M43 F49
Climate change activist
October 11 2019
Comments
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Here a link to the PMs speech in Brisbane.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LonwBaNAA5gI'm speculating they are going to make it illegal for companies to boycott other companies on the basis it's an unfair and detrimental business practice or something along those lines.This will effectively stop people taking action on climate change via their consumer choices. Interested to hear what others think of it.
-
0z_boy
5 years ago
dont forget what the suffragettes did for change and they were very disruptive.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Quiet1 - the PM's posturing is affirmation that environmentalist activities targeting business finances and operations are having a significant effect. The only thing he neglected to say is that the "quiet Australians" are in fact the faceless business men funding their party. They sure are quiet.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I think it may be more than posturing he said "serious mechanisms to successfully outlaw these indulgent and selfish practices". I don't think he was talking about the protesters themselves though its very hard to separate all the conflation.
-
blaphonu
5 years ago
World science agencies met in South America in 2014to discuss climate change. Remember this was a meeting of Climatologists and other Environmental scientists from World agencies such as CSIRO.Some of the significant issues agreed upon from these meetings were, climate change is real, global warming is real, polar ice sheets are melting and sea levels are rising. A sea level rise of between 6-9 metres is expected in future. BTW a sea level rise of 9 metres will put my yard fully underwater, permanently.Also the planting and growing of 1.3 trillion trees will reverse climate change.India in 1 day planted 55 million trees.Ethiopia in 12 hours planted 66 million trees.NZ this year has planted 140 million trees. Australia ZERO.
-
EarthQueen
5 years ago
Quoting 'TheQuiet1' Here a link to the PMs speech in Brisbane.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LonwBaNAA5gI'm speculating they are going to make it illegal for companies to boycott other companies on the basis it's an unfair and detrimental business practice or something along those lines.This will effectively stop people taking action on climate change via their consumer choices. Interested to hear what others think of it. "The need to have balanced policies..." Biggest oxymoron ever. He forgot the other alternative @19.28. Australian businesses behave ethically and responsibly thus creating consumer confidence in their product. So much ugh.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
I find it abhorrent that in this supposable "free country " that an individual or company can be prosecuted for their beliefs , whether environmental or religious ,as long as they don't threaten or harm others but I guess that can be subjective in what constitutes that. I've been doing a fair bit of you tube and google research on the Climate debate over the week and wonder how many people know of Maurice Strong and the Club of Rome ? I'm not big on conspiracies theories but fuck me there is some dirty laundry there ,going to the top of the UN .
-
Single_Guy4U
5 years ago
Quoting 'nightingale8' Mr Dragon I'll admit my train of thought doesn't always translate well. It's a bloody curse. And probably explains why I'm the only one who finds my jokes funny. Short answer to your question: no. Being wrong is relative. You can be a little bit wrong or you can be really really wrong. Just because both theories have some degree of wrong doesn't mean that both are equally right. Science will always have some degree of wrong because it's a process and not a collection of facts. Climate change deniers exploit this and point to the little bit of wrong and say "aha! See you said something that was wrong and therefore what I say must be equally right". Spot the pattern and be entertained. I was reading an article about. clearly world renown Climate activist, Sir David Attenborough regarding his recent film. (as follows) "Scenes of a giant herd of walruses scrambling over each other and others falling off a cliff to their death also upset some viewers. It was originally included in Attenborough's documentary Our Planet in April. However, it caused a lot of debate online, with some labelling it "emotional manipulation" as it was a result of a polar bear attack, not climate change." Obviously caused a lot of emotional turmoil with people thinking climate change caused all of those deaths !!!!!
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Nightingale.... Ahh yes I see ... thanks... On a different note though when addressing the actions needed... Given that it seems to be agreed upon that CO2 is the enemy, wouldn’t it an equally good idea to look at technologies that process said co2 much like a system that essentially mimics trees?? Mr Dragon... Sorry for the late acknowledgement btw
-
NudesRus
5 years ago
Where did you dig that pile of shit up. This is why the nonbelievers don’t believe. Australia has a thriving forestry industry and plants millions of trees a year. We don’t need to plant 55 million in 12 hours because we’ve been planting them for years. And as for your 6-9 meter ocean rise, go for a drive across the nullabore and have a look where it used to be, you won’t be stopping at Mundrabilla roadhouse.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Single_guy, I'm not sure you're aware you are demonstrating my point. Though it's a strange example. I haven't seen the documentary but I suspect the producers weren't making a bizzare claim walruses commit suicide because the weather is getting too hot. I'm guessing it went something like this, Climate change disrupts availability of typical polar bear prey Polar bear gets hungry Polar bear is forced to hunt unusual prey = walruses Walruses happen to be on a cliff side when being hunted Oops. Dragon, no worries. I assume you were out protesting
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Quoting 'nightingale8' Single_guy, I'm not sure you're aware you are demonstrating my point. Though it's a strange example. I haven't seen the documentary but I suspect the producers weren't making a bizzare claim walruses commit suicide because the weather is getting too hot. I'm guessing it went something like this, Climate change disrupts availability of typical polar bear prey Polar bear gets hungry Polar bear is forced to hunt unusual prey = walruses Walruses happen to be on a cliff side when being hunted Oops. Dragon, no worries. I assume you were out protesting A close friend works for the BBC and knows David Attenborough , David Attenborough is not happy with the producers because his integrity is now in question, he just read the script and took the producers word that climate change was the reason , when it is not . Never let the truth stand in the way of a good story .
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Nightingale.... Have you been spying ?? 😂😂😂 Mr dragon ....
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Salubrious - fair enough. I don't know how David Attenborough feels. And agreed, suicidal walruses do make a more interesting story!
-
RHP User
5 years ago
From what I remember the Walrussss were on the cliffs because the beaches were full due to a population boom and there is a history of it going back some time.It's just more mud in the murky water.As for Australia planting trees, maybe we do, somewhere, but Queenslanders seem to be clearing land for cattle at an ever increasing rate.There is a project in Africa called the Great Green Wall which I donate to, it's long term goal is to plant a wall of trees across the continent to fence in the Sahara. Have a Google it's quite a project and the grass roots people are on board big time. A flicker of good news.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Great Green Wall is on youtube as well. There is an African one and a Chinese one, the Chinese one is apparently not as successful but as you would know the truth is hard to winnow from all the claims.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I was reading about how women's liberation came about using the same tactics as the climate activists have been. That was a decider for me. 🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Jacinda Arhern's Zero Carbon legislation parliamentary speech.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Wow u definitely know your history, I forgot half of what you mentioned
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Dragon, it's not just CO2 causing havoc but a range of greenhouse gases such as methane (much more potent) and refrigerants. Planting more trees or developing carbon sequestering technologies are important but shouldn't be limited to these...Things like better management of gases at the end of fridge and air conditioner lives (https://www.drawdown.org/solutions/materials/refrigerant-management) or improving large scale agricultural practices. These are far less sexy than developing whizzbang tecnologies and require politcal will to implement (thanks again protesters). At an individual level moving your superannuation and banking away from irresponsible banks and organisations is effective (super is a multi-trillion dollar industry that goes relatively unquestioned). Of course no individual is expected to know it all but groups like 350.org etc help narrow down what to do.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I have been with Australian Ethical since the mid nineties and have not only found their ethical policies the most thorough but the performance has been consistently high.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
What a lot of the well meaning protesters probably don't know is that the biggest donators to charities like Greenpeace ,Sea shepherd etc are the very people stuck in their cars trying to get to work . I volunteered for years for Sea Sheperd and can tell you that most of the funds we received were from the normal every day person . Now if you've just been stuck in traffic on a Friday evening , running late to pick up your children etc and a environmental charity hits you up the next day at the markets for a donation; I can just about guarantee you would not receive a cent off that person . I also observed lot of the young people that are all in for a demonstration did not want to give up their Saturday mornings to run a stall on a regular basis , also never donated much in that way of funds .They can scream the talk but won't walk it. Nightingale8 , where would I fall in your categories ? I've been an eco warrior on the front line , worked in the mining/oil and gas industry , believe climate change exists but don't believe that CO2 or methane theory is the primary cause of climate change . Also where would you like to be bitten :-) After the last few weeks of googling the politics of alarmist climate change I'd love to see a total independent investigation into the UN. How can an organisation impose sanctions , then trade sanctions for oil . How does the Top Dog not know his son works for the company that he gave the contract to, that supplied the produce , then to top it off the UN's 2IC receives a check for a million bucks from the sanctioned country through a dodgy middle man. But apparently that check was an investment in the 2IC's son's oil company . But wait the 2IC got the ball rolling on global warming so why is he involved in an oil company? They couldn't make a movie with that script .
