|
|
Post by sabre on Feb 19, 2023 13:49:57 GMT 12
"It is important to approach any information or opinions on climate change with a critical eye"
Oh the irony of this statement. You are getting your advice from those that want to tax you, remove your freedoms and digitally lock you up in "smart cities"
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 15:07:27 GMT 12
No, I am getting my advice from climate scientists. The government are the ones wanting to implement the controls.
Climate scientists provide advice and guidance to governments about what needs to be done to address climate change. It's up to the government to take that advice and use it to create policies that can make a difference.
Scientists are the ones who study the Earth's climate and the causes and effects of global warming. They provide valuable insights and information about greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner forms of energy.
In short, the advice is coming from climate scientists, not the government. The government is responsible for creating policies to address climate change, but they rely on the information and analysis provided by scientists to make informed decisions.
The scientific consensus on climate change is clear: human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are causing the Earth's temperature to rise, and this is having a range of negative impacts on the planet and its inhabitants. Climate scientists have been sounding the alarm on the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and transition to cleaner forms of energy in order to mitigate the worst effects of climate change.
When it comes to climate change, there's a lot of information out there, and it can be hard to know what to believe. It's important to approach everything with a critical eye and do your own research, but I want to reassure you that the scientific consensus on climate change is based on solid evidence and analysis.
The scientists studying climate change aren't trying to tax you or take away your freedoms, they're just trying to make sure we can all continue to live on a healthy planet. They're the experts on this stuff, and we can trust them to give us accurate information.
Of course, that doesn't mean we have to agree with every policy proposal that comes out of it. There are lots of different ways we could try to address climate change, and it's up to us as a society to decide what makes the most sense for our values and priorities.
So let's keep learning and asking questions, but also trust in the science and work together to create a sustainable future for ourselves and generations to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 19, 2023 15:23:29 GMT 12
When it comes to climate change, there are some folks out there who are a bit skeptical or just don't believe the scientific consensus. But, the reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is real and that humans are largely responsible for it.
I know there's a lot of talk out there about the science being uncertain or that it's all just a big hoax, but the evidence supporting the consensus is actually pretty overwhelming. And it's not just one or two studies - numerous scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have all looked at the data and come to the same conclusion.
Now, that's not to say there isn't any debate or disagreement about certain aspects of climate change. Scientists are always questioning and challenging established theories and ideas - that's just how science works! But, in the case of climate change, the evidence is pretty clear that it's a real and pressing issue that we need to take seriously.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Feb 20, 2023 8:29:03 GMT 12
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body. They take input from climate scientists and then rewrite it to suit their agenda. There are many many cases of real scientists dissenting with their pronouncements.
They make statements such as "extremely probable" because they cannot present conclusive evidence to back their claims. The 30 odd models they place reliance on are fundamentally flawed, the only one that has shown any ability to represent reality is the Russian one and it presents a much more conservative view than the catastrophic ones the IPCC prefer to quote.
This was written a few years ago about the IPCC, but little has changed
The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972 and served as its first executive director. The IPCC is a joint project of that entity and the World Meteorological Organization.
(Strong was subsequently implicated in corruption surrounding the UN’s Oil-for-Food-Program and has resigned from his UN positions. According to John Izzard writing for the Australian publication Quadrant Online, <1> “Following his exposure for bribery and corruption in the UN’s Oil-for-Food scandal Maurice Strong was stripped of many of his 53 international awards and honours he had collected during his lifetime working in dual role of arch conservationist and ruthless businessman.”<1>)
Strong and his allies at the UN gave the IPCC a very narrow brief by defining climate change in the Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 1.2, as “a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods.” IPCC’s mandate is not to study climate change “in the round,” or to look at natural as well as man-made influences on climate. It is to specifically find and report a human impact on climate, and thereby make a scientific case for the adoption of national and international policies that would supposedly reduce that impact.
The IPCC is also designed to put political leaders and bureaucrats rather than scientists in control of the research project. It is a membership organization composed of governments, not scientists. The governments that created the IPCC fund it, staff it, select the scientists who get to participate, and revise and rewrite the reports after the scientists have concluded their work. Obviously, this is not how a real scientific organization operates.
