Global climate strike day

Enable JavaScript to get the best experience.

Search Subscribed Topics Active Topics

Created by

decrepit > 9 months ago, 6 Sep 2019

First
Prev
…
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
…
» Next
Last

TonyAbbott

924 posts

23 Oct 2019 5:54pm

People are labelled a ~~heretic~~ 'denier' if they believe that temps are rising at a mostly normal rate within the realm of natural variability in accordance with the empirical evidence.

A non 'denier' is someone that ignores the data and puts religious like faith in doomsday computer models predictions that have never been correct. Ever.

Be smart, be a denier

petermac33

6415 posts

23 Oct 2019 5:54pm

The temperature and the sea level are rising - both just claims.

It does not feel any hotter in the nearly 40 years I've lived here. The hottest summer I can remember was back around the early to mid 80's when we had like twenty days out of twenty odd in the 30's and most of them were above 35C!

The last five or so summers in Perth have been quite mild. When we have a few cool summers the zealots tell us that's also global warming.

NotWal

QLD

7435 posts

23 Oct 2019 8:06pm

^ Global temp has only increased 1 deg since 1850.
Sea level increased by 19 cm since 1901.

Your personal experience and observations aren't particularly useful to you on these scales.

Ian K

4164 posts

23 Oct 2019 7:05pm

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..
^ Global temp has only increased 1 deg since 1850.
Sea level increased by 19 cm since 1901.

Your personal experience and observations aren't particularly useful to you on these scales.

19 cm in 120 years is up a bit, but nowhere near the meltwater pulses that apparently occurred in getting from the 130 metres lower than it is now.

6.5 metres in 140 years!

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level
"Solid geological evidence, based largely upon analysis of deep cores of coral reefs, exists only for 3 major periods of accelerated sea level rise, called meltwater pulses, during the last deglaciation. They are Meltwater pulse 1A between circa 14,600 and 14,300 calendar years ago; Meltwater pulse 1B between circa 11,400 and 11,100 calendar years ago; and Meltwater pulse 1C between 8,200 and 7,600 calendar years ago. Meltwater pulse 1A was a 13.5 m rise over about 290 years centered at 14,200 calendar years ago and Meltwater pulse 1B was a 7.5 m rise over about 160 years centered at 11,000 years calendar years ago. In sharp contrast, the period between 14,300 and 11,100 calendar years ago, which includes the Younger Dryas interval, was an interval of reduced sea level rise at about 6.0-9.9 mm/yr. Meltwater pulse 1C was centered at 8,000 calendar years and produced a rise of 6.5 m in less than 140 years."

azymuth

2166 posts

23 Oct 2019 8:21pm

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..
The biggest alarm that is going off for me is that logical challenge on scientific data is being shut down. There is currently zero incentive for any scientist to challenge any data being presented on anthropological climate change. It's career suicide as all the grants and money are in areas that reward a positive view on AGW. That to me is truly alarming. The very basis of scientific method is scepticism and challenge, without it popular opinion overrides the truth.

I've done a lot of research into the scientific views being put forward and it's alarming what's accepted or people are being told as "fact". The level of bias that organisations have that should be neutral and presenting pure confirmed data only is staggering.

Are you saying that climate scientists who have findings/evidence contrary to the CC consensus are unable to get their scientific papers published?

If so, what evidence do you have to make that assertion?

Ian K

4164 posts

23 Oct 2019 8:31pm

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
The temperature and the sea level are rising - both just claims.

It does not feel any hotter in the nearly 40 years I've lived here. The hottest summer I can remember was back around the early to mid 80's when we had like twenty days out of twenty odd in the 30's and most of them were above 35C!

The last five or so summers in Perth have been quite mild. When we have a few cool summers the zealots tell us that's also global warming.

Did you know Pete, that the design of the Perth Arena was inspired by the Eternity puzzle that was created by Lord Monckton. Lord Monckton paid out half a million in prize money to two Cambridge mathematicians who managed to solve it!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternity_puzzle

Paradox

QLD

1326 posts

24 Oct 2019 10:45am

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

No, I am saying that there are very few scientists working on such papers. Research needs funding, no funding no research. Funding by the energy companies is tainted by association so even they don't seem to do much these days.