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Salubrious (not Salacious?), from what you have mentioned my diagnosis is climate inactivist. Whether you volunteered for Sea Shepherd or worked in the mining industry is neither here nor there, neither experience suggesting you have any better understanding of science than the general population. Not that I don't enjoy a debate on its own merits either way. The IPCC is not the UN. Sure both have some degree of politicization, historically though IPCC conclusions have been watered down at the behest of more powerful nations. I'd agree with you though that corruption is rife wherever there is power... why do people think it stops where the 'do-gooders' enter? Dr Nightingale has spoken 😉 Ps usebi, that's good to know. I hope they keep making me money 👌👌
-
0z_boy
5 years ago
Quoting 'PeachyPearL' I was reading about how women's liberation came about using the same tactics as the climate activists have been. That was a decider for me. 🍑 As with everything else, too little too late. If it makes money, it makes no cents. (pun)
-
RHP User
5 years ago
That's my fear. 🌋🍑
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Professional scientist here... Climate change is the biggest scam since the invention of religion. It is a political solution to a non-existent problem that allows politicians to literally tax the air we breathe.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale , if you're still following this , a question . Hypothetically in 20 years time when you are 54 years young and the polar ice caps still have ice, Greenland"s Glaciers are growing again ,The Maldives and Holland don't need a submarine to visit and there are record low temperature recordings. Would you still believe that CO2 is the TOTAL cause of global warming , if that is what the Greens are spooking or would you doubt that they may be wrong and the other scientists saying the combination of the Milankovitch cycle ,solar flares plus man made localised issues cause the climate to change . I also think the media and political shit that is going on over the bush fires is disgusting . My thoughts are with anyone caught up in the fires and I hope a non political investigation after the fire are out will be carried out . I have my own views on the main cause and who is responsible ( not one group) but now is not the time for that argument . It angers me with the loss of human life plus the huge amounts of endangered native critters that would have had no chance . yes Salacious would be a good RHP user name !!
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
It's a strange question as it sounds like you're speaking in hyperbole rather than me, and in any case an illogical counterpoint (imagine would we be worried about climate change if an apocalyptic meteor hit the earth next year? Probably not. Also even if your hypothetical came true, it doesn't mean solar flare theory is any more correct). Change has been happening for decades but the brunt of the impact on people will be sudden. When resources get scarce what do people/groups/countries do? That worries me. I won't be attacking climate inactivists though. I hope they'll help me build a bunker!
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Not really a strange question or exaggerated .If in 20 years time none of the predictions on ocean level rise , ice lose ,etc have come to fruition ,would you have any doubts on the accuracy of the the CO2 climate science predictions ?would you be open to other theories ?
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
This is why it puzzles me - many of the predictions have come true, and the effects of climate change are happening right now. These are not hypotheticals. Some Pacific islands have already gone underwater, and vast swathes of Sri Lanka are going under for example (who cares if millions of people are displaced so long as they don't come here 😉). Some climate change predictions already didn't come true, like slight deceleration in the rate of warming observed in the 90s which they later revised because they hadn't taken into account the capacity of global ocean systems to absorb heat and buffer the rate of climate change for a while...all the while increasing in acidity due to the excess CO2. That is what I expect would happen if some more predictions didnt come true in 20 years time.... I'd look back and ask what's missing. Of course I'm not expecting to change your mind on any of this I suppose I just enjoy poking holes in the logic of arguments, including my own. Always seeking to be open minded but of course not without critique or so much that my brain falls out. In order words, sure I'd consider alternative theories if they were able to provide a better account in equal or greater weight to existing research.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Have you got any links to your claims on floods in Sri Lanka caused by sea level rise and not storm surge and monsoonal rain ? it's strange that Sri Lanka can be flooded by rising sea level but just over the horizon Geographically speaking the Maldives are fine . (The prawn farming industry in Sri Lanka seems to have done a lot of enviro and social damage according to a doco by Simon Reeve , worth watching ) I've also read reports that some Pacific islands are gaining mass ,(Tuvalu) how does that happen if the sea level is rising at an alarming rate , is it possible that tectonic plate movement up and down may be the cause combined with natural coastal erosion removing sand and dumping it else where .Those Pacific islands are right on a very unstable part of the earths crust. Sea level have been rising but not at the scare monger levels predicted . The Climate data web page(http://www.climatedata.info/impacts/sea-levels/pacific-islands/) shows sea levels at various Pacific nations , some are rising but others are falling . El Nino also has an affect . Ever thought how a pacific island can disappear under the waves but Cairn's , Townsville and Canal estates on the coasts haven't been affected . How much C02 was in the atmosphere when the dinosaurs roamed the planet ? you didn't answer my question though.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
In ten years time some of the CEO's of companies like exxon mobil and the politicians they lobbied will be tried for crimes against humanity.And the image of scott morrison with a lump of coal jeering in the parliament may become one of those iconic images of history.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
I'm not sure how much clearer my last sentence could have been in answering your question, Salubrious. It was also a polite way of saying your theories suck ha ha ha. I'll be honest I'm not about to go trawling scientific journals to answer your question on Sri Lanka, though I do find it funny that you're proposing that sea level rise for Pacific islands would not interact with El Nino and La Nina climate systems/storm surges etc. I cant speak to anything about the Maldives as I've not looked into it. Also, without looking at the analyses and just eyeballing the composite table of sea level rise in that link you provided (figure 14), it actually shows an overall trend of sea level rise. No-one is suggesting that sea level rise would be uniform in all coastal areas. What you have shown is a clear cherry picking of the data to suit the theories you want to support. Last I checked humans are not dinosaurs. Ok ok, not all of us, Scott Morrison and his coal waving comrades among them (yep, Quiet1, he does deserve a shoe thrown at him for that).
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
If you look at that chart , there is a strong downward trend from 2013 . which correlates to other theories on why the global temperatures increased during the late 90's and early 2000's . you can't use weather (El Nino ) to determine water level rise . you need to take readings from a mean average, other wise the data is corrupted . Did you know that El Nino /La Nine does affect local sea levels from one side of the Pacific to the other ? one side goes up, the other drops ,documented for 100s of years . Also well before modern navigation it was well know that islands in the Pacific could appear and disappear , causing ships to run aground because what they hit was not on a navigation chart . Just to save you going though the boring scientific data , CO2 was over 4 times what it is now . So how did the world survive ? why didn't salt water crocs dissolve in what must have been a very acid ocean (if you go by the scare campaign ). Echidna's were around then to. your argument is starting to break up BTW IPCC is part of the UN . Why does China not have to stop increasing it's CO2 output , (yes increasing not reducing) till 2030 ? You are being conned . These are not my theories , they are the theories and observations of a lot of other scientists that make more sense in my opinion . I do care for the environment and don't believe you can keep polluting , I just don't like lies .