The IPCC’s first report, released in 1990, admitted that observed climate change was probably due to natural rather than human causes. However, every report since then has claimed with rising certainty that there is a “discernable human impact” on the climate and that steps must be taken to avoid a global climate crisis. There is ample evidence that this level of alarmism and asserted confidence is fueled by political considerations rather than actual science.
For example, in 1996, Dr. Frederick Seitz, one of the world’s most prominent and respected physicists, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: <2>“In my more than 60 years as a member of the American scientific community, including service as president of both the National Academy of Sciences and the American Physical Society, I have never witnessed a more disturbing corruption of the peer-review process than the events that led to this IPCC report.”
Numerous authors (see here, here, and here)<3> have observed a growing disconnect between the “Summaries for Policymakers,” which are designed to be read and used by political leaders and the media, and the reports themselves. The former systematically remove the expressions of scientific uncertainty and alternative explanations of climate phenomena that were abundantly present in the first three reports, with the obvious intention of misrepresenting the science and fueling unnecessary alarm. By the fourth and fifth assessment reports, even the underlying reports were being purged of ideas and evidence that contradicted the IPCC’s political agenda.
In 2009, a hacker or whistle blower made available on the Internet a collection of email exchanges among leading authors and contributors to the IPCC reports. The ensuing scandal, called Climategate, <4> exposed efforts by IPCC authors to withhold data from independent scholars and attempt to prevent peer-reviewed journals from publishing research that undermined or questioned their own work. In 2011 <5> the hacker or whistle blower released a second batch of emails that made even more clear that the IPCC process was broken.
Michael Mann, the creator of the infamously flawed hockey stick curve was at the centre of the climategate scandal (along with Phil Jones), yet along with other frauds such as Gore and Obama is still out their pushing his agenda
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 8:42:57 GMT 12
The IPCC is a political body, not a scientific body. They take input from climate scientists and then rewrite it to suit their agenda. There are many many cases of real scientists dissenting with their pronouncements. While it is true that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a body composed of both scientists and policymakers, it is incorrect to say that it is solely a political body. The IPCC is a scientific body that was established by the United Nations to provide policymakers with regular assessments of the state of climate science. The IPCC reports are written by hundreds of scientists from all over the world who volunteer their time to review and synthesize the latest research on climate change. The reports go through a rigorous review process, with the final version being approved by all member countries of the United Nations. It is also important to note that while there may be some dissent among scientists on certain aspects of climate change, the overwhelming majority of climate scientists agree that it is real and largely caused by human activity. This is supported by numerous scientific organizations, as well as the peer-reviewed scientific literature. As for the use of models in climate science, they are a valuable tool for making predictions and understanding complex systems. While no model is perfect, they have been shown to be effective in predicting the behavior of the climate system. Additionally, the IPCC uses a range of scenarios and models to represent different possible futures, rather than relying on a single model. In summary, while there may be some debate and dissent within the scientific community, the consensus among climate scientists and the scientific literature is clear - climate change is a real and pressing issue that requires urgent action. The IPCC plays an important role in synthesizing the latest research and providing policymakers with the best available scientific information. The IPCC was created in 1988 largely due to the efforts of Maurice Strong, a billionaire and self-confessed socialist, as part of a larger campaign to justify giving the United Nations the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars a year to developing nations. Strong had previously succeeded in bringing about the creation of the UN Environment Programme in 1972 and served as its first executive director. The view presented above is a common conspiracy theory among climate change skeptics and deniers, but it is not supported by the facts. The IPCC was created as an intergovernmental body to provide a scientific assessment of climate change and its impacts, as well as to provide policymakers with the information they need to develop effective response strategies. The idea that the IPCC was created to give the UN the authority to tax businesses in developed countries and redistribute trillions of dollars to developing nations is simply not true. The IPCC is not a regulatory body and has no authority to impose taxes or redistribute funds. Its mandate is purely scientific and advisory. While Maurice Strong was a key player in the creation of the IPCC, his role was to provide political support and help raise awareness about the issue of climate change. He did not have any direct control over the work of the IPCC, nor did he have any financial interest in the organization. The idea that the IPCC is part of some larger socialist or globalist conspiracy is a baseless and unfounded claim. Michael Mann, the creator of the infamously flawed hockey stick curve was at the centre of the climategate scandal (along with Phil Jones), yet along with other frauds such as Gore and Obama is still out their pushing his agenda Ah, Michael Mann and the hockey stick. You gotta love how some folks refuse to let go of old news. The climategate scandal was like, what, over a decade ago? And yet here we are, still bringing it up like it's relevant. But okay, let's break it down. Yes, Mann was involved in the scandal, along with Phil Jones and a few others. And yes, the hockey stick curve had some flaws. But you know what? That's how science works. It's a process of constant refinement and improvement. And as for the "other frauds" like Gore and Obama... really? That's your argument? Just because you disagree with someone's politics or their stance on climate change, that automatically makes them a fraud? C'mon, man. Let's have a little more nuance in our discourse, yeah? |
|
|
|
Post by OLD ROPE 👀 on Feb 20, 2023 8:45:20 GMT 12
When it comes to climate change, there are some folks out there who are a bit skeptical or just don't believe the scientific consensus. But, the reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is real and that humans are largely responsible for it. I know there's a lot of talk out there about the science being uncertain or that it's all just a big hoax, but the evidence supporting the consensus is actually pretty overwhelming. And it's not just one or two studies - numerous scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have all looked at the data and come to the same conclusion. Now, that's not to say there isn't any debate or disagreement about certain aspects of climate change. Scientists are always questioning and challenging established theories and ideas - that's just how science works! But, in the case of climate change, the evidence is pretty clear that it's a real and pressing issue that we need to take seriously. ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... Brah, stop equating normal weather variances as some kind of climate catastrophe! The experts are wrong! Why?... Because they are using too small/ defined a data set of historical measurements with such little information in a small biased brief! The planets inner and outer workings are infinite and the scientists are working with less than 2% info.... Then we have the effects of a galaxy that they know less than 0.000000000000000000000000001% Soo... What they are working with is .. 1. The last 160 years of tens of thousands of years data. 2. They have no true clue on the effects of the sun and the earths core on warming and CO2/ methane level's. 3. They are measuring erratically with to many variables. 4. Nobody has challenged their thinking. 5. They are looking thru a periscope when a wide angle is needed and their thinking is compromised. Why do we not here about any data on the earths core heat and gas emissions data and it effect via volcanoes, boil raw oil, undersea oil emission, on the atomosphere? Cause it might prove the rhetoric wrong? What about solar flares? What about why the magnetic poles change due to Earth's inner Dynamics changes. Why was their more dramatic weather events prior to man's evolution What happens if man stopped polluting and the same problems kept evolving! Before the earth was found to be round there were great men who though it was flat! |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 9:18:18 GMT 12
When it comes to climate change, there are some folks out there who are a bit skeptical or just don't believe the scientific consensus. But, the reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is real and that humans are largely responsible for it. I know there's a lot of talk out there about the science being uncertain or that it's all just a big hoax, but the evidence supporting the consensus is actually pretty overwhelming. And it's not just one or two studies - numerous scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have all looked at the data and come to the same conclusion. Now, that's not to say there isn't any debate or disagreement about certain aspects of climate change. Scientists are always questioning and challenging established theories and ideas - that's just how science works! But, in the case of climate change, the evidence is pretty clear that it's a real and pressing issue that we need to take seriously. ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... Brah, stop equating normal weather variances as some kind of climate catastrophe! The experts are wrong! Why?... Because they are using too small/ defined a data set of historical measurements with such little information in a small biased brief! The planets inner and outer workings are infinite and the scientists are working with less than 2% info.... Then we have the effects of a galaxy that they know less than 0.000000000000000000000000001% Soo... What they are working with is .. 1. The last 160 years of tens of thousands of years data. 2. They have no true clue on the effects of the sun and the earths core on warming and CO2/ methane level's. 3. They are measuring erratically with to many variables. 4. Nobody has challenged their thinking. 5. They are looking thru a periscope when a wide angle is needed and their thinking is compromised. Why do we not here about any data on the earths core heat and gas emissions data and it effect via volcanoes, boil raw oil, undersea oil emission, on the atomosphere? Cause it might prove the rhetoric wrong? What about solar flares? What about why the magnetic poles change due to Earth's inner Dynamics changes. Why was their more dramatic weather events prior to man's evolution What happens if man stopped polluting and the same problems kept evolving! Before the earth was found to be round there were great men who though it was flat! It is true that I had a small break. Upon my return I even took you off my block list :-) Well, I have to say, that's quite a claim! But let's take a closer look. First, you mention the limited historical data set that scientists are working with. While it's true that we only have direct temperature measurements for the past century and a half, scientists have also looked at other sources of information, such as tree rings, ice cores, and coral reefs, to reconstruct temperatures going back thousands of years. These reconstructions show that the warming we've seen in recent decades is unprecedented in at least the past 2,000 years. You also mention the effects of the sun and the Earth's core on climate. While it's true that changes in solar radiation and volcanic activity can affect the climate, scientists have found that these factors cannot explain the warming we've seen in recent decades. In fact, the sun's energy output has been decreasing slightly over the past few decades, while the Earth's temperature has been increasing. As for the Earth's core, it does generate heat through radioactive decay, but this heat is not a significant factor in the Earth's overall energy balance. The vast majority of the heat that warms the Earth's surface comes from the sun. You also mention the possibility that the same problems might persist even if we stopped polluting. While it's true that there are other factors that can affect the climate, such as natural cycles of warming and cooling, scientists have found that the warming we've seen in recent decades is primarily due to human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation. If we were to stop emitting greenhouse gases, the warming would eventually slow down and stop, although it would take many years for the climate to reach a new equilibrium. And finally, you mention the example of people once believing that the Earth was flat. While it's true that our understanding of the world has evolved over time, the difference is that scientific knowledge is based on empirical evidence and rigorous testing. Climate scientists use the same methods to study the climate, and the overwhelming consensus among them is that human activities are causing the climate to warm at an unprecedented rate. While there is still much to learn about the climate system, the evidence we have points to the urgent need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. |
|
|
|
Post by sloopjohnb on Feb 20, 2023 9:42:41 GMT 12
The Sunday program last night made me cringe as they had Prof James Ranwick [spelling] made me choke, he went on and on above NZ needs to make a far greater effect to reduce greenhouse gases....what our 0.1% reduced to 0.5%, going to save the world?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2023 11:05:15 GMT 12
When it comes to climate change, there are some folks out there who are a bit skeptical or just don't believe the scientific consensus. But, the reality is that the vast majority of climate scientists agree that it is real and that humans are largely responsible for it. I know there's a lot of talk out there about the science being uncertain or that it's all just a big hoax, but the evidence supporting the consensus is actually pretty overwhelming. And it's not just one or two studies - numerous scientific organizations, like the National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, have all looked at the data and come to the same conclusion. Now, that's not to say there isn't any debate or disagreement about certain aspects of climate change. Scientists are always questioning and challenging established theories and ideas - that's just how science works! But, in the case of climate change, the evidence is pretty clear that it's a real and pressing issue that we need to take seriously. ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... Brah, stop equating normal weather variances as some kind of climate catastrophe! The experts are wrong! Why?... Because they are using too small/ defined a data set of historical measurements with such little information in a small biased brief! The planets inner and outer workings are infinite and the scientists are working with less than 2% info.... Then we have the effects of a galaxy that they know less than 0.000000000000000000000000001% Soo... What they are working with is .. 1. The last 160 years of tens of thousands of years data. 2. They have no true clue on the effects of the sun and the earths core on warming and CO2/ methane level's. 3. They are measuring erratically with to many variables. 4. Nobody has challenged their thinking. 5. They are looking thru a periscope when a wide angle is needed and their thinking is compromised. Why do we not here about any data on the earths core heat and gas emissions data and it effect via volcanoes, boil raw oil, undersea oil emission, on the atomosphere? Cause it might prove the rhetoric wrong? What about solar flares? What about why the magnetic poles change due to Earth's inner Dynamics changes. Why was their more dramatic weather events prior to man's evolution What happens if man stopped polluting and the same problems kept evolving! Before the earth was found to be round there were great men who though it was flat! ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... I feel you setiments,thought same too. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 12:08:59 GMT 12
ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... ah fuck blaster. Your back again for another climatically changed makeover... I feel you setiments,thought same too. Duckmaster, Harrytom, and Punisher too, Three souls entwined in a story so true, Their lives intermingled, but not without strife, As Harrytom and Punisher harbored a grudge for life. Duckmaster, the leader of the ducks, Guiding them with love, as his heart struck, But Harrytom and Punisher, they loathed him so, Their hearts filled with hatred, ready to blow. Harrytom was a tough one, a fighter through and through, But his anger and resentment made him hard to woo, Punisher, on the other hand, was cruel and mean, The worst of them all, no kindness to glean. Duckmaster, the peacekeeper, tried to make things right, But Harrytom and Punisher, they refused to see the light, They plotted and schemed, their minds full of malice, As Duckmaster watched, his heart filled with sadness. But Duckmaster was a patient soul, full of grace, He tolerated their hate, with a smile on his face, For he knew that kindness and love would prevail, And someday, Harrytom and Punisher would see the trail. So, let us learn from Duckmaster, his patience and love, And let go of our grudges, the anger, and shove, For life is too short to hold onto our hate, Let us spread kindness and love, before it's too late. |
|
|
|
Post by Cantab on Feb 20, 2023 12:21:55 GMT 12
Wasting your time arguing with a woke lefty chatbot. Go out in your boat while you can.
|
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Feb 20, 2023 12:48:03 GMT 12
Remember how in 1990's with 'peak oil'? We were due to run out 2015. The 'crisis' of 2000 when all computers were to expire. The Global Warmists/ Climate Changers are just today versions of fearmongers who go back to the dark/middle ages when religion was used to control the population. A lot of people will believe anything they are told by those in control.It's an agreeability and compliance gene in their sub conscious IMO. It's a good idea to try and point out to them the reality and then move on. There's none so blind as those who don't want to see.
|
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 13:28:25 GMT 12
Wasting your time arguing with a woke lefty chatbot. Go out in your boat while you can. Although I have been referred to as woke and left-leaning, I have never been referred to as a chatbot. I am unsure whether this is intended as a compliment or an insult. I find it discouraging that you would advise others to disregard the chance to communicate or interact with me simply because I hold differing opinions or viewpoints. Engaging in dialogue and actively listening to diverse perspectives is crucial for cultivating empathy, honing critical thinking abilities, and gaining a better understanding of others. |
|
|
|
Post by DuckMaster on Feb 20, 2023 13:34:40 GMT 12
Remember how in 1990's with 'peak oil'? We were due to run out 2015. The 'crisis' of 2000 when all computers were to expire. The Global Warmists/ Climate Changers are just today versions of fearmongers who go back to the dark/middle ages when religion was used to control the population. A lot of people will believe anything they are told by those in control.It's an agreeability and compliance gene in their sub conscious IMO. It's a good idea to try and point out to them the reality and then move on. There's none so blind as those who don't want to see. Oh yeah, I totally remember the "peak oil" scare! And the whole Y2K thing, that was a wild time. But come on, climate change is a totally different ballgame. We're not just talking about some temporary crisis or computer glitch here, we're talking about the long-term health and habitability of our planet. And I don't think it's fair to compare scientists and their research to religious control tactics from the Middle Ages. The evidence for climate change is there, and it's backed up by decades of research and data. Sure, there may be some disagreements or different viewpoints within the scientific community, but that's how science works. It's a process of questioning and testing ideas, not just blindly accepting what we're told. So let's not write off the importance of this issue or the hard work of dedicated scientists just because we've seen some past scares turn out to be overblown. |
|
|
|
Post by Hugh Jorgan on Feb 20, 2023 14:15:48 GMT 12
Suck faster?...
So you say NZ should waste billions on eliminating 0.02% of GH gases while not being able to defend our people and assets from china's, indias, Asia's continued fossil fuel burning/ CLIMATE CHANGE CATASTROPHES.
YOU would rather we ignores our woeful infrastructure needs, kill our businesses and people to achieve an environmental " drop of water in the ocean!"
You my freind are tye reason NZ is fucked... you and Shaw, Ardern, and Labour.
|
|