That said there are plenty of experts that still speak out against climate alarmism. As far as I can tell most just keep their mouth shut, especially if speaking out may jeopardise their work or career.

I am also not saying there is or should be anyone working to actively discredit AGW, that in itself if just as bad, it's a valid concept it just isn't actually proven, although most scientists agree there is probably at least some contribution.

More to the point is that peer review is falling away. Calling out poor scientific method or overblown statements in summaries that exaggerate the data you have presented is increasingly becoming a career limiting move.

Ian K

4164 posts

24 Oct 2019 9:45am

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

More to the point is that peer review is falling away. Calling out poor scientific method or overblown statements in summaries that exaggerate the data you have presented is increasingly becoming a career limiting move.

You're referring to the "soft sciences" here I presume? There's a reluctance to categorise the earth sciences as either hard or soft.

~~https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hard_and_soft_science.~~
If you do you get in trouble.
www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/earth-science-not-hard-science-congressional-republicans-declare

There's no doubt some hard knuckly bits in the middle but the edges of climate science that we see appear to me to be a bit soggy.

Paradox

QLD

1326 posts

24 Oct 2019 3:40pm

Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

The earth sciences for sure. The very nature allows for huge movements in interpretation and there is little future for an earth science professional who questions the popular opinion on AGW.

But I also see some of the harder data/reports having summaries that move away from exact scientific language and move more into emotive one sided language that is not necessarily a balanced summary of the data. These summaries are then grabbed by others as "scientific truth".

If you read some of the IPCC reports they do this. They have some great hard data and analysis content but then the commentary on that data moves away from a balanced view of what it says and leans heavily to one side of an interpretation. I tend to read the detail of IPPC reports and come away with a solid view, then read the summary and its just wtf.....where did that come from? Mind you those reports are compiled by many and I assume only the trusted get to write the summaries.

I find it easy to weed out the truly unbiased papers as the language is pure interpretation and balance as opposed to a lead in that reads straight off the webpage of Extinction Rebellion.

Rango

831 posts

24 Oct 2019 2:15pm

They do always say that."Long term prediction of future climate states is not possible".
Must be to cover their arse when they're always wrong.

Spotty

VIC

1619 posts

24 Oct 2019 7:14pm

Rango

831 posts

24 Oct 2019 5:08pm

Select to expand quote

Spotty said..

Last time in 2002 unfortunately it may mean less rain in areas already having a drought.

log man

VIC

8289 posts

24 Oct 2019 8:44pm

Select to expand quote

Spotty said..

i thought nasa were part of the deep state, pedophile, communist elites........

petermac33

6415 posts

24 Oct 2019 6:13pm

The way things are headed the GW cultists are soon going to be opening up their own churches. Instead of.....

Our Father, who art in heaven,
hallowed be thy Name,
thy kingdom come,
thy will be done,
on earth as it is in heaven.

Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our trespasses,
as we forgive those
who trespass against us.

And lead us not into temptation,
but deliver us from evil.

For thine is the kingdom,
and the power, and the glory,
for ever and ever.

Our Emperor,who art in Global Govt,hallowed be their science,

Thy kingdom come,thy will be had on our science,

Give us this day our daily propaganda.

And forgive us our trespasses,as we forgive those deniers who trespass against our science.

And lead us from not listening to our own senses but instead deliver us from truth.

For your science is the kingdom,and the power,and the glory,

forever and ever.

decrepit

12802 posts

25 Oct 2019 8:50am

As usual Pete you have it all wrong.
Religion is about God, (or Gods), Science deliberately excludes God, (or Gods), without explicitly denying God (or Gods). Religion just isn't a part of science, or science a religion.
Belief shouldn't be a part of it, although it's easy to become emotionally attached to your own pet theories.
That's why there is peer review, to flush out any discrepancies.

And Pete, do you realise you just said "Global Government"?
Was that a Freudian slip?
So have you, deep down rejected the idea of a flat earth?

petermac33

6415 posts

25 Oct 2019 2:35pm

IPCC and NIST - two perfect examples of their science.

Or should I have said their religion?

So much for the trust in peer review flushing out any discrepancies in those two corrupt to the core organisations.

You appear super emotionally attached to your pet theory decrepit so I'm not expecting you ever to see thru their BS.