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
That's interesting about the ships historically running aground in the Pacific. I can believe that. And while not agreeing with all you've said (Sea levels going down since 2013? Weather determining sea level rise isn't what I've said?) I don't think we are diametrically opposed on all fronts. I think it's important though to separate what is clear politics from science. What China has agreed or not agreed to do has nothing to do with the reality of the state of our global climate systems (why is this a frequently mentioned argument?) Yes the IPCC is a body within the UN. It's important to emphasise that the panel consist of climate exoerts...not diplomats or the people making business decisions on which companies to back etc, like the ones you have already mentioned. That was my point, though you pointing that out is fair.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
you're right ,we're not at polar opposites to each other , we both care for the environment . Politics is interwoven through out the Global Warming scare ,you can't seperate it ,the corrupt politics that I've read about has made me more attentive to the non CO2 causes of climate change . Some history to consider on the Ipcc . Maurice Strong and David Rockefeller had a lot to do it's conception, both rich Socialist elitists . Google Maurice Strong quotes , he clearly states that rich nations are to blame and a small group of world leaders need to make the industrialised nations collapse . The conjecture is that he wanted to spread the wealth from rich capitalist countries to poor socialist countries .This is back almost 40 years ago before the Iron Curtain fell and China and India weren't the industrialised countries they are today. MS had ties with Soviet leader Gorbachov and was the UN envoy to North Korea . After he got caught accepting a million dollar bribe he left the UN and went to China . So why has the UN IPCC allowed China to keep increasing pollution till 2030 when it is now the world's biggest polluter ? Think about how much manufacturing has shifted to those countries in the last 30 years .One of the biggest expenses for manufacturing is electricity . Also look at climate protests , why are there Socialist/Marxist banners being waved at an environment protest ? Did you know that a top Scientist , Nils-Axel Morner resigned from the IPCC because of its miss information , also NZ BOM and Aus BOM have also been caught out manipulating data .NZ BOM lost a court case over it . You don't hear about that on 9 news or The Project. Global warning is big business with large grants for research , so if you work for an organisation and prove that it's not CO2 causing the climate change you threaten those grants . Google Peter Ridd, Susan Crockford , people who've said it how it is and lost their positions .
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
It's funny, I'm not used to interacting with people more to the right than me who rant more about politics ha ha ha. If it ever comes up usually it's me pointing out that the scientific process is being biased by politics and money. What do you call a farmer with a physiotherapy degree? - a chirotractor What do you call a physicist and zoologist with no expertise in climate change? - Peter Ridd and Susan Crockford Years ago I was meandering down Oxford Street and passed a bookstore where a title caught my eye - 'Merchants of Doubt' by Conway and Oreskes. It talked about major areas of controversy - nuclear development, sugar in soft drinks links to obesity, industrial use of DDT, tobacco links to cancer, climate change, etc and how major players managed to stifle regulations or push forward particular interests based not on evidence but sewing the seeds of doubt. Essentially, if you create enough traction for the idea that "the science isn't settled" you can get away with basically anything. If you're a physicist in particular, somehow that seems to give you more perceived authority in conclusions on climate change even than climatologists. Reflecting back on all this I think that's so ridiculous, who the f*ck has the time to meander down the street perusing bookstores.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
NIWA (NZ BOM) won that case.https://www.nbr.co.nz/sites/default/files/images/NZ%20Climate%20Science%20v%20NIWA.pdf NZ & Aus BOM where not "caught out" doing any thing, data homogenizing is a openly stated technique not a nefarious activity. Your starting to sound like sky news.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale , interesting that you don't see a connection with climate alarmists and Polar Bear numbers or a Geophysicist that has spent 30+years studying the Barrier Reef . The Quiet 1 , interesting . I got the NZ court case from Dr Tim Bell and BOM info from Jennifer Marohasy . I was looking for historical temperature records (very hard to find for some reason) when I found the Marohasy web page . Sky News cherrypick as bad as the others ,just in the opposite direction ! I want to research some more to see if it's the same NZ case Bell was referring to . Bell has just won a court case against Mann over the hockey stick graph . Mann wouldn't show how he processed the data for the graph . My reason for being a CO2 sceptic is how much money could be spent on cleaning plastics out of the environment if it was not spent on Climate change research .
-
The_Antichrist
5 years ago
Nightingale.... I actually have enjoyed the dialogue with you .... 👍🏻👍🏻
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
I fucked up on the winning court case , Tim Bell in his 2014 talk only stated he was involved in a case against the NZ Bom,he stated that NZ dropped the court case to have an enquiry . I don't know if it evolved into the same case Quiet1 highlighted. worth watching .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1VJtER2IUE&t=2419s other scientific based proof that the sea level has not risen much if at all in the last 100 years on either the East Coast or West Coast of Australia is from the tide gauges at Fremantle and Fort Denison in Sydney harbour . Also the Jakobshavn Glacia in Greenland is growing again much to the surprise of the CO2 Alarmists . If you believe that the climate is totally driven by CO2 shouldn't the temperatures be increasing like the computer models state from the IPCC's stable of tame scientists .
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Ball did not win the case against Mann it was dismissed.It was a defamation case that had no bearing on the validity of either their science.The transcript of the verdict again.https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/19/15/2019BCSC1580.htmA much more interesting verdict is due in December in New York vs Exxon.You don't hear much about that one in the pop media either.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Here's the similar and more telling dismissal of Weaver vs Ball.https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/18/02/2018BCSC0205.htmWhere the judge said in his summary "the Article is a poorly written opinion piece that offers Dr. Ball’s views on conventional climate science and Dr. Weaver’s role as a supporter and teacher of that science. While the Article is derogatory of Dr. Weaver, it is not defamatory, in that the impugned words do not genuinely threaten Dr. Weaver’s reputation in the minds of reasonably thoughtful and informed readers.Dr. Weaver has therefore failed to establish the first element of the defamation test".
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
I make it 2 out of 3 . Wrong NZ court case . Right .Yes it was a deformation case but in reality it was Mann's hockey stick graph on trail ,all Mann had to do was provide how he came up with the graph , he failed to do that .It may have been dismissed but Mann has to pay the court costs .In other words he lost . It may also open the door for fraud charges against him . Right , no accelerated sea level rise that Nightingale debated about . Thanks Quiet1 for the links . It's interesting to read the court transcripts . You get the story without political bias. I wonder what Dr Weaver's opinion is today of the climate models from 20years ago ? 20 years ago he would've most likely agreed that the summer arctic sea ice would be gone by now . It will be interesting to bump this thread in 20 years time to see if the climate's warming or cooling , see which scientists got it right .
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Trying to infer that the Ball case or the Ridd wrongful dismissal case validates their science is a disingenuous tactic and incorrect.The courts where never looking at the validity of the science nor are they qualified to do so.That the province of peer review.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Antichrist, glad to hear it 😁 I've been told at work I'm that person who says the hard things that need to be said. I wasn't sure if that was a back handed compliment ha ha ha. IMO intelligence is about your capacity to be wrong rather than right, whatever your conclusions. Ah court documents. Can't say I have the brain for them. Though I'm with Quiet1 on peer review.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Years ago Mann asked for an adjournment , Ball agreed as long as he supplied the the computer codes for the graph , Mann failed to do that . Why did Mann not produce the workings of the graph with peer reviewed evidence to back his methodology ? then he could easily have won the deformation case years ago. Mann is not finished in court ,he's looking at an appeal , also there is another deformation case he started against National Review. If it can be proven that Mann knew his graph was wrong because of intensionally missing out the Middle Age warm period etc and the IPCC were aware of that ,as well as people like Al Gore who has made millions . The implications are huge .
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
google John Ioannidis "Why most published research findings are wrong" . I just watched this . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nETKLfJyY9E&t=719s all about the issue with peer review . If it gets boring just scan through to the pictures of aircraft and the affects of peer review . quite funny . Nightingale is that a compliment that I can admit when I'm wrong ?
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I never paid any attention to him. The first record i bought when i was 14 was Live After Death by Iron Maiden my parents confiscated it because they thought it was satanic. This was because Tipper Gore and the PMRC were running around trying to attribute things like an increase in rape and teen suicides to rock and metal music.Check out the PMRC Senate Hearings where she testifies to her husband.Dee Snider gives them both a good tickle and Frank Zappa and John Denver are brilliant it's very entertaining. It's the same fear mongering chicken little MO Al repeats with climate change.Why anyone would give any credence to a Politician/ Businessman /Christian is beyond me.What about the cases against Exxon based on their own internal documents and the numerous other suits going on in America.Where do they fit in to your conspiracy theories Salubrious1?One mans graph is not the entirety of climate science.What about Exxon's 1982 graph? Nightingale8 I agree legalese does my head in too.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
If there's an asteroid per reviewed science says is on a trajectory to hit earth are you going to ignore it and do nothing?If not peer review them what?
