Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

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

No here in oz our own little trick is to install 550mw of diesel generation in South oz ( nsw has about 40 mw for comparison) to cover network stability and peak demand when the great renewables experiment falls short

At least we aren't paying for them cos the guvment is.

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..

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

Thats incredible!
Someone watches the ABC.

Select to expand quote

Foghorn said..

Thats incredible!
Someone watches the ABC.

I do watch the ABC news at 7pm a fair bit. However I tend to think SBS news at 6.30pm is more fair and balanced than the ABC news is.

I don't watch any of the news on TV but do have a look at online news, headlines mostly as I don't see the point in reading (or watching) bad news.

The story about the UK not using coal was one that I did read, wondering how they did it, I didn't see anything about the wood pellets but liked the following quote from the story.

"Earlier this year the UK clocked up a fortnight without using the fossil fuel for electricity. "

It goes on to say that they have achieved this through mostly nuclear power and Natural Gas........ The other fossil fuel. There is also some wind power but the article didn't say how much.

It's still fossil fuel!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lying, deception and trickery are all acceptable for warmist church members so as long as you motivation is inline with the churches dogma

Select to expand quote

Mobydisc said..


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?

There's a big difference between 1 tonne of CO2 emitted by burning trees, and 1 tonne emitted by burning coal.

The CO2 from coal has been trapped for ~300 million years. The CO2 from trees has been trapped for ~20 years.

Trees are a renewable resource. Coal isn't.

You can have a steady state of tree crop rotation, with trees growing, being chopped down, being burnt for fuel, and replanted, with no net CO2 emissions. You can't do the same for coal.

Interesting side note:

If it wasn't for the fungi releasing co2 life would have ceased to exist.

Coal being trapped for 300 million years - Nebbian.

That depends on whether you believe their science or not.

6000 years old or 4.5 billion?

Ive heard some stars are 25 trillion miles away

Climate Change has become the most popular religion in the last few years,especially with the kids.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Coal being trapped for 300 million years - Nebbian.

That depends on whether you believe their science or not.

6000 years old or 4.5 billion?

Ive heard some stars are 25 trillion miles away

Climate Change has become the most popular religion in the last few years,especially with the kids.

Don't panic , earth will live on , and not even flinch .

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