Australian Politics Forum - Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #15 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so. Hence it must be you who wrote this junk Wink

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #16 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so. Hence it must be you who wrote this junk Wink

and we all know what comes next from you, right? a line-by-line refutation of the claims..

yeah right. You will just say it is wrong and not even bother to identify which parts, nevermind refute it.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #17 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:33pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

Not sure about a critique, I posted what I think the actual issues are, what the real potential "catastrophe" is - if you like...

As to the OP, I think a genuine opportunity was wasted on the piece simply being yet another "denialist" piece, falsely presented as being a genuine exploration with a couple of brief and forgettable nods to "both sides" having their issues with spin, falsification and beat up...

However, the main bulk of the piece was in essence support of the "denialist" position.

Interestingly, your comments regarding the application of the denialist label are appropriate in respect of any and all labels intended to be, as you assert, a put down. It lends great insight into the authors perspective that ONLY this label is presented as inappropriate and derogatory. That kind of stands out to me, which I acknowledge may also say a bit about me...

I don't think you presented both sides of the argument, as your title suggested rigorously or with any degree of connection to that middle ground position, as indicated by the title. To my mind, this completely undermined what could potentially have been a thought provoking piece.

You presented not argument for Catastrophe at all.

I think there is an argument that the debate is very much potentially both Catastrophic and a Con...

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #18 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:42pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

Not sure about a critique, I posted what I think the actual issues are, what the real potential "catastrophe" is - if you like...

As to the OP, I think a genuine opportunity was wasted on the piece simply being yet another "denialist" piece, falsely presented as being a genuine exploration with a couple of brief and forgettable nods to "both sides" having their issues with spin, falsification and beat up...

However, the main bulk of the piece was in essence support of the "denialist" position.

Interestingly, your comments regarding the application of the denialist label are appropriate in respect of any and all labels intended to be, as you assert, a put down. It lends great insight into the authors perspective that ONLY this label is presented as inappropriate and derogatory. That kind of stands out to me, which I acknowledge may also say a bit about me...

I don't think you presented both sides of the argument, as your title suggested rigorously or with any degree of connection to that middle ground position, as indicated by the title. To my mind, this completely undermined what could potentially have been a thought provoking piece.

You presented not argument for Catastrophe at all.

I think there is an argument that the debate is very much potentially both Catastrophic and a Con...

thank you for an insightful and throughtful critique. I will say tho that using the tag 'denier' does not help your cause. I am a natural cynic and so I tend to say 'prove it' or at least make it a credible and reasonable assertion. I see none of that in the Climate debate. There is not a single instance of a single climate variable trending out of the range of natural variability. not one. Temperature has plateaued, sea level rises are minimal and barely measurable. Glacial retreat is nothing out of the documented past experience and extreme weather events have not changed either. I dont just see little evidence, I see ZERO evidence that supports any part of this hysteria. I do however see a lot of attempts to rewrite history by removing the Little ice age or medieval warm period, massaging historical data to line up with predictions and the refusal to publish some articles in magazines that oppose this sham orthodoxy.

I see everything I need to see to say it is a con.

The emperor has no clothes (and not because he is too warm)

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change:Con!
Reply #19 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:51pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

Not sure about a critique, I posted what I think the actual issues are, what the real potential "catastrophe" is - if you like...

As to the OP, I think a genuine opportunity was wasted on the piece simply being yet another "denialist" piece, falsely presented as being a genuine exploration with a couple of brief and forgettable nods to "both sides" having their issues with spin, falsification and beat up...

However, the main bulk of the piece was in essence support of the "denialist" position.

Interestingly, your comments regarding the application of the denialist label are appropriate in respect of any and all labels intended to be, as you assert, a put down. It lends great insight into the authors perspective that ONLY this label is presented as inappropriate and derogatory. That kind of stands out to me, which I acknowledge may also say a bit about me...

I don't think you presented both sides of the argument, as your title suggested rigorously or with any degree of connection to that middle ground position, as indicated by the title. To my mind, this completely undermined what could potentially have been a thought provoking piece.

You presented not argument for Catastrophe at all.

