Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..
What a surprising result, reminds me of a survey of 10000 IT experts in the late 90's , 98% of them agreed the millenium bug was going to crash computers at the turn of the century.

Well, given that lots of companies spent money resolving these issues and ugrading systems before the year 2000, I don't really understand what your point is.

It was a known issue. It was unknown for some things. People went to work and fixed or replaced.

Are you saying that with climate change we should sit back and do nothing as this seems to be what your post suggests about the Y2K issues.

I am amazed at the messagaging involving climate change, basically the world is on the brink of disaster, to quote David Attenborough "the moment of catastrophy has arrived" that was 4 years ago so now apparently not, but you get the drift, its a climate emergency..

Ok lets go nuclear, everyone's happy, clean energy for the lefties, cheap power for the righties, happy days right. There's a risk, agreed, but its small, smaller than doing nothing according to the narrative. But no apparently the climate emergency is not that big an emergency to consider a proven reliable cheap source of power that statistically is safer than the other sources and it would satisfy everyone's objectives

Sorry.... I apply my critical thinking to this current situation and conclude something else is driving the narrative, it don't make sense.

Is it religious climate fervour of the radical left or is something else at play. I don't know but I call BS on EV cars and offshore windturbines etc etc. FFS a battery powered solution to energy will result in 10 times as many mines as we have now for a start, how is that good for the environment. It does not make sense.

Pcdefender said..
I look at the physical evidence not THEIR DATA.

Data can and is being manipulated to paint a picture.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

What a surprising result, reminds me of a survey of 10000 IT experts in the late 90's , 98% of them agreed the millenium bug was going to crash computers at the turn of the century.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

I am suggesting that 98% of active climate scientists may have a vested interest in agreeing with the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Anyone with any ability to think critically would take that into account when looking at the results of such a survey.

Thinking critically I take into account that deniers like Marohasy are paid by polluters.

Select to expand quote

cammd said..
I am amazed at the messagaging involving climate change, basically the world is on the brink of disaster, to quote David Attenborough "the moment of catastrophy has arrived" that was 4 years ago so now apparently not, but you get the drift, its a climate emergency..

Ok lets go nuclear, everyone's happy, clean energy for the lefties, cheap power for the righties, happy days right. There's a risk, agreed, but its small, smaller than doing nothing according to the narrative. But no apparently the climate emergency is not that big an emergency to consider a proven reliable cheap source of power that statistically is safer than the other sources and it would satisfy everyone's objectives

Sorry.... I apply my critical thinking to this current situation and conclude something else is driving the narrative, it don't make sense.

Is it religious climate fervour of the radical left or is something else at play. I don't know but I call BS on EV cars and offshore windturbines etc etc. FFS a battery powered solution to energy will result in 10 times as many mines as we have now for a start, how is that good for the environment. It does not make sense.

Thinking critically I am aware of skewed outcomes. That is, the risk of nuclear meltdown is extraordinarily low, but the outcomes are extraordinarily catastrophic.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cammd said..

I am suggesting that 98% of active climate scientists may have a vested interest in agreeing with the existence of anthropogenic climate change.

Anyone with any ability to think critically would take that into account when looking at the results of such a survey.

Thinking critically I take into account that deniers like Marohasy are paid by polluters.

We are all polluters, stop using electricity and enjoying first world luxuries, like health care for example, if you want to throw stones at "polluters".

Its a real "I'm OK Jack" attitude climate alarmists display, 90% of the world is still living in the dirt but alarmist's want to deny those people the cheap abundant energy that has undeniably been the source of first world countries standard of living.

Select to expand quote

remery said..

cammd said..
I am amazed at the messagaging involving climate change, basically the world is on the brink of disaster, to quote David Attenborough "the moment of catastrophy has arrived" that was 4 years ago so now apparently not, but you get the drift, its a climate emergency..

Ok lets go nuclear, everyone's happy, clean energy for the lefties, cheap power for the righties, happy days right. There's a risk, agreed, but its small, smaller than doing nothing according to the narrative. But no apparently the climate emergency is not that big an emergency to consider a proven reliable cheap source of power that statistically is safer than the other sources and it would satisfy everyone's objectives

Sorry.... I apply my critical thinking to this current situation and conclude something else is driving the narrative, it don't make sense.

