because they are usually over 60 and so are more susceptible to it.

10% is probably about the same percentage that believe in horoscopes or flying saucers. There is always a fringe. Humans are a strange bunch.

Even some of the guys here are just playing coz they are bored and know it is real but are hoping it's overblown.

So I would suggest ignoring this thread and posting in the proper climate warming thread only.
I, for one, are more likely to read it.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/8-10-australians-are-concerned-about-climate-change

 

[wayneL]

Don't stress on it Bas.

8/10 people in Australia know it's real and of the 2/10 , 1/10 just don't care about it so it is a very small percentage of people that still are believing this mumbo jumbo that was invented for them and that is because they are usually over 60 and so are more susceptible to it.

10% is probably about the same percentage that believe in horoscopes or flying saucers. There is always a fringe. Humans are a strange bunch.

Even some of the guys here are just playing coz they are bored and know it is real but are hoping it's overblown.

So I would suggest ignoring this thread and posting in the proper climate warming thread only.
I, for one, are more likely to read it.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-au/8-10-australians-are-concerned-about-climate-change

Which decile are you, Knobs? Or more importantly, in which decile is your carbon footprint?

Beliefs in fairies or carbon catastrophism is actually completely irrelevant in relation to such.

Are you walking the talk?