Ever.

decrepit

12802 posts

25 Oct 2019 3:16pm

Pete, I don't have a pet theory, not that you'd recognise as one anyway.

JulianRoss

544 posts

25 Oct 2019 4:16pm

So is heaven inside or outside the glass dome?

petermac33

6415 posts

25 Oct 2019 4:32pm

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
Pete, I don't have a pet theory, not that you'd recognise as one anyway.

Prior to their media campaign or to be more correct their bombardment of the 'facts' a decade or so ago you had not seen first hand any indication that the sea was rising.

Yet now,you are so concerned that many low lying coastal communities will be under water in the next generation or so!

First hand evidence or their data?

You choose the latter - welcome to the church of the Warmists.

japie

NSW

7145 posts

25 Oct 2019 7:43pm

I see Kilo has been suspended. Do we have another serial dobber at work?

azymuth

2166 posts

25 Oct 2019 5:11pm

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

Prior to their media campaign or to be more correct their bombardment of the 'facts' a decade or so ago you had not seen first hand any indication that the sea was rising.

Yet now,you are so concerned that many low lying coastal communities will be under water in the next generation or so!
First hand evidence or their data?
You choose the latter - welcome to the church of the Warmists.

You really don't have a clue how science works

If only the world was as simple as you think it is!

Ian K

4164 posts

25 Oct 2019 5:45pm

Select to expand quote

japie said..
I see Kilo has been suspended. Do we have another serial dobber at work?

Why would Kilo get suspended? Occasionally he had a go at his opposition, nothing different from the post above having a go at Pete33. He exaggerated occasionally, water at 0 deg C only holds 3 times as much Co2 as that at 27 degrees, not 4 as he claimed, but a relevant point none the less. etc etc.

petermac33

6415 posts

25 Oct 2019 6:02pm

Select to expand quote

japie said..
I see Kilo has been suspended. Do we have another serial dobber at work?

Decrepit is very open to having any opposing opinion on their climate change 'facts' censored so I'm sure if this is why kilo has been suspended I'm sure he and his fellow cultists will be over the moon with the moderators for towing the line?

Now, if we can only have any others that contradict the official theory of 911 banned / suspended too things will be moving along all the merrier.

FormulaNova

15090 posts

25 Oct 2019 6:11pm

Select to expand quote

japie said..
I see Kilo has been suspended. Do we have another serial dobber at work?

Who cares? He seemed to eager to bignote himself and then fell apart when it came to actually debating things.

I think he was quite clever in a way in that he was actually genuine in being able to criticise someone for insulting him while at the exact same time insulting the original author. I am not even sure he knew he was doing it!

I guess its okay, Canada is too cold, so global warming is fine there. I also saw the cliffs on the Great Australian Bight, and they are tall, so if we all get stuck, we can move there and still have coastal properties!

Rango

831 posts

27 Oct 2019 9:16am

Select to expand quote

Paradox said..

Poida said..
still, I think I will go with the scientist at CSIRO and BoM for facts than the rantings of climate deniers.

The deniers are creating a smoke screen using "sophistry and exaggeration to deceive" (quote. Thomas B Macaulay). I really don't know what their goal is, if any, other than another conspiracy.

I am not sure exactly what a "climate denier" is, but 100%, stick with the known facts and reliable sources. CSIRO and BoM are solid as far as I can see. Anyone who is funded by petroleum or is a career "climate scientist" are biased, as is anyone who benefits from renewable energy, in fact the last two are the worst IMO.

Far too much deception on the topic, although as far as I can see apart from the usual conspiracy nuts, most of the "sophistry and exaggeration to deceive" is coming from those with vested interests.

As far as I can tell the only thing we truly know is that we are pumping a heap of CO2 into the atmosphere and the global temperature is also steadily rising, although that seemed to start before we pumped all the CO2 into the air. People can link them, they can draw conclusions and come up with models and hypothesis, but the truth is that we don't actually know if the CO2 is doing anything because the system is so complex and the changes are within natural variance. There is also no hard evidence that the climate is changing apart from the steady temperature rise. Again because everything is still within typical expected variance.

It's all a guess about what is happening in a chaotic system we have no idea how to predict its behaviour. The current trend of global warming was happening before we started pumping out CO2.