I think there is an argument that the debate is very much potentially both Catastrophic and a Con...

thank you for an insightful and throughtful critique. I will say tho that using the tag 'denier' does not help your cause. I am a natural cynic and so I tend to say 'prove it' or at least make it a credible and reasonable assertion. I see none of that in the Climate debate. There is not a single instance of a single climate variable trending out of the range of natural variability. not one. Temperature has plateaued, sea level rises are minimal and barely measurable. Glacial retreat is nothing out of the documented past experience and extreme weather events have not changed either. I dont just see little evidence, I see ZERO evidence that supports any part of this hysteria. I do however see a lot of attempts to rewrite history by removing the Little ice age or medieval warm period, massaging historical data to line up with predictions and the refusal to publish some articles in magazines that oppose this sham orthodoxy.

I see everything I need to see to say it is a con.

The emperor has no clothes (and not because he is too warm)

Warning I Phemanderac Changed this title.

Wouldn't that simply have been a more honest approach.

You see, I am not even going to bother the "science" debate... It won't matter if I provide figures for either team - apparently all data has been debunked, which obviously puts us in a curious position.

I would suggest that it is exactly that dishonest approach to the debate that has undermined the entire debate.

Further, Climate is only part of the equation that effects our survival on this planet. As such, the vast majority of the real debate is also, dishonestly in my opinion, left out.

You have simply joined the chorus with this post.

As to my use of the term "denialist" one would think the quotation marks were a hint. That was the label of you choice to use. To suggest it undermines my critique is absolutely your choice, but for my part, I think it absurd.

I made the point after all that any and all labels that are meant to be demeaning or abusive are inappropriate, at best. In fact, your use of terms like "denialist, denier" etc must surely have undermined you whole piece as well mustn't they?

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change:Catastrophy or Con!
Reply #20 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:42pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:06pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:43pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:36pm:

So, in short, the title is misleading.

Clearly the lengthy OP is saying it's a Con... All jokes aside.

and thats all you can come up with?

Now we wait for the boofheads to claim it is plagiarised. Perhaps next I will write an article praising Julia Gillard. THAT would be a challenge!

No, that's not all I came up with, but it was most certainly what was worthwhile to point out...

Work on being accurate, who knows, you might get more of what people come up with.

I note you did not refute it!

Book titles, Headlines and abstracts dont usually declare the content of what follows. in the case of titles in particular, their point is to attract and lead, not to inform.

So now that we know you dont like the title, go ahead and criticise the rest.

Not sure about a critique, I posted what I think the actual issues are, what the real potential "catastrophe" is - if you like...

As to the OP, I think a genuine opportunity was wasted on the piece simply being yet another "denialist" piece, falsely presented as being a genuine exploration with a couple of brief and forgettable nods to "both sides" having their issues with spin, falsification and beat up...

However, the main bulk of the piece was in essence support of the "denialist" position.

Interestingly, your comments regarding the application of the denialist label are appropriate in respect of any and all labels intended to be, as you assert, a put down. It lends great insight into the authors perspective that ONLY this label is presented as inappropriate and derogatory. That kind of stands out to me, which I acknowledge may also say a bit about me...

I don't think you presented both sides of the argument, as your title suggested rigorously or with any degree of connection to that middle ground position, as indicated by the title. To my mind, this completely undermined what could potentially have been a thought provoking piece.

You presented not argument for Catastrophe at all.

I think there is an argument that the debate is very much potentially both Catastrophic and a Con...

thank you for an insightful and throughtful critique. I will say tho that using the tag 'denier' does not help your cause. I am a natural cynic and so I tend to say 'prove it' or at least make it a credible and reasonable assertion. I see none of that in the Climate debate. There is not a single instance of a single climate variable trending out of the range of natural variability. not one. Temperature has plateaued, sea level rises are minimal and barely measurable. Glacial retreat is nothing out of the documented past experience and extreme weather events have not changed either. I dont just see little evidence, I see ZERO evidence that supports any part of this hysteria. I do however see a lot of attempts to rewrite history by removing the Little ice age or medieval warm period, massaging historical data to line up with predictions and the refusal to publish some articles in magazines that oppose this sham orthodoxy.

I see everything I need to see to say it is a con.

The emperor has no clothes (and not because he is too warm)

Warning I Phemanderac Changed this title.

Wouldn't that simply have been a more honest approach.

You see, I am not even going to bother the "science" debate... It won't matter if I provide figures for either team - apparently all data has been debunked, which obviously puts us in a curious position.

I would suggest that it is exactly that dishonest approach to the debate that has undermined the entire debate.

Further, Climate is only part of the equation that effects our survival on this planet. As such, the vast majority of the real debate is also, dishonestly in my opinion, left out.

You have simply joined the chorus with this post.

