I'm a carbon based climate change denierRoger Kenworthy wrote:We have 15 years of evidence to doubt Stuart with.
Are you also a climate change denier Nickman?
Do your best.
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Moderator: GH Moderators
I'm a carbon based climate change denierRoger Kenworthy wrote:We have 15 years of evidence to doubt Stuart with.
Are you also a climate change denier Nickman?
co2 is one of atmospheric gasses and is the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. It has nothing to do with the activity of the sun. Co2 does not drive temp on earth as is currently believed. The sun and orbits of planets directly affect dry and wet periods on earth. More Cosmic radiation enters earth during low sunspots. Warming and cooling periods are cyclical and have been happening on earth since life began. If you look up the Milankovitch cycles you can see how earths orbit around the sun brings about a glacial period when it is furthest from the sun. There are many variables, not co2 alone which is an incomplete picture. This page has fantastic insights into knowledge that is thousands of years handed down. Ancient humans charted the planets to determine best time to plant and harvest. Hope that helps a bit...gangrenous wrote:There’s hardly any point dubby. On what grounds could you possibly be a climate change denier?
That's is the best thing I've read on this thread. 100% correct and bereft of bull****.dubby wrote:co2 is one of atmospheric gasses and is the weakest of the greenhouse gasses. It has nothing to do with the activity of the sun. Co2 does not drive temp on earth as is currently believed. The sun and orbits of planets directly affect dry and wet periods on earth. More Cosmic radiation enters earth during low sunspots. Warming and cooling periods are cyclical and have been happening on earth since life began. If you look up the Milankovitch cycles you can see how earths orbit around the sun brings about a glacial period when it is furthest from the sun. There are many variables, not co2 alone which is an incomplete picture. This page has fantastic insights into knowledge that is thousands of years handed down. Ancient humans charted the planets to determine best time to plant and harvest. Hope that helps a bit...gangrenous wrote:There’s hardly any point dubby. On what grounds could you possibly be a climate change denier?
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Nope, you've missed the point.TongueFTW wrote:Dubby - you miss the point completely. The point is not whether man made climate change is real. It is a multidimensional problem that is almost impossible to isolate and describe with a few factors. However, under uncertainty and opacity, and given that we only have one planet, you must invoke the precautionary principle - that is, what *might* hurt the climate, is not worth doing. Even if the chance is 0.001%, due the dire ramifications, it is not a chance worth taking. You cannot look at the probability in isolation, it is the probability multiplied by the event (or, the "expectation" as we math guys call it).
I heard about this George Soros guy on Sky News. Sounds like a bond villain.dubby wrote: ↑February 24, 2019, 8:02 amNope, you've missed the point.TongueFTW wrote:Dubby - you miss the point completely. The point is not whether man made climate change is real. It is a multidimensional problem that is almost impossible to isolate and describe with a few factors. However, under uncertainty and opacity, and given that we only have one planet, you must invoke the precautionary principle - that is, what *might* hurt the climate, is not worth doing. Even if the chance is 0.001%, due the dire ramifications, it is not a chance worth taking. You cannot look at the probability in isolation, it is the probability multiplied by the event (or, the "expectation" as we math guys call it).
If it's not man made, why ban coal mining? Why provide government subsidies on renewables?
Why all the emission targets?
Why are we forgetting that man contributes 3% of co2 into the atmosphere, and of that 3% Australia contributes 1%? That's pointless!
No, the carbon based global warming thing is a George Soros funded, UN driven lie.
Why aren't they looking into other genuine and reliable sources of climate change, like the one i alluded to?
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Manbush has hijacked Dubbys account?gangrenous wrote:If that video was 90 seconds long it would still be a waste of time watching it.
Thousands of scientists have devoted their lives to investigating this. One crackpot on YouTube doesn’t change things.
Do you think you could walk in and run T_R’s business based on an hour’s reading on the Internet?dubby wrote: Why aren't they looking into other genuine and reliable sources of climate change, like the one i alluded to?
He'd walk it in.gangrenous wrote:
Here’s an example I think you’ll understand. Do you think you could walk in and run T_R’s business based on an hour’s reading on the internet?
Dubby now even if you don’t believe in man made climate change doesn’t it make sense to start moving away from energy sources which are limited, pollute the earth and the air we breathe and with say with oil stop financing barbaric regimes?dubby wrote: ↑February 24, 2019, 8:02 am Nope, you've missed the point.