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Quiet1 what Peter Rid is pushing for , policy decisions not made from unreplicated theory but observed outcome and replication . That is how the engineering industry works . Friends own a tour business and were affected by the overblown reporting on the health of the reef. I agree about politicians , religious leaders and business and always look to who is pushing what agenda and why, it would be nice for politicians to have to have some form of public integrity test every term . Also for sensationalist documentaries to be accountable for misinformation . off topic but I also believe religious institutions should pay tax if they make profits and the accounts should be in the public domain for open scrutiny . There are numerous twisted facts and lies in "The Cove" . (I've been to Taiji during the killing season) . The 4corners show on CSG was also full of miss information . (I was working in Tara when it aired) There is nothing I can do about an asteroid hitting earth , I don't worry about things I can't change . According to John Ioannidis 50% of peer review is wrong . Quiet 1 ,what are your plans for the asteroid ?
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I was tired.Given John Ioannidis field of expertise I should have made an equivalent medical prognosis one.Ah well.Perhaps you should read this Salubrious1.https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1002576Its titled. All science should inform policy and regulation. By John IoannidisA couple of quotes from it."Many fields lack the high reproducibility standards that are already used in fields such as air pollution and climate change." "It is a scandal that the response of governments to climate change and pollution has not been more decisive."
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
It's funny in a way that a climate scientist is where I got the info on John Ioannidis (who he did state was a CO2 believer) .Peter Rid believes there is not enough replication in his field . How many of the models from 20 years ago that have been used for policy or politics and have had major impacts on everyday peoples lives have proved to have had serious errors. In my view this paragraph contradicts itself from that journal . "A new standard currently proposed for the Environmental Protection Agency [7] aims to ban the use of scientific studies for regulatory purposes unless all their raw data are widely available in public and can be reproduced. If the proposed rule is approved, science will be practically eliminated from all decision-making processes. Regulation would then depend uniquely on opinion and whim." I garnered off the Jennifer Marohasy web page that BOM are not very helpful on giving out requested data, why is that. If there is nothing to hide ,why make it difficult for critics to check the data ? One of NASA's top climate scientists(James Hanson) predicted in 1986 that by 2001 we would have the highest global temperatures in 100,000 years. He was a colleague of Gore . With a senior figure in an organisation putting out over blown warnings how much value/trust can you put in their data put out to the public . a bit more reading .http://www.drroyspencer.com/2009/01/another-nasa-defection-to-the-skeptics-camp/
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Ridd is being promoted by the IPA (Institute of Public Affairs) A right wing think tank that also employs Jennifer Marohasy. An institute thats been and being funded by ExxonMobil,Philip Morris,BHP,Caltex,Shell and Gina Rinehart who is a life member to name a few. Marohasy aslo makes presentations for Heartland another right wing think tank,google Heartland 2012 document incident. As for Roy Spencer who says he "has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil ." but was director of George C. Marshall Institute which receives funding from guess who Exxon-Mobil among others.He's also a member of the board of advisors of the Cornwall Alliance and is a signatory to their statement "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming" which says things like"We believe Earth and its ecosystems – created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence – are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory. Earth’s climate system is no exception."So Salubrios1 in your opinion what motivates these fossil fuel giants to fund these climate deniers you are so fond of citing.Is it an altruistic concern for the welfare of science or a tactic to forestall regulations that would harm their profits.After all a few million here and there to protect multi billion profits makes good business sense.Do you think they are genuinely doing the right thing?
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Salubrious, a backhanded compliment at a stretch, depending on how you interpret your 'capacity' 😜 the irony of Peter Ridd is that he is apparently critiquing science by saying scientific critique (peer review) sucks and we should take his claims such as "half of scientific studies are wrong" as truth. According to who? Peter Ridd. The argument is circular at best. I'll add though that he missed one problem of peer review - sometimes it's actually the 'peer' whose arguments suck. (My apologies a scan through the video showed nothing of aircrafts, I only watched the first and last few minutes).
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
The first half of aircraft thing he was misrepresenting peer review the second half was mocking it.The need to mock is always a giveaway as I said much earlier good scientists don't need to mock.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Quiet1 , Is capitalism your main concern or the environment ? You would hardly expect the Socialist Alliance to fund any research into climate change caused by anything other than CO2 . Have you considered how much alarmist social media and main stream media is funded/driven by the renewable energy industry and the vegan food industry ? So where else are scientists who believe it's a natural cycle supposed to get funding .If they try at a university, they will be sacked (Rid ,Carter)or silenced . But more importantly. Is what they say a more plausible theory of climate change ? Which I now believe. A believer who has lost their faith in the CO2 religion . Also if CO2 doesn't cause climate change , where is the danger from fossil fuels? Should those companies not have a voice to defend themselves,?What about all the people that now have lost jobs and struggle with power bills ? What caused the change in climate back in the roman times ? It's well recorded , remember Hannibel crossing the Alps with elephants . It was believed to be warmer then than it is now . Yet the alarmists say we are doomed in 12 years ? Did CO2 cause that change, I doubt it ,so what did? Nero burning Rome maybe . Do you really believe the IPCC should not be scrutinised ? That we should just believe blindly what they say . A quote from Bob Carter , also sacked for speaking out . "Trust authority less and our own brains more" . Nightingale , maybe if you watched the whole talk you may have had your views challenged the aircraft part was key and funny. Mine was, I believed farming was damaging the Outer Reef . I was wrong again . But I guess you may believe a 16 year old child has more knowledge that a Scientist with a life times experience working on the reef,so it was not worth watching. Here are the records for over 100 years of sea level in Sydney harbour, maybe you could explain the accelerated sea level threat again ? http://www.bom.gov.au/ntc/IDO70000/IDO70000_60370_SLD.shtml Something that historical trends in climate change point to ,is a cooling dryer period , which is worse than rising sea level scares because it means less convection so less rain fall globally , so drought and famine are bigger threats particularly to third world countries.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
And are you trying to imply I'm a socialist so you can use the label and denounce tactic on me Salubrious1. It won't work. As I said earlier"Tying whether or not we accept climate science to our political preferences is not a good idea.".I'm trying to find info on the renewable energy industry and the vegan food industry funding main stream media. Not having much success, can you point me to some of your sources please. You can keep your beliefs.Something else I said earlier"science transcends belief". There is growing body of evidence that Exxon and others have deliberately promoted the idea that the science is uncertain or disputed against the findings of their own research.Those companies have billions of dollars to make their voices heard which they did with advertising that's made to look reporting.They also employed their own scientists until they started telling them things they didn't want to hear.You have exemplified this tactic very well Salubrious1. I'd say the IPCC is very well scrutinized from all directions.The alarmists are not saying we are doomed or the world will end in 12 years they are saying we have 12 years to take more decisive action.Another misrepresentation. Vegan food industry propaganda LOL
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
I've got the attention span of a puppy. And I'm lazy. I still count as a 'millennial' after all...albeit a really old one 😜, Besides, I'm only here for the entertainment to see if anyone can out logic me ha ha. Happy of course to be directed to where in the video this aircraft example is. In general though misinformed mockery gets boring so step it up Salubrious! Contrary to stereotype I've not read nor seen any of Greta's talks. None of it is new to me so it wasn't worth getting into. I think what she stands for is great nonetheless. As for the BOM graph for Sydney Harbour, if you look at the scale (Y axis) that's measuring tide variability in metres. Sea level rise has been widely documented in millimetres so the sea level rise we are talking about wouldn't be captured in that graph.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
I came across the following quote while researching something for my TAFE course. It's a truism that applies to this subject as well as any. It is easier than ever before for vested interests to spread disinformation on vital matters of public interest. If you want to know what's really going you need to hear from the experts willing to drill down to the truth.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
I'll add that I was referring to Peter Ridd on the misinformed mockery. I haven't been explicit that I have respect for anyone who values the environment and takes measures to minimise their impact, whether it be reducing plastic/other contaminants or preserving our biodiversity, etc. My guess is that we'll run out of water and some idiot with nuclear capacity will start a war. I'm less concerned about sea level rise per se, it was just the first concrete thing that came to mind. As you've pointed out Salubrious, we should be more concerned about water (and therefore famine etc)... once the global ocean conveyor belt breaks down I'd hope my bunker was ready. Got any building skills?