Is it religious climate fervour of the radical left or is something else at play. I don't know but I call BS on EV cars and offshore windturbines etc etc. FFS a battery powered solution to energy will result in 10 times as many mines as we have now for a start, how is that good for the environment. It does not make sense.

Thinking critically I am aware of screwed outcomes. That is, the risk of nuclear meltdown is extraordinarily low, but the outcomes are extraordinarily catastrophic.

But they are not world ending, and in the "extraordinarily low" event of an accident they are localised not globalised and they are not a given, On the other hand the climate change narrative tells us the outcomes are "extraordinarily catastrophic" and imminent if emmission's are not reduced.

Based on that one can only think either the "emergency" is not really that bad or something else is driving the narrative

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

We are all polluters, stop using electricity and enjoying first world luxuries, like health care for example, if you want to throw stones at "polluters".

Its a real "I'm OK Jack" attitude climate alarmists display, 90% of the world is still living in the dirt but alarmist's want to deny those people the cheap abundant energy that has undeniably been the source of first world countries standard of living.

I remember the 70's when the US had 2 percent of the world's population, but generated 25 percent of the world's pollution. So I agree that developing countries should not have the bear the cost of western excesses. This used to be Lomborg's argument before he joined Pcdefender as a shill for big industry. I purchased his book Skeptical Environmentalist when it came out and I agreed with a lot of what he said. But now he is just a money-making attention seeker.

Similarly, Marohasy calls herself a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method, but she is just another fossil fuel company stooge. Follow the money as they say.

The other thing to realise, contrary to Lomborg's claim about Thunberg, is that generally climate scientists are saying that the irreversible tipping point is imminent, not climate catastrophe... that comes later and will cause suffering for our children's children. But climate deniers don't care about that.

Select to expand quote

remery said..
I remember the 70's when the US had 2 percent of the world's population....

Did it ?

Which century is that, 'cause I don't think its correct if its the 1970s.

ChatGPT FACT CHECK

In the 1970s, the population of the United States accounted for around 5% of the total global population.

In the 1970s, the population of the United States was around 200 million to 220 million people. The total global population during that time was approximately 4 billion to 4.4 billion people.

In the 1970s, the United States was responsible for roughly 25-30% of global carbon dioxide emissions.

remery's point is valid. Carantoc point is also valid, however, he is trolling and isn't contributing to the debate that Global Warming has hit Perth.

Not claiming accuracy with my quick google search.

Approx populations in 1970 (Macrotrends)
US = 200,000,000
World = 3,700,000,000
Approx 5.5 percent

Current estimates are 12 percentage of world waste is created in the US, Canada produces the most waste by volume and Denmark produces the most per capita. Denmark's numbers are widely believed to be due to accuracy i.e. they ain't telling fibs taking the issue of waste/landfill far more seriously than the majority of other western cultures.

Select to expand quote

Carantoc said..

remery said..
I remember the 70's when the US had 2 percent of the world's population....

Did it ?

Which century is that, 'cause I don't think its correct if its the 1970s.

It was my recollection of a university lecture on Natural Resource Management in the early 80s. It's possible I'm wrong and the lecturer said 5 percent.

I think it's called Cunningham's law

If you want the correct answer from the net don't post a question, post a wrong answer.

We just need to be humble enough to stand corrected on occassion.

^^ A 5 is just an inverted 2. Remery could win the argument standing on his head

Select to expand quote

Brent in Qld said..
I think it's called Cunningham's law

If you want the correct answer from the net don't post a question, post a wrong answer.

We just need to be humble enough to stand corrected on occassion.

occasion

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Similarly, Marohasy calls herself a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method, but she is just another fossil fuel company stooge.

Follow the money as they say.

hmm I wonder if that principal applies to copper and rare earth mineral mines, solar panels and EV car makers etc , there wouldn't be any financial gains to be made in the climate scare industry would there.

If only we had a carbon tax, the revenues/wealth transfer generated from that would have been put to good use

Regardless of how convinced you are of man made climate change you would have to be very very very niave to believe at least some of the alarmist claims/remedies are not designed to empty your pockets

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Brent in Qld said..
I think it's called Cunningham's law

If you want the correct answer from the net don't post a question, post a wrong answer.