If it's not man made, why ban coal mining? Why provide government subsidies on renewables?
Why all the emission targets?
Why are we forgetting that man contributes 3% of co2 into the atmosphere, and of that 3% Australia contributes 1%? That's pointless!
No, the carbon based global warming thing is a George Soros funded, UN driven lie.
Why aren't they looking into other genuine and reliable sources of climate change, like the one i alluded to?
Sent from my SM-G960F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
And you don’t think 98% of the world’s scientists are doing that?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Okay. Let's for a moment imagine that climate change is not man made. If humans can work towards a solution for the problem why wouldn't we do it? If the majority of scientists in the world believe that reducing our carbon emissions is a possible solution why wouldn't we try?dubby wrote:Check the alternative.
It's NOT man made
Do we need other countries to help - absolutely!PigRickman wrote:Im in the position that i absolutely believe in CC, but im also not sure Australia should bother breaking their **** backs about trying to solve it when our contribution is but a drop in the ocean
Until we get to a point where the contributors are willing to make real and significant change, im not sure this is "our" problem... which i concede is not something many will sign off on, most will say and maybe rightly so, we should do as much as we can, as incredibly limited as it is... im not quite there.
But denying its a thing, at this point, as someone who wasnt sold for a long time... is **** insane.
I have to say my opinion was always more closely aligned to PigRickman in this regard, but after reading gangy's post I have to concede that his is the more responsible way of looking at it. It's everyone's concern, so everyone should be trying to reduce their omissions.gangrenous wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 8:58 pmDo we need other countries to help - absolutely!PigRickman wrote:Im in the position that i absolutely believe in CC, but im also not sure Australia should bother breaking their **** backs about trying to solve it when our contribution is but a drop in the ocean
Until we get to a point where the contributors are willing to make real and significant change, im not sure this is "our" problem... which i concede is not something many will sign off on, most will say and maybe rightly so, we should do as much as we can, as incredibly limited as it is... im not quite there.
But denying its a thing, at this point, as someone who wasnt sold for a long time... is **** insane.
Are we an insignificant part of the problem? Absolutely not. 300 countries and we’re over 1% of the total, so we’re at least triple the average per country. Plus if I recall correctly we’re the absolute worst in the world per capita.
We have benefitted from the advantages of being a polluting developed nation for a long time. It’s time we at the very least pulled our heads in on a per capita basis, and ideally took a leading stance in this problem. It absolutely is “our” problem, and it defies all logic to me why people think Chinese people should be finding a way to live on a quarter of our emissions per capita because they happen to be in the one country. The only thing that makes it easier is that when they change laws and behaviour their cumulative effect is much bigger. But there is absolutely no fairness in the large countries being the only ones needing to tighten their belts.
And you know what? It might just make us some cash if we’re the ones who can crack the problem and license the technology. But yeah yeah, it’s not as certain as the cash we get from watching the planet burn. I’m sure that won’t impact the economy hey Liberals?
Haha what do YOU care?? You and your ilk are still holding back THE cure for cancer because of Big Pharma!!Dr Zaius wrote: ↑February 26, 2019, 9:45 pm Good grief Dubby.
I'm no expert on climate change. But I am expert in something, and it took me 16 years of education and training to achieve that expertise. I know what I know, and more importantly, I know what I don't know. And I know what it takes to be expert.
I'm not remotely interested in debating climate change, as I have no expertise on the subject. And sorry to be the bearer of bad news but neither do you. But do you know who does have expertise on the matter? Those scientists that have devoted their careers to studying climate science. Those leading the discussion have similar level of experience or more in their area that I do in mine. And you can only dream of having an ounce of the understanding on the subject that they do. The fact that you seem to believe that you somehow have a better grasp of the situation than them after watching a video on the internet suggests that you are either laughably ignorant or blindingly arrogant.
Which would be fine if it was a 50:50 split in opinions. But there is not, there is 98:2, which says to me that when it comes to people who know what they are talking about, there is no debate. There is always a 1-2% crackpot group in any craft group. More so when some of the most powerful companies in the world have a financial interest in those crackpot views.Northern Raider wrote:To be honest, in the debate about climate science it's very difficult to find a truly independent opinion on the topic. Pretty much everything published and readily accessible is pushing some form of agenda.