As to my use of the term "denialist" one would think the quotation marks were a hint. That was the label of you choice to use. To suggest it undermines my critique is absolutely your choice, but for my part, I think it absurd.

I made the point after all that any and all labels that are meant to be demeaning or abusive are inappropriate, at best. In fact, your use of terms like "denialist, denier" etc must surely have undermined you whole piece as well mustn't they?

Climate is only one of the elements (pun intended) that affects our survival, but I am writing on one, not them all. I can write on overpopulation, the rise of extremism, water quality issues and economic problems. but I chose to write on just one today. You are welcome to add more.

oh and the point of the article was to highlight the failings of the science. Refusing to engage in the science debate kinda makes your position... undetectable.

perhaps you can move beyond your concerns with the headline into something of substance.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #21 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:

oh and the point of the article was to highlight the failings of the science. Refusing to engage in the science debate kinda makes your position... undetectable.

Undetectable, despite being there on page 1?

Don't tell me I need to start making entire posts really big. I think someone else already uses that Schtick...

I think I have consistently made my position quite clear, I have done so one again on page 1 of this very thread.

Hence my comment, I think the issue at debate is both a Catastrophe and a Con... Said it before, will no doubt say it again.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #22 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:05pm Neferti wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:58pm: DRAH, yet again, proves he is off his meds. Where's the logic behind that statement? (Thanx for playing )
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #23 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:11pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:58pm:

oh and the point of the article was to highlight the failings of the science. Refusing to engage in the science debate kinda makes your position... undetectable.

Undetectable, despite being there on page 1?

Don't tell me I need to start making entire posts really big. I think someone else already uses that Schtick...

I think I have consistently made my position quite clear, I have done so one again on page 1 of this very thread.

Hence my comment, I think the issue at debate is both a Catastrophe and a Con... Said it before, will no doubt say it again.

Let me engage my overt, unambiguous and subtlety-free style so I don't have to burden you with the struggle of interpretation.

By refusing to engage in the science issues related to an essentially scientific debate, you disengage from it entirely thus making your position on the question, undetectable and frankly, irrelevant. In short, I am trying to get you to engage the substance rather than spending your time nitpicking on headlines and other irrelevancies. is that so onerous?

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 45675 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #24 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:12pm BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:05pm: Neferti wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:58pm: DRAH, yet again, proves he is off his meds. Where's the logic behind that statement? (Thanx for playing ) every.... single..... post..... you..... make..... QED
Back to top	AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..." IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #25 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:16pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:59pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:52pm:

It seems kind of funny to be (in a ludicrous sort of way) that the whole climate change debate has (in my opinion) been deliberately built up and beaten up specifically in order to take our eye off the ball...

Deforestation is most certainly a big part of the problems future generations will face.

Our bloody minded and belligerent attachment to pumping gross levels of pollution into the very environment that humanity relies on TOTALLY are also problematic. Yet, whilst "experts" blather on back and forth trying to win the political debate - our industrious practices are systematically destroying our environment. Oh but hang on, I just have to correct someone about a comment on climate.... Clearly by correcting what others say we can fix the environment.

Well, news flash, we are not smart enough or responsible enough to save the planet and, guess what? The planet does not need us to save it - however, it would seem that we do need to have some consideration to saving ourselves. At least, that is, if we think our species is worth it. Frankly, given our behaviour surrounding the environment, resources and towards other species and our own species would seem to hint that doing nothing is our best option. Sure our species will go under because of that, but, how much better will that be for everything left behind? The correct answer (in case you're struggling here is HEAPS!).

Obviously, we should avoid deforestation - will we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should avoid poisoning our atmosphere - will we? Demonstrably not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our water sources - are we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our oceans, seas, lakes etc - are we? Obviously not.

Yet, we have endless debates about the climate...

Clearly climate is a part of the issue with regard to human survival. Whilst the idiot brigade (from both sides) maintain the rage about the minutiae - the forests, waterways and the atmosphere are being systematically damaged. At some point this will inevitably become beyond repair. It's ok though, a few very very self important people will have made heaps of money from their trails of destruction. I am certainly convinced that, in the long run, the massive profits will be what will sustain our species beyond the destruction of our only home....

The is no

PLAN

et B...

From page 1.

As to the "science"....

Are you a scientist? I am not. I do understand a bit about research - I also have some understanding about presenting research and, because of this, I have little to no faith in any of the science being presented as a part of said debate.

I think we have some significant environmental threats to address - that opinion though is not scientific, just basic common sense to be honest. After all, you can only fit so much crap into a closed environment before something goes pop...Global dutch ovens anyone?