We just need to be humble enough to stand corrected on occassion.

occasion

I stand corrected.

The latest claptrap is....and i swear am not making this up.....

kangaroo poo reduces methane in cattle

So you feed our cattle you know what and it supposedly stops the sea rising - right.

Is there anyone out there short of remery that is buying it?

www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/kangaroo-poo-shows-potential-to-reduce-methane-emissions-from-cattle/vi-AA1fqIhU?ocid=socialshare&cvid=bfb3a3da13cc4783803fdb37da4ed3ec&ei=29

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
The latest claptrap is....and i swear am not making this up.....

kangaroo poo reduces methane in cattle

So you feed our cattle you know what and it supposedly stops the sea rising - right.

Is there anyone out there short of remery that is buying it?

www.msn.com/en-au/news/other/kangaroo-poo-shows-potential-to-reduce-methane-emissions-from-cattle/vi-AA1fqIhU?ocid=socialshare&cvid=bfb3a3da13cc4783803fdb37da4ed3ec&ei=29

Fecal transplant and gut biology, it's an accepted medical practise, in this case it's still early days and they are having more success with feeding cattle seaweed in their diet to reduce methane (another recognised greenhouse gas).

Jeeze if you had've looked out you're window in the middle of summer this would've been a totaly different thread

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
The latest claptrap is....and i swear am not making this up.....

kangaroo poo reduces methane in cattle

So you feed our cattle you know what and it supposedly stops the sea rising - right.

Is there anyone out there short of remery that is buying it?

Try reading the scientific paper.

"Out of the total greenhouse gases (GHGs) emitted into the atmosphere, methane (CH4) is the second largest anthropogenic greenhouse gas contributor, accounting for 14% of the total volume of GHGs emitted into the atmosphere. Furthermore, CH4 is ca. 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide (CO2). Of the total CH4 released, 50-60% CH4 is coming from the agricultural sector with ruminant animals being the most significant contributors (Ogino et al., 2007)."

Supriya C. Karekar, Birgitte K. Ahring. Reducing methane production from rumen cultures by bioaugmentation with homoacetogenic bacteria. Biocatalysis and Agricultural Biotechnology, 2023; 47: 102526 DOI: 10.1016/j.bcab.2022.102526

Rob, now you've really convinced him! Everything from science is part of the conspiracy.

Select to expand quote

elmo said..

Fecal transplant and gut biology, it's an accepted medical practise, in this case it's still early days and they are having more success with feeding cattle seaweed in their diet to reduce methane (another recognised greenhouse gas).

Jeeze if you had've looked out you're window in the middle of summer this would've been a totaly different thread

I'm thinking that when medical science intervened and saved his mangled leg, the scientifically trained doctors would have put him on antibiotics. This would have killed off his gut bacteria and caused constipation. The real, qualified doctors probably felt sorry for him and replaced his gut flora using probiotics. Along the lines of what Karekar and Ahring have been investigating.

Select to expand quote

Pcdefender said..
The latest claptrap is....and i swear am not making this up.....

kangaroo poo reduces methane in cattle

I don't know if my dog cares about the methane composition of his farts, but he loves a fresh pellet of roo poo when we go for our daily walk. I was told it was common practice for carnivores to eat some faecal matter of ruminants in order to get the gut micro biome balance correct. Maybe he is on to something...

Select to expand quote

remery said..

Thinking critically I take into account that deniers like Marohasy are paid by polluters.

I think we have gone over this before, but no one who uses a label "denier" without clearly defining what they are denying is using critical thinking.

Adhominem attacks are not used by those following scientific reasoning or methodolgy, they are using emotive rather than logical arguments.

Select to expand quote

Thinking critically I am aware of skewed outcomes. That is, the risk of nuclear meltdown is extraordinarily low, but the outcomes are extraordinarily catastrophic.

Perhaps you could list a comparison of those effected by and dying of energy poverty v those that have been adversly effected by and dying of nuclear accidents?

I think perhaps you might be on the wrong side of the "skewed"argument by many orders of magnitude.

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

remery said..

Thinking critically I take into account that deniers like Marohasy are paid by polluters.

I think we have gone over this before, but no one who uses a label "denier" without clearly defining what they are denying is using critical thinking.

Adhominem attacks are not used by those following scientific reasoning or methodolgy, they are using emotive rather than logical arguments.

Pointing out facts is not an ad hominem attack.Marohasy denies that climate change is caused by humans. She also denies that the temperature is warming. Much of her funding is provided by industrial polluters.

"Marohasy attained the position of Environment Manager for the Queensland Canegrowers Association beginning in 1997, where she: "became interested in environmental campaigns and, in particular, anomalies between fact and perception regarding the health of coastal river systems and the Great Barrier Reef." The Australian sugar cane industry has been identified as a major source of pollution contributing to adverse environmental impacts on rivers and coastal reefs."

"In 2003 Marohasy joined Australia's Institute of Public Affairs (IPA) as Environment Unit Director with a focus on the Murray River. That same year she published a paper titled "Myth and the Murray: Measuring the Real State of the River Environment." Her initial tenure at IPA coincided with a $40,000 contribution made to the organization from Murray Irrigation Limited, Australia's largest irrigation company. According to Don Henry, the Executive Director of the Australian Conservation Foundation: "The IPA has variously claimed that the Murray River is fine and doesn't need protection and that the Great Barrier Reef is not being polluted by fertilizer run-off - despite both federal and state governments saying to the contrary. I think in most cases the IPA presents an anti-environment perspective.""

"The IPA is an Australian think-tank that has received funding from petroleum, mining, logging, and tobacco concerns. In 2018, DeSmog confirmed mining magnate and climate change denier Gina Rinehart was a key backer of IPA, providing between a third and a half of the group's entire income via her company Hancock Prospecting Proprietary Ltd (HPPL). In 2010, The Sydney Morning Herald reported that about a quarter of IPA's $2 million in annual funding came from corporations with a direct stake in the climate change debate. Donors have included major corporations such as Visyboard, Telstra, Western Mining and BHP Billiton as well as the tobacco industry."

The Murray River is going okay except for two facts, caused by man. Firstly the Snowy Mountain Scheme diverts huge amounts of water from coastal rivers to the Murrumbidgee River and then to the Murray. Secondly there are weirs and barriers blocking tidal flows in what were once estuarine waters.

So there are massive man made changes to the river so there are bound bound to be problems with it. On the other hand these changes are irrigating huge amounts of land.

We keep hearing about needing more flows to South Australia. It's fairly probable more fresh water makes it there than before the coastal rivers were turned inland.

^^^ Have you included the water that is being used for irrigation in Qld that used to flow down the Darling River in your analysis?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..
^^^ Have you included the water that is being used for irrigation in Qld that used to flow down the Darling River in your analysis?

Talking about the Murray River here. But if you want to include to Darling River the health of it depends on the weather. From 2020 the river has been fine with huge amounts of rain in the Channel Country of mid west Queensland draining into the river systems. The next few year might be drier if the predictions of el nino comes true. But who know?

Australia is literally a land of droughts and flooding rains. These words were written over a hundred years ago and they were true then and are true today.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

Mr Milk said..
^^^ Have you included the water that is being used for irrigation in Qld that used to flow down the Darling River in your analysis?

Talking about the Murray River here. But if you want to include to Darling River the health of it depends on the weather. From 2020 the river has been fine with huge amounts of rain in the Channel Country of mid west Queensland draining into the river systems. The next few year might be drier if the predictions of el nino comes true. But who know?

Australia is literally a land of droughts and flooding rains. These words were written over a hundred years ago and they were true then and are true today.

Puh-leese. Dorothea MacKellar was a homesick rich girl in London when she wrote those words. Zero qualifications and scant knowledge of climate science. But the Sky watchers take them as the only words that count

"We keep hearing about needing more flows to South Australia. It's fairly probable more fresh water makes it there than before the coastal rivers were turned inland." YOUR WORDS. The Darling provided a fairly large amount of the water in the system. Paddle steamers used to go to Bourke to collect wool and take it down to SA for export.