The biggest alarm that is going off for me is that logical challenge on scientific data is being shut down. There is currently zero incentive for any scientist to challenge any data being presented on anthropological climate change. It's career suicide as all the grants and money are in areas that reward a positive view on AGW. That to me is truly alarming. The very basis of scientific method is scepticism and challenge, without it popular opinion overrides the truth.

I've done a lot of research into the scientific views being put forward and it's alarming what's accepted or people are being told as "fact". The level of bias that organisations have that should be neutral and presenting pure confirmed data only is staggering.

principia-scientific.org/the-academic-lynching-of-polar-bear-expert-susan-crockford/

petermac33

6415 posts

27 Oct 2019 2:33pm

It's more about sending a message to others who do not tow the line than getting rid of her.

And it works.

One world Govt,one religion,one language....

Rango

831 posts

27 Oct 2019 6:09pm

Is this what you would call scientific cleansing .

decrepit

12802 posts

27 Oct 2019 7:50pm

Just had a look at Susan in wikipedia. Here's an extract.

"Crockford is an expert on polar bears, but not on climate change in general. She is a signatory of the International Conference on Climate Change's 2008 Manhattan Declaration,[11] which states that "Carbon dioxide and other 'greenhouse gas' emissions from human activity...appear to have only a very small impact on global climate," and "Global cooling has presented serious problems for human society and the environment throughout history while global warming has generally been highly beneficial."[12] Between at least 2011 and 2013, she received payment from The Heartland Institute, in the form of $750 per month, which Crockford states was to provide summaries of published papers that might not have been covered by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's Fifth Assessment Report.[3] This payment has been construed as an undisclosed conflict of interest, by blogs such as Desmog Blog.[2] Her response to such claims was a disclosure of the job description, how much she was paid, and the duration of the contract.[3] Other polar bear scientists disagree with claims made on Crockford's blog, but the blog has been widely cited by websites that either deny of are skeptical of climate change, with over 80% citing it as their primary source of information on polar bears.[13] Critics point out that none of Crockford's claims regarding the effects of climate change on polar bears has undergone peer review, nor has she ever published any peer-reviewed articles whose main focus is polar bears.[2][13] "

So without seeing/hearing her lectures I'm assuming she's denying the affects of human CO2 on climate change.
She's not just saying the threat to polar bears is small.

cisco

QLD

12364 posts

27 Oct 2019 10:39pm

How about we get our priorities right??

Forget about the "global warming/climate change propaganda".

The world is choking on plastic. Micro plastic is in the food chain and will kill us slowly and miserably. It is the most widespread toxic matter on earth.

It is a by-product of the petroleum industry. Forget about single use plastic bags. That is just the tip of the ice berg.

Plastic production needs to be tightly regulated to where it is only produced for essentials and must be recycleable.

Get Greta Thunderberg onto that one.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=global+plastic+pollution&go=Go&ns0=1

Mobydisc

NSW

9029 posts

28 Oct 2019 7:25am

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
As usual Pete you have it all wrong.
Religion is about God, (or Gods), Science deliberately excludes God, (or Gods), without explicitly denying God (or Gods). Religion just isn't a part of science, or science a religion.
Belief shouldn't be a part of it, although it's easy to become emotionally attached to your own pet theories.
That's why there is peer review, to flush out any discrepancies.

And Pete, do you realise you just said "Global Government"?
Was that a Freudian slip?
So have you, deep down rejected the idea of a flat earth?

Scientism. Those professing atheism and trust in the scientific method cannot have their own religion based on faith, dogma, association and ritual?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientism

Last night the ABC TV news proclaimed in a ten minute story the fantastic news coal is no longer needed to be burned in the U.K. to generate the electricity needed there. We were told how renewables are the future.

What was not part of the story was how millions of trees in the U.S.A. are cut down, processed into pellets, shipped over to the U.K. and burned in furnaces to generate electricity. Just ignore half of the facts to make the story sound great. The unmentioned question is why is coal still burned in Australia? Are we going to start chopping down trees to generate electricity so coal can be kept in the ground?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drax_Power_Station

Loading more posts...

Please Register, or first...

First
Prev
…
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
…
» Next
Last

Topics Reply