-
RHP User
5 years ago
An American railway magnate once said something about loving the working class because you can always buy one half to murder the other half. I think that is what we are looking at here. I believe the science, I think Extinction Rebellion has massively overstated the timeframe but then here I am hiding in the (solar powered) air con in a Perth pre Xmas heat wave. What we’re fighting is the inertia of a planet, big job, my money is now on survival rather than avoidance.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
I replied earlier today but have no idea where it's gone . If it doesn't appear tomorrow I'll repost it . In the interim , Quiet1 , genuinely interested if you put Social rights ahead of the enviroment. I personally have mixed feeling , google Masai Mara conflict . is it right to put lions and elephants ahead of local tribes people who have lost land due to urban sprawl and over population ? Research the funding for "Game Changers" . The director also directed "The Cove" which has a lot of miss information in it as well . Nightingale Logic says to me that if Greta was sailing down the East Coast of Australia ,the navigator wouldn't be relying on a peer reviewed scientific paper on Sea level rise as evidence that the sea has risen enough for the yacht to cross a reef. They would consult the Australian height datum. By the way that tide chart mean reading goes to 3 decimal points . Education's not like it was in my day . 20.30 into the video clip on Ridd. If you have a logical mind ,research the predictions from the last 30 years , 20 years etc .you will find that concrete is not so concrete. Anyone heading to the ski fields ? Summer Snow Skiing in Australia might be a hard one for the Alarmists to explain.
-
Single_Guy4U
5 years ago
Green peace activist in New Plymouth protesting for a few days now to stop a company doing off shore oil drilling. a lot of them had plastic / vinyl umbrellas to keep the sun off, plastic shoes and plastic / fluro jackets and signs. Maybe I am misinformed on how plastic is made. ???
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Why do i need to preference one over the other. Other than to provide you with a reason to label me.Your cucurbitaceaeophobia is getting the better of you Salubrious1.Even if vegan food industry propaganda exists how does something that will result in better general health compare to the fossil fuel industry propaganda that wants to keep polluting to maintain profits.Its the disproportionately loud voice the fossil fuel industry has in this country's parliament that necessitates the protests.(this is an observation and should not be construed as support for their tactics)I would suggest giving consideration to why your missing post didn't get past the moderators before re-posting.Ah the hammer of logic, i swing it with brutal force.And i wield Occam,s Razor like a homicidal maniac.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Ha ha I hadn't realised you wanted me to interpet tabulated raw data. Not that eyeballing a graph is much of an improvement, it's just less like trying to see through The Matrix. Honestly I'm not sure what you want me to see. Not even trying to be cheeky. In any case, global sea level rise and global surface level rise are averages. As I said earlier, no-one is suggesting that changes in sea level will be uniform in all coastal areas. The same goes for surface level temperatures. Climate is not the same thing as weather, a common misconception.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Salubrious, what a bizzare description of peer review! Especially coming from a professor of physics, honestly it's embarassing. Technology is the practical application of science - not to be confused or used interchangeably. Using Ridd's example, a scientific paper would investigate the physical properties of a metal and the methods used to investigate this would be scrutinised in peer review. Whether that metal could be used in a Rolls Royce engine would require the testing of various versions of the engine, this fact not at all in conflict with the process of peer review. I'm surprised you haven't thought to the purpose of Ridd's talk. It's clearly not aimed at a scientific audience. Though thank you for the link, it's interesting to see what's outside of my echochamber even if disturbing.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
I asked the question because this is a debate about the environment but you have constantly lambasted me for getting any information from right biased media sources and have attacked industry many times . The fact that any of that information may be correct seems to be irrelevant . I've witnessed some people who are so far to the left that they have blocked environmental help from industry and have also demonised centre right individuals . How does that work for the environment ? I think Vegans or Socialists are noble people for just wanting a better world .I do have a thing against extremists . whether vegan , left wing, right wing or religious zealots . all nutters in my opinion . You ridiculed my suggestion about propaganda in the vegan food industry. When I give you an recent prime example you try to divert the topic ,back to fossil fuels which I guess is reasonable but why not admit that there are others other than the fossil fuel companies that use propaganda to sell their products and don't care for the health over profits either. People would be staggered if they knew how much it costs the fossil fuel industry in Australia to minimise damage to the environment . Yes they have a very strong lobby group in parliament , most likely proportional to the percentage of GDP it generates . I do believe they need regulation and the Greens to keep them in check . As for a strict vegan diet being healthy, there is more than enough evidence to say it's not . A baby died not that long ago in Australia because the parents put it on a vegan diet . A number of people I worked with were well meaning but were totally irrational . Being irrational ,depression and paranoia are classic symptoms of not getting the right balance in diet. The KISS principal has always worked for me . Quiet 1, I'm sure Nightingale is bored of the run away sea level rise . Pick another extremist warning and lets debate that .
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale , why is it disturbing to push for replication of theory before it is made into a policy that affects multitudes of people ? Yes I'd say you are correct Ridd keeps things simplified so everyone can follow his argument . What is wrong with that ?
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Quiet1: champion of Earth and all her creatures, half Thor half ninja. I believe your profile needs an update.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
"Keep It Simple, not Stupid" is a better principle to live by. I have a hard time believing that a professor of physics does not know the difference between technology and science. The fact that he is deliberately misleading audiences who clearly don't have a background in science is disturbing. Results haven't been replicated... according to who? Peter Ridd.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
depending on your bias will govern how you interpret a talk, or any form of media . What I took from that talk was environmental policy on the reef needs to be based on proven science ,not theory . According to Ridd this has not been the case in the past and there must be truth to his argument because a government inquiry has approved of actions stop this happening . Just about every tide gauge around the globe has recorded an average of approx 1.5mm rise /year since accurate records started . Yes some go up , some stay the same , some drop . depending on major weather events and ocean currents . revisiting UN scrutiny . I travelled with a journalist a few years ago though Africa , he was scathing of the UN's and Usaid's handling of Haiti . They brought in free food after an earthquake and sent the local farmers broke, Haiti needed housing ,not food ,or cholera. Look who was the UN envoy to Haiti at the time and do a little reading about what has happened there . Also Oxfam .
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
Are you saying that representation in parliament should proportional to financial worth?Could you be more specific about which scrutiny of the IPCC best demonstrates the lack of scrutiny of the IPCC. I'm not going pick another "extremist" warning as they are generally misrepresented and over exaggerated in a veganism kills baby's kind of way. Pointing out that your all information is from right leaning sources is not constantly lambasting just a fair observation. Nor have I attacked industry just made observations about their behavior. Whilst I didn't directly answer your question as it was just an attempt to paint me into an ideological corner at least i had the courtesy to address it. Unlike my question to you about the motivation behind funding of groups like the IPA (institute of public affairs) .So i'll expand upon it.In 1996 the IPA(receiving funding at the time from British American Tobacco) commissioned John LuiK to author a report challenging the dangers of passive smoking which he described as “a dangerous mix of science and propaganda” Saying on Today Tonight "What I object to is people claiming that it [second-hand smoke] kills people. It’s this use of science to further a politicised end, which I think is really unfortunate”. Some of you may recall the debate at the time.In the New York vs Exxon case Exxon hired Ted Wells who also defended the tobacco giants in the class action against them .Do these parallels not concern you Salubrious1?
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
You and yours are welcome in my bunker anytime. I'm an old school jack of all and a tinker. I enjoy making things from whats lying around and fixing things.To me it's a form of creativity.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
The lack of courtesy comment may have been unfair.I apologize Salubrious1.
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Hi all, First i'll say great topic to open up for comment sweetpussy. I was rather suprised to see it raised here but after reading the comments i am glad you did.Second what I have typed below is going to offend some people. I have strong views on subjects like this one - especially subjects where people ignore/disagreee/"believe" in the incorrect side, as if their "disagreement/belief" is going to change the actual truth/reality of the situation. Now to get down to it - I do agree that protesting (within just/moral laws of society) is a positive process the public can use when their voice is being ignored/disregarded and also agree that the point of a protest is to be disruptive so as to obtain attention. The idea that a protest shouldn't be inconvenience others is absurd - its literally one of the key outcomes to a sucessfull protest and the voice being heard. The only time i would disagree is when the subject of the protest is false/incorrect. For example, if the general public started protesting because they believe the only liqud humans can drink to remain alive is engine oil and therefore all water should be banned/destroyed. than i have a problem with the protest and it should be stopped. This is due to the protest is aganist our best interest and will negatively impact human existentance from progressing and surviving. These people that continue to hold us all back and threaten our very continuaiton as a species deserve no voice. These people I will clarify as: People who "believe" that mankind isn't negatively impacting our environment ("climate change deniers") - they are either the ignorant sheep following or the greedy & corrupt individuals, companies and/or governments/politicians that are misleading the sheep to ensure their own wealth/power is maintained. They have known about renewable energy for decades & decades and intentionally stiflefed development to ensure their own interests were improved.People who "believe" in creationism - YOU ARE WRONG - deal with it and move on Judiasm/Christian-Catholisim/Islam/Morman are all the same cut and made up by man to control the public. The sooner we as a soceity rid our selves of the posion that is religion and the sometimes fanactical belief in something that LITERALLY DID NOT happen the better off we will be. The reason I have mentioned the religious belivers is the two usually go hand in hand - majority of climate change deniers have religious belief, not nesessarly fully practicing but are believers. Are we having a negative impact to our environment through our energy resources - ABSOLUTELY it is undeniable and solutions need to be researched and developed for efficent renewable energy otheriwse our existence is doomed. Is this impact dramaticly changing our climate - it is contributing but not the only factor. For example roughly every 400,000 thousands years the earths cycles through climate changes due to the gravitional effects of venus and jupiter varying our orbit of the sun. Which depending on the cycle will either increase temperatures causing droughts, dried lakes, raising sea levels or decrease temperatures bring on new ice ages. Our biggest problem is the fact that the accumulation wealth and power is the current driving force of our societies and until this changes we are screwed. Unless we can either wake the sheep up from their blind beliefs or soceity can stop thinking that capitalism works we may not survive. Venus once had water once but as it was to close to the sun it evaporated into its atmosphere cause a greenhouse affect that dramatically increase the temperateure of the planet. While we are not as clsoe to the sun we are doing the job for it by buring our resourse and releasing their gases into the atomsphere and eventually just like venus we will create a greenhouse affect that we can reverse. WAKE SHEEP WAKE UP!!!
-
RHP User
5 years ago
last sentence grrr
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Salubrious, are you referring to a senate enquiry into the 444 million dollar grant that was given by the Liberals to the Great Barrier Reef Foundation last year? A tender that had no competitive process, no specific targets, limited accountability and oversight, to a charity that consisted of a board which had members with links to the fossil fuel industry, only 6 full time staff, and given in private by 4 members of parliament? If so I think it's much more an issue of political process rather than with the scientific community. Laterwere, insulting others hardly gets you anywhere. Especially when your only reasoning is "don't be wrong". Quiet1, I'd offer to bring my cooking skills but that perhaps would be it's own disaster 😁
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
No Apology needed Quiet1 I would like to believe that we have all been respectful in this debate. I didn't wish to paint you into an ideological corner, sorry if it came across that way . I had another reply disappear and I think I know where I'm going wrong , it's nothing to do with this debate at all . Yes I get where you are coming from with the right wing think tanks and lobbying in the courts . I think the side with the better legal team or contacts prevails too often which is sad . On the flip side does it not concern you that Kofi Annan was cleared in the oil for food saga . Really, he didn't know his son ,or his 2 IC had connections with Cotecna ? Strong also received a cheque for 1 million from a Korean fixer . Strong's excuse for the check was it was for investing in his son's oil company . Then he moved to China . Do you not smell a rat ? That is all 100% fact , not conjecture . Why would a person who invested so much of their time to the IPCC have financial interests still in Oil ? Also there is an alleged connection with Volcker and Strong through Wolfensohn from the World Bank . This is just as muddy as what Exxon's scientists knew . Big money mates club . https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/mar/30/ewenmacaskill It surprises some that I don't believe Adani (The catalyst for ER) should go ahead , Australia would be better off if the money was spent on water pipe lines and irrigation from FNQ and the Argyle Dam to the start of the Murray Darling . It would give the jobs needed , give the farmers and ecosystems the water they need . We need more water for more farming to feed more mouths . The water would only need to flow in the wet season . My construction skills aren't trade qualified but still pretty handy . My bunker would have a solar desalinator and a way to keep the drinks cold . Nightingale 8, Quiet 1 you would be more than welcome to drop in .
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Wolfensohn now is on an advisory council of a Chinese bank . There is that China connection again.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale8 I don't know . That was disgusting , again big money players helping each other out with tax payers money . My take on what Ridd claimed was more aimed at getting the science right before policy is put in place that affects the farmers in N QLD . That is the area he has been working . Farming is risky business and if a policy based on flawed science comes in that costs a farmer a fortune it may well bankrupt them . Not about Ridd or the reef ,just a point that the Greens can get it wrong ,badly . This show should be re broadcast . it gets more interesting 35minutes in . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-svMnOzul04&t=10s This is a long read but it gives first hand account of what has happened to get to the issues at the moment . PDF 336 KB - Parliament of Australiahttps://www.aph.gov.au › DocumentStore 2 years ago a farmer lost a court case over the size of a fire break on their land . millions of dollars in legal fees . This is an area the Green policy has got it wrong .
-
Single_Guy4U
5 years ago
WAKE SHEEP WAKE UP Haha, sorry, could not help myself.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
Half my friends at least started out voting to the right (myself included, embarassingly) on account of our family upbringings and limited knowledge of the political system. I'm not generalizing that to all people who vote to the right though I think it's fair generalisation to say that on both ends of the spectrum that a good proportion vote on the basis of slogans and myth, often against their own interests or values. The truth is more interesting than fiction. Unfortunately it's a truism that the more you know about an area (eg politics), the more interesting that topic becomes. If nobody taught you anything then the world is a boring place of cat memes and clearance sales. It's not your fault but it also is, wilful ignorance is a dangerous thing. This is perhaps my rambling way to say that I'm less interested in what political party you support and much more about your reasoning as to why. To me that's the marker of the value of a person's opinion. I also have no idea what Indigenous knowledge on backburning has to do with Greens policy. I have been living under a rock for most of the past three years, admittedly.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
The Peer Review dot point at 1min in the Ridd video."Quick check by maybe a couple of "peers". Might take a few hours.""Peers never repeat the experiment.""Peers never have time to do thorough check.""Peers might be your friends.""The public is completely unaware how pathetic is the peer review process.""Science institutions have conned the public.""Peer review makes group-think inevitable." This can only be taken as an intentional lie.It's literally in the name.As I stated earlier peer review means every scientist in the field try to break the description if it does not break it has withstood peer review.This is an open ended process that does not end.Someone with a Phd knows this.Only a non-scientist would accept this list. This list completely destroys Peter Ridd's credibility. It is a deliberate nefarious deception.
-
TheQuiet1
5 years ago
I put more stock in gross human greed and stupidity than conspiracy.But if I'm presented with conspiracy A.Generally altruistic scientists have deliberately altered their findings for funding or because they aren't objective enough to see past "group think" in their tens of thousands or more.(and no one has spilled the beans) Institutes like NASA an BoM have deliberately manipulated of hidden data. In a giant Marxist conspiracy to bring down industry and redistribute wealth. Or conspiracy B.Fossil fuel companies have promoted a tiny minority of bitter scientists who are attacking science itself to forward the idea that the science is disputed or uncertain and cherry picking data.That they have used advertising to promote this contrived uncertainty (of which there is proof)With the objective of delaying regulation (something they have achieved) Even Occam's blunt butter knife can sort that one out.I'm sure Nightingale8 stated earlier something to the effect of power corrupts.The fact that the UN and IPCC may be corrupt does not corrupt the science, science doesn't work like that.The fact that capitalists will rort and corrupt any carbon trading scheme does not invalidate the science.Clive Plimer is filed under fiction.Still no comment on the parallels with the tobacco industry's attempt to discredit the science behind passive smoking given how many of the same institutions are involved Salubrious1.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale the answer to your question about back burning and Greens policy is in the first 3 short pages of the letter to Canberra by Tom Marland . I put a link to that letter in that post as first hand evidence . Quiet1 I did address your question on the parallels with the tobacco industry , i.e those with the money and the legal system . and it being sad . And yes I'm concerned . you haven't answered the question about being concerned about the integrity of the upper end of the UN with the information I gave . This is science .https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1MPQYN6fnQ This is Politics . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kaf6SAW66cI&t=900s why in the second clip, 1 minute in does the graph not show the Medieval warm period and the mini ice age in context to the current temperatures . It is the same scientist but the talk is very different . Why ?