There ya go, my position in one paragraph!

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 3507 Gender:	Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con? Reply #26 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:18pm Now, I trust the above is not too subtle or somehow ambiguous for you? It was there on page one the whole time, so that little spat made you look a tad un-subtle (at the very least...)
Back to top	On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day... "They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean.. IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #27 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:23pm

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 6:16pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:59pm:

Phemanderac wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:52pm:

It seems kind of funny to be (in a ludicrous sort of way) that the whole climate change debate has (in my opinion) been deliberately built up and beaten up specifically in order to take our eye off the ball...

Deforestation is most certainly a big part of the problems future generations will face.

Our bloody minded and belligerent attachment to pumping gross levels of pollution into the very environment that humanity relies on TOTALLY are also problematic. Yet, whilst "experts" blather on back and forth trying to win the political debate - our industrious practices are systematically destroying our environment. Oh but hang on, I just have to correct someone about a comment on climate.... Clearly by correcting what others say we can fix the environment.

Well, news flash, we are not smart enough or responsible enough to save the planet and, guess what? The planet does not need us to save it - however, it would seem that we do need to have some consideration to saving ourselves. At least, that is, if we think our species is worth it. Frankly, given our behaviour surrounding the environment, resources and towards other species and our own species would seem to hint that doing nothing is our best option. Sure our species will go under because of that, but, how much better will that be for everything left behind? The correct answer (in case you're struggling here is HEAPS!).

Obviously, we should avoid deforestation - will we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should avoid poisoning our atmosphere - will we? Demonstrably not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our water sources - are we? Clearly not.

Obviously, we should be protecting our oceans, seas, lakes etc - are we? Obviously not.

Yet, we have endless debates about the climate...

Clearly climate is a part of the issue with regard to human survival. Whilst the idiot brigade (from both sides) maintain the rage about the minutiae - the forests, waterways and the atmosphere are being systematically damaged. At some point this will inevitably become beyond repair. It's ok though, a few very very self important people will have made heaps of money from their trails of destruction. I am certainly convinced that, in the long run, the massive profits will be what will sustain our species beyond the destruction of our only home....

The is no

PLAN

et B...

From page 1.

As to the "science"....

Are you a scientist? I am not. I do understand a bit about research - I also have some understanding about presenting research and, because of this, I have little to no faith in any of the science being presented as a part of said debate.

I think we have some significant environmental threats to address - that opinion though is not scientific, just basic common sense to be honest. After all, you can only fit so much crap into a closed environment before something goes pop...Global dutch ovens anyone?

There ya go, my position in one paragraph!

yeah... but to be fair, you did take a massive u-turn away from climate change and address your own pet causes. So we are still not really clear on what you think about the science of climate change other than distrust which is a pretty easy non-committal question.

You should perhaps start a thread on your afore-mentioned environmental issues as it is a worthwhile topic, just not THIS topic.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #28 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:16pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 5:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

One could tell given it's the same ignorance trying to be prettied up. A pig will always remain a pig.

well at least you are not saying it was plagiarised so thatputs you a level above Aussie and Karnal, so thanks.

Well informed opinion writers don't try to spread misinformation after being shown it to be so. Hence it must be you who wrote this junk Wink

and we all know what comes next from you, right? a line-by-line refutation of the claims..

yeah right. You will just say it is wrong and not even bother to identify which parts, nevermind refute it.

it's been done over and over and over for you, and still you come up with opinions that use debunked claims in such an authoritative way as if they were facts.

There's no point discussing with a perrson who ignores what is being discussed. Best thing to do is simply laugh at you.

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Climate Change: Catastrophe or Con?
Reply #29 - Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 7:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:55pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2015 at 4:29pm:

So why the angst? This poor man had differing views on how to deal with it. Yep, that is all. Apparently, doctrinal differences don’t just split churches.

So in the end, which is true? Catastrophe or just more of the same?

The fact is the science isn’t in. It certainly isn’t settled. In the meantime, climate continues to do what it has always done for millennia – oscillate around a mean and defy all efforts to predict or control.

In around twenty or thirty years, there will be no Climate Catastrophe proponents left – other than in IPCC funded bunkers. Even hysterical overreaction has a tipping point. And that particular tipping point is imminent.

Reprinted with permission

What was the source?

'The Long Weekend'

Possible. Lots of waffle with not one citation anywhere for the "facts". Provision of citations is not something that wrongy's known to do, ever.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged