|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 4, 2022 17:40:17 GMT 12
If you have any respect for Sir David Attenborough (he was a staple part of my childhood TV experiences) and have a Netflix subscription then try watching “A life on our planet.” He has some valid insights from his personal experiences working closely with our natural environment over his amazing 93yrs life. and yet when a "real scientist", Dr David Bellamy spoke out against CC he was "sent to Coventry" by the CC establishment, bit like a modern day Spanish Inquisition. www.climatechangechallenge.org/News/Featured-Articles/bellamy_climate_change_not_man_made.htmBe mindful that Attenborough is a broadcaster, he only holds honorary "degrees". Yes he has a keen and long term interest in biology. Then there is Dr Pat Moore, co founder of Greenpeace, and now speaking out about the CC BS for those who need help with their sleep, see this paper he presented to the US senate a few years ago www.epw.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/4/1/415b9cde-e664-4628-8fb5-ae3951197d03/01AFD79733D77F24A71FEF9DAFCCB056.22514hearingwitnesstestimonymoore.pdfnotably There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the
dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100
years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual
proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely
that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since
the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis)
“Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law.
The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further
examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical
calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the
IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
These judgments are based, almost entirely, on the results of sophisticated computer
models designed to predict the future of global climate. As noted by many observers,
including Dr. Freeman Dyson of the Princeton Institute for Advanced Studies, a
computer model is not a crystal ball. We may think it sophisticated, but we cannot
predict the future with a computer model any more than we can make predictions
with crystal balls, throwing bones, or by appealing to the Gods. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2022 18:33:33 GMT 12
Attenborough is a drama queen!
Can't stand his anemic voice and his spin. The furkin cameraman does all the hard work.
He needs to study history of weather and environmental records better.
For a start anybody who uses the title " climate change*" is a moron.
Anybody who can quantify a definitive meaning for CC will be doing something nobody has achieved yet.
Is it...
Global warming) cooling??... And over what measurement igmd time!
Is it CO2 volume man made v. Natural!?
Is it anything proven in real science using data points over 1,19,100,... 100000000000 years?
Attenborough is just a mouth piece with one side of a very dubious argument
|
|
|
|
Post by sabre on Sept 4, 2022 18:35:21 GMT 12
Like I posted earlier, many CC "experts" in the 70's predicted an ice age within our lifetime.
I don't believe you can consider any current weather patterns within such a small time frame as as any evidence of CC espiecially when several countries are getting into weather modification (cloud seeding) in a big way.
|
|
|
|
Post by em on Sept 4, 2022 18:42:32 GMT 12
If you have any respect for Sir David Attenborough (he was a staple part of my childhood TV experiences) and have a Netflix subscription then try watching “A life on our planet.” He has some valid insights from his personal experiences working closely with our natural environment over his amazing 93yrs life. Yep I would choose Attenborough over top gear or amazing feats of engineering for old buggers any day . Even our great Dane watches it , she won’t watch anything else except country calendar but only if there’s sheep dog action . which ever way you dice it we are slowly fucking the place up , right across the board . Not so much CC but pollution |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 4, 2022 19:03:44 GMT 12
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the
dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100
years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual
proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
So, this is classic. What is proof? They couldn't actually prove smoking caused lung cancer until the mid 90's. It was fairly apparent smoking was causing, or the very least, contributing to cancer for decades before that. The point was, if you tried taking a tobacco company to court, they would say "prove it". How do you prove such a thing? How can you prove for one particular person smoking caused their lung cancer? How can you tell it wasn't genetics, or a fleeting exposure to asbestos, or they lived in a big city with poor air quality, or some other environmental factor? The exact same argument applies to both climate change, and man made climate change. How is it even possible to measure the global temperature? You can't average it, as the old saying, an average never occurs. By definition, everything is either greater than or less than an average. Same with rain fall, storm events, sunshine hours etc. An average never occurs. So how can you use that for a proof that something has changed? 50% of weather is above average, by definition. And then, how do you argue that climate change is man made? There is some logic, and a theory. But if you want to ignore it, you can easily squabble there is no proof. Just the same way they couldn't prove smoking causes lung cancer. I think trying to debate climate change is like masterbating with a cheese greater... |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Sept 5, 2022 8:31:32 GMT 12
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the
dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100
years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual
proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
So, this is classic. What is proof? They couldn't actually prove smoking caused lung cancer until the mid 90's. It was fairly apparent smoking was causing, or the very least, contributing to cancer for decades before that. The point was, if you tried taking a tobacco company to court, they would say "prove it". How do you prove such a thing? How can you prove for one particular person smoking caused their lung cancer? How can you tell it wasn't genetics, or a fleeting exposure to asbestos, or they lived in a big city with poor air quality, or some other environmental factor? The exact same argument applies to both climate change, and man made climate change. How is it even possible to measure the global temperature? You can't average it, as the old saying, an average never occurs. By definition, everything is either greater than or less than an average. Same with rain fall, storm events, sunshine hours etc. An average never occurs. So how can you use that for a proof that something has changed? 50% of weather is above average, by definition. And then, how do you argue that climate change is man made? There is some logic, and a theory. But if you want to ignore it, you can easily squabble there is no proof. Just the same way they couldn't prove smoking causes lung cancer. I think trying to debate climate change is like masterbating with a cheese greater... |
|
|
|
Post by armchairadmiral on Sept 5, 2022 8:41:34 GMT 12
Don't need proof. Like Covid CC is a mechanism to scare the population into compliance, blind obedience,acceptance of more tax (e.g.ETS ,fuel tax) & blind faith the govt.will save them ! Religion has failed to control society today so they needed another fear factor. Ice age wasn't coming quick enough but it was getting a little warmer in some places so they fastened onto that via Al Gore's propaganda movie. Goebbels would have been proud of that ! You've only got to see drongos still wearing masks out in the open ,driving cars etc. to see how easily people are manipulated. 50 % of the population voted for this govt. My case rests
|
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 5, 2022 11:51:00 GMT 12
Don't need proof. Like Covid CC is a mechanism to scare the population into compliance, blind obedience,acceptance of more tax (e.g.ETS ,fuel tax) & blind faith the govt.will save them ! Religion has failed to control society today so they needed another fear factor. Ice age wasn't coming quick enough but it was getting a little warmer in some places so they fastened onto that via Al Gore's propaganda movie. Goebbels would have been proud of that ! You've only got to see drongos still wearing masks out in the open ,driving cars etc. to see how easily people are manipulated. 50 % of the population voted for this govt. My case rests This is a good post Armchair, and segways very nicely into a point I was wanting to make about CC. So far almost all of the debate about CC has been if it is occurring or not. This data v that data. This research v that research. Who funded what research etc etc. The whole debate is bogged down in distracting detail. What is more important is the high level questions: 1) What can we do about it? 2) How do you live your life? 3) Can we influence the weather at all? I am agnostic on if we are causing the climate change. Do I think the climate is changing? Absolutely! It is the very definition of weather and climate that it changes. To try and claim a chaotic natural system remains constant is just a nonsense. I think the greatest challenge is actually measuring the change. You are trying to measure a chaotic system. Good luck getting meaningful data out of that. Do I think we can influence the weather, you have to be dreaming! Then, how do you live your life? I certainly don't live in a constant state of fear and anxiety that what I put on the BBQ will lead to a global apocolyps. I got hybride and plug in EV cars cause they save me money. I don't take offshore holidays. But that is mainly because I can't afford them, don't like the idea of flying for a holiday (having flown extensively for work) and have a boat to holiday on. Not because I think it will cause a heatwave. Some of the Greenies certainly appear to live in a constant state of fear. I don't think that is because of climate change. That is because they are highly strung, have anxiety issues and struggle to just live in the moment. Greenpeace was active well before climate change was a thing. This is the type of people that need a cause to give them a purpose in life. CC. Sea Shepherd is a classic example of that. Similar for Forest and Bird. Would I buy a beachfront house that is prone to coastal erosion, tsunami and flooding from high tides / sea level rise. I'm an Engineer, don't be silly. I selected a house up a hill, but on flat-ish ground free of risk of slips, liquefaction, low enough to avoid lightening strike, kind of damaging winds (we still cope them a bit), no overland flow paths, no crossing services etc. People that build expensive houses on top of cliffs, steep slip prone hills on on beaches deserve what they get. That element is biblical, the man who build his house on sand, dirt and rock... This element of climate change will be addressed by the insurance industry, not by govt. Then, linking back to what we can do about it. So the govt is trying to change the way people live by introducing taxes and incentives. Much the same way they've been trying to stop people smoking for the last 50 years. This is where the rubber hits the road. It is not if we believe in CC, it is 'do we agree with what the govt is doing?' Randomly, there are a group of people that don't think the govt is doing enough. Should we be taxing cow farts? Nope. Should we have banned oil and gas prospecting? Nope. Should we create a carbon credits market that makes planting pine trees 4 times more profitable than growing food?.... Food and energy security are fundamental to a functioning society. Run out of either, and see how long the govt lasts for. The logic of trying to reduce food production is deeply alarming. Sri Lanka's energy crisis is a good example, along with them banning fertiliser and collapsing their tea industry in one season. Grain and the Ukraine war. Europe's self inflicted energy crisis. Bring back nuclear and fracking as fast as you can. Water security. Was it Cape Town that ran out of water last year? Egypt and the Renaissance dam, possibly leading to a regional conflict. Foot and Mouth Disease. Imagine killing every cloven hoofed animal in NZ. Your summer BBQ would consist of eggs and onions, and not much else... The next major human catastrophe wont be CC. It will be food shortages. Like covid but for crops. Cast you mind back to the Irish great potato famine. Mass starvation. The Lords having walled estates with armed men patrolling, while starving peasants try to steal enough food to survive. Mass migration. The general breakdown of social structure. The single greatest risk of changing climate is the collapse of food production. Droughts, floods, failed crops. So deliberately trying to limit food production because of climate change is about as illogical as you can get. It is so illogical I can't think of an analogy. Its like spending all of your money before a major economic recession (oh, wait, they're doing that too?) So, I think we can stop arguing about the data and proof of climate change, and focus on the govt policies. It is the govt policies that are causing the issues. To tax cow farts directly threatens the economics and security of our food production. |
|
|
|
Post by jim on Sept 5, 2022 13:52:56 GMT 12
Post of the year Fish! I see so many people that are worried sick due to absorbing all the alarmist rubbish we are being given on so many fronts ( and pinning their hopes on guidance from the system/government), and so few people that step back and analyse what's going on then do what is best for them and their family. In the absence of true leadership, self-reliance will be the name of the game for the near future.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fogg on Sept 5, 2022 15:28:11 GMT 12
We have limited ability to influence the weather, notably triggering or preventing rain via cloud-seeding. The results are mixed but there’s a lot of money being invested in it, because whilst the costs of cloud-seeding are high the benefits (of avoiding drought or floods) are even higher. If they improve the hit rate of influencing rainfall it will be small but important weapon in the armoury of adaption.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2022 20:04:50 GMT 12
There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the
dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100
years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual
proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
So, this is classic. What is proof? They couldn't actually prove smoking caused lung cancer until the mid 90's. It was fairly apparent smoking was causing, or the very least, contributing to cancer for decades before that. The point was, if you tried taking a tobacco company to court, they would say "prove it". How do you prove such a thing? How can you prove for one particular person smoking caused their lung cancer? How can you tell it wasn't genetics, or a fleeting exposure to asbestos, or they lived in a big city with poor air quality, or some other environmental factor? The exact same argument applies to both climate change, and man made climate change. How is it even possible to measure the global temperature? You can't average it, as the old saying, an average never occurs. By definition, everything is either greater than or less than an average. Same with rain fall, storm events, sunshine hours etc. An average never occurs. So how can you use that for a proof that something has changed? 50% of weather is above average, by definition. And then, how do you argue that climate change is man made? There is some logic, and a theory. But if you want to ignore it, you can easily squabble there is no proof. Just the same way they couldn't prove smoking causes lung cancer. I think trying to debate climate change is like masterbating with a cheese greater... brilliant! But more importantly... have you got a😞 cheese grater for your fetish!😜😂😂😂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2022 20:07:37 GMT 12
Post of the year Fish! I see so many people that are worried sick due to absorbing all the alarmist rubbish we are being given on so many fronts ( and pinning their hopes on guidance from the system/government), and so few people that step back and analyse what's going on then do what is best for them and their family. In the absence of true leadership, self-reliance will be the name of the game for the near future. and that Jim . ... Is why I moved out of Stalindagrad.... You guys are in for a world of Stalinda induced/green/Maori pain. |
|
|
|
Post by fish on Sept 5, 2022 21:08:20 GMT 12
So, this is classic. What is proof? They couldn't actually prove smoking caused lung cancer until the mid 90's. It was fairly apparent smoking was causing, or the very least, contributing to cancer for decades before that. The point was, if you tried taking a tobacco company to court, they would say "prove it". How do you prove such a thing? How can you prove for one particular person smoking caused their lung cancer? How can you tell it wasn't genetics, or a fleeting exposure to asbestos, or they lived in a big city with poor air quality, or some other environmental factor? The exact same argument applies to both climate change, and man made climate change. How is it even possible to measure the global temperature? You can't average it, as the old saying, an average never occurs. By definition, everything is either greater than or less than an average. Same with rain fall, storm events, sunshine hours etc. An average never occurs. So how can you use that for a proof that something has changed? 50% of weather is above average, by definition. And then, how do you argue that climate change is man made? There is some logic, and a theory. But if you want to ignore it, you can easily squabble there is no proof. Just the same way they couldn't prove smoking causes lung cancer. I think trying to debate climate change is like masterbating with a cheese greater... brilliant! But more importantly... have you got a😞 cheese grater for your fetish!😜😂😂😂 I wouldn't recommend it. While it is slightly amusing, it is mainly painful. |
|
|
|
Post by GO30 on Sept 6, 2022 16:37:21 GMT 12
If you have any respect for Sir David Attenborough (he was a staple part of my childhood TV experiences) and have a Netflix subscription then try watching “A life on our planet.” He has some valid insights from his personal experiences working closely with our natural environment over his amazing 93yrs life. The way that post has been phrased is interesting just in itself.
I know realise why it was phrased that way  Oh good golly.
|
|
|
|
Post by ComfortZone on Sept 10, 2022 14:59:23 GMT 12
|
|