-
yankmychain56
5 years ago
It has been very subtle, because according to global warming high-priest Al Gore, most coastal cities were already supposed to be underwater by now, half the population dead or displaced, and polar bears ravaging the streets in search of fat people who can't run fast.NOW, it has ever so slowly been changed to 'climate change', and we will all be dead in 12 years....UNLESS everyone pitches in for that carbon tax, and the day is saved.This is nothing more than chicken-little the sky is falling, cry wolf alarmism. Most of us in the 'older crowd' are still alive from the 'we-are-all-going-to-die-from-over-population-and-pollution' scare, not to mention being nuclear bombed in to extinction, THAT was the only REAL threat.All this is doing is indoctrinating an entire generation to be on anti-psychotic medication before they are 15, because they are being told none of them will live to be 20. This is nothing more than hype and fear mongering to push a political agenda.Is there 'climate change'?YES, but it has been going on since year one.climate change killed the dinosaurs, and over 90% of ALL life on the planet has died off from their environment changing.Antarctica used to be a rain forest, now it is under a mile of ice.They are finding numerous ancient human settlements that are under 500 feet of water.All we can do is ADAPT to the changing climate. the 'man made' part of it might have sped the process up by 100 years.'Activism' does nothing but piss people off. this 'climate strike' a while back would not have happened if all those kids had to go out on their Saturday off from school to pick up garbage or plant a tree (like I did when I was a kid), nobody would have showed up.Actually DOING something on a personal level to 'do your part' will help.Everyone else who drives their SUV three blocks for their morning Latte, and sit and bitch about coal and fossil fuels need to shut up and re-think their role in life on planet earth.Can we do more to be 'better stewards of the earth'?YES.but screaming about coal and fossil fuels does nothing. everything you see and touch (including sexual stimulation devices), was made using fossil fuels. God forbid you run out of batteries.We can make things more energy efficient, but unless you want to go back to using what we used BEFORE fossil fuels (WHALE OIL, and that is a 'renewable resource'), we are stuck with what we have until we start mining the asteroid belt.Solar and wind are a joke unless you have it for personal use and plan to live without a washing machine, air conditioner, refrigerator, and still go without any power for a couple hours every day until your batteries recharge.The only REAL 'solution' to our 'energy problem' is nuclear power, unlimited, clean energy to power and entire region for years without the need to refuel, but that is just me.
-
nightingale8
5 years ago
I think you might have been overly optimistic to think a PDF letter to the government would upload to RHP forums 😉 a quick Google of Tom Marland.. He's an agribusiness lawyer. He argues that Australia needs cattle and cleared land because it's less likely to burn in fires and therefore protects national forests....really? The backburning strategies he's proposing don't necessarily match up to the same practices the indigenous park ranger was talking about. In fact the park ranger was saying those very practices compete with his own. Last I remembered Greens are not running QLD state government.
-
Salubrious1
5 years ago
Nightingale I presumed you would've just copied and pasted the link I posted . The Greens have had a lot of control of the Labour Party , Labour need the Greens to get numbers most of the time . So the Greens have a big bargaining chip . That letter explains where the policy came from to restrict access to the crown land beside his farm . It's a fact for a long time that land has slowly been closed off to the public . The belief was that it would revert back to natural and help endangered animals . So farmers weren't allowed access , all forms of logging stopped . 4WD tracks blocked of and not maintained , fire breaks closed up etc. Sounds good for nature, most were for it in the beginning . The only thing missing, the indigenous tribes that used fire as a form of hunting and had worked out a way to flush out the animals without destroying the forests ,hence early forestry fire management . After the Victorian bushfires there was an inquiry . Ground litter build up was the main cause , so back burning , cool burning ,hazard reduction burns etc were then recommended . Because of the vast areas involved and limited times when safe burns can be done and the limited resources of Parks and Wildlife plus a lot of bureaucracy it's been to little to late . One retired CSIRO bushfire expert who was involved in the inquiry stated that it would take over 10 years of continuous burning to reduce the risk across Australia . Victoria now allows farmers to graze cattle in National Parts again . Don't get me wrong ,I'm not totally anti the Greens Party , They need to be there to keep industry honest . But they don't always get it right . Getting rid of the Brumbies on Frazier Island was another fuck up .
-
truepassion
5 years ago
Here's a bit of info on indigenous land management using fire. https://volunteerfirefighters.org.au/victor-steffensen-pretty-simple-really I've been involved in one of these burns and know it works. It was in a location that had not been burnt for about 20 years due to the incompetence of current practices along with lack of funding. Due to regular burning having been stopped, this area had become a very unhealthy version of it's former self, with just a handful of plant species left. Mostly large trees, with an under story comprised of just a handful of struggling shrubs due to being chocked by tall, thick, dried out grasses and all of it covered in a thick layer of leaf litter. Quite unsuitable for most wildlife but perfectly designed to become a blazing inferno. This is what happens when fire management perfected over thousands of years is suddenly stopped. It's amazes people to see a cool fire that is going slowly DOWN hill, whilst allowing insects, birds and other wildlife to escape easily. The tree canopy is NEVER burnt. Complete opposite to how we currently do things. After the burn, the increase in diversity of plant species is huge, thus attracting all the insects, birds and animals that could no longer survive in what had a kind of neglected wasteland of sorts. It all makes perfect sense. I wish everyone could see it first hand so they would understand. As for the Greens, they are not in Government, so of course blaming them for the disastrous situation we are currently in is total BS. If they were however, there would be proper regular fire management going on, as one of their policies is "Bush fire risk management should be informed by the knowledge of Indigenous Australians." Unfortunately here in Australia, most people seem to choose ignorance as being some sort of blissful Nirvana, free of self responsibility. :-) Sadly this country is burning in a living hell of it's own recently very misguided and uninformed creation.
-
yankmychain56
5 years ago
for those who haven't read my profile, I am from the states, and we have massive forest fires on the west coast, most of which is from lightning strikes and the Santa Anna winds, which have been there forever. If you look at the terrain, it is perfect for whipping up a firestorm. While much of this is natural, the pyromaniacs who deliberately set fires to watch it burn should as a part of their PRISON SENTENCE, be sent out for 12 hours a day under police guard (CHAIN GANG), to clean up the destruction, clear burnt brush, wash firetrucks, and clean the mud off the firefighters boots.Part of the problem there is while you can build in these areas, they WILL NOT allow any type of brush clearing or clearing trees more than a certain distance from houses, and ends ups with houses destroyed and lives ruined.There needs to be proper brush clearing and back-burning, not nutcase environmental knee jerk reactions.I spent nine years in Germany, and while the weather would not allow much in the way of an out of control forest fire, Germany is heavily forested, but they 'manicure' most if their forests to avoid anything like this happening.only the ancient 'Hansel and Gretel' forests are left alone.
-
SSExplorer
5 years ago
On the topic of annoying protestors, this article sums it up pretty well. Legislating to Get rid of a few annoying hippies has much more dire consequences. We all need to understand fully what this article touches on quite well: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/09/australia-needs-to-challenge-authority-if-were-going-to-confront-water-fire-and-climate-crises?CMP=share_btn_fb As for this fire catastrophe, just like everything else, we are losing our common sense and common goals and common decency. We are losing the whole damn vibe of “common”. From politician down to factory worker all we care about is ourselves and will step on anyone to get a rung up the ladder. I’ve heard many ideas from many generations over these fires, here’s a few: - wilderness areas legislated where no vehicular access allowed therefore no access to fight fires - National parks spend millions repairing fire trails destroyed by weekend warriors. In my childhood when we went 4wding the whole aim was to tread lightly and dear old dad (a farm boy) would try and improvement the tracks where he could. These days the average 4WD moron tries to chew up the track so it’s more challenging the next time they tackle it - it’s more convenient for them to do this so they don’t have to travel further for a thrill. - proper backburning at the right time would likely be met with greenie resistance but also would be loopholed for the financial benefit of the richer farmers or developers
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'SSExplorer' On the topic of annoying protestors, this article sums it up pretty well. Legislating to Get rid of a few annoying hippies has much more dire consequences. We all need to understand fully what this article touches on quite well: Australians like to think they're anti-authoritarian, when on the whole they are anything but. It's interesting to think about the reasons why that may be (I think there are quite a few reasons, personally).I wonder how many Australians know that based on the criteria considered essential in a democratic country, our democracy has recently been downgraded from 'open' to 'narrow' due to legislative and other actions by our governments since 9/11 and particularly escalating in recent years. If we keep heading down this path we will reach a point sooner rather than later where we are not considered a democracy any longer. Unfortunately, I think it would likely take something really catastrophic to get the majority of Australians to realise and care about the direction the country is heading.
-
cat_n_the_hatter
5 years ago
Governments, when it comes to their vital interest, employ people to spread doubt into scientific research (especially on the Internet) and to relate it to conspiracy theories.(Ms)
-
usrightnow_Again
5 years ago
Kind of wish I had posted a comment on this thread when there were just 12 responses, however, I got busy with other stuff we were busy with. Over time, think I've read most of the comments, although, I can't remember all that was said. Nor can I remember all the coherent thoughts I had at the time. . I remember someone on that first couple of pages, although I couldn't find it just now, saying that the actions of the protesters were unlikely to work, yet they agreed with the action they were taking. That strikes me, as kind of a strange position to hold. Surely, you want action you take, in the hope of elicitng a particular response, to be an effective way of achieving those goals? Why do it, if you think it won't work? And surely the best way to encourage people to understand your point of view and become motivated to take action, in the way you wish they would, is by understanding those who think differently. Otherwise, you're just going to run up against a brick wall with a feather. . A significant part of the problem, is China and India both believing they should have the benefit of cheap energy sources for their industrialisation, just as Europe, North America and Australia have benifitted from in the past. That process has been at an extraordinary rate over the last, say three or four decades and on an incredible scale, particularly in China. And although China are making inroads into the use of technology and forms of energy production that are less damaging to the environment, coal remains a major part of their energy supply chain. Quite how you get around this, I'm not sure. Should there be some form of compensation or assistance for both countries transitioning more quickly to renewable energy production? . Of course, even countries we think of at the forefront of so called, green energy options, like The Netherlands, still only derive part of their power needs from sources like wind. Some other energy is sourced from the European grid in these countries and that is derived from various energy production types. The intermittent nature of some renewables is also a problem. Certainly, power storage, is part of the solution. . Another factor, frequently cited here in Australia, is the employment in coal mining and it's use in energy production, and the income derived from coal export. Note where we send that exported coal. In the past, 1950's, for instance, Autralia rode on the sheeps back. And we did well from that. Likewise, all types of employment, business and industry has existed in the past that either doesn't now or is greatly reduced in it's significance. Even Tasmanian dried milk products are now largely sourced overseas. During the downturn in each of those businesses and areas of industry and agriculture, there were hard times for those involved. They were forced to transition to other forms of employment and innovation. Such has been the way of the world for a long time. I've worked myself in areas where we were all retrenched and the business outsourced and product imported. Again, such is life. Understanding that and adapting to change, are key. . That kind of brings me to another point, the wish to box a moment in time and hold on to it, preserve and protect it, is an odd concept. Life changes, the earth changes and a degree of ability to adapt is important. We also need to be mindful of a much broader picture than many have in their field of vision. Coral records from The Great Barrier Reef show there was a 22 year drought in the late 1600's, for instance. Most certainly, human/modern human activities have impacted relatively recent (last 80years) climate changes. The rate of change, predicted in the late '90's, early 2000's, was over-reach, and undoubtedly got many offside. People do respond better when All the evidence is in line with predictions. That said, climate drivers and indeed, weather that results from them, are still areas we are learning about and there should be much more funding into understanding these. Including things like solar flares, tidal patterns, the impact of the reduced hole above Australia and the Southern Ocean in the ozone layer, and many other areas. Being prepared to alter your opinion, and adapt, is important. Comprimise may set a path, that leads to a more positive outcome than trench warfare. . Ah, look, I've forgotten anything else i thought of as I read through the thread, since it was first posted, this is all I can think of this morning. Apologies for the length, some things require it. Spelling too, as spellcheck is turned off. As always, this is just my 1c piece worth. This one I collected at The Royal Easter Show in Sydney, as a young boy, or maybe the year before, while playing a board game. I've kept it and it still has currency. Always think beyond yourself, keep an open mind, and stay the course. . Mr. urn. .
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Quoting 'cat_n_the_hatter' Governments, when it comes to their vital interest, employ people to spread doubt into scientific research (especially on the Internet) and to relate it to conspiracy theories.(Ms) That sounds like a conspiracy theory to me. Kidding of course, I don't doubt it.
-
cat_n_the_hatter
5 years ago
, it looks like it.When it comes to politics, right promises nothing but glory of the past. Left promises brightness of the future, so it’s doomed to disappoint. Only action counts. (Ms)
-
cat_n_the_hatter
5 years ago
Unfortunately, here in Australia, most people seem to choose blissful ignorance as a highway to irresponsibility. Yes, our voting is related to these devastating fires. Many people vote “right” ( I don't believe in that dichotomy but they do) because they wish to belong to the same “winning” tribe. But wishful thinking is just – wishful thinking. They repeat slogans “ we will adapt” invented for them to repeat as mantra. Little do they know that they are the frogs which cannot sense a slow change in temperature while they are being boiled. The rest of us already know but won’t give up and continue jumping. Ugly I know. Truth often hurts the ears. And then one day those same politicians and their followers will tell us “I didn’t know that climate change caused fires at the time” and “scientists could never agree”, just as they said “ I didn’t know about stolen generation.” and “ I didn’t know about children being raped by priests in my local church” or “we didn’t know there were no weapons of mass distraction there”... their attempt to belong to "ignorant tribe". Then they will say “Sorry” in hope to wash it all away and ask for your empathy… or even worse say “we are all guilty”. No, we are not and they are not owed forgiveness. There is a powerful “myth” we are taught from childhood that if we say “sorry” - we are forgiven and everything will be ok. Some people even believe that others are somehow required to accept their apology. Sorry doesn’t cut it. Sorry is not accepted. (Ms)
-
RHP User
5 years ago
Your post(s) reminds me of the saying "people get the government they deserve"I believe it.Seems to me too many people see polling day as Melbourne Cup day and seem only intent on picking the winner. For a long time now I have voted for alternatives, first it was Don Chipp and the Democrats, then the Greens, now I just vote for independents who are closest to my view, it's not a "waste of a vote" for me, it has far more value to me than choosing the lesser of two evils.And even though I have to watch an evil get elected I'm never sorry.And always, always, I am comforted to know I didn't contribute to the election of the corrupt and incompetent. An Scotsmen gets off the ship and says "Who's the government here ? Whoever they are tell them Jock McTavish is agin 'em"Thats me.
Boards
-
Hot Topics
Topics: 14361 Comments: 120840
-
Girls Ask
Topics: 1355 Comments: 14709
-
Guys Ask
Topics: 2425 Comments: 17234
-
Couples' Corner
Topics: 2405 Comments: 12737
-
Swingers Lifestyle
Topics: 794 Comments: 5154
-
Fetish & Fantasy
Topics: 1148 Comments: 6957
-
Hot Travel
Topics: 622 Comments: 2145
-
LGBT
Topics: 156 Comments: 1150
Forum help
-
Something related with that
-
Going somewhere & want to hook up?
-
Hasn't that topic been posted before?
RHP's popular dating tool
-
Where the heck did that topic go?
Discover what RHP is doing offline
-
RHP member's RL secrets
reply
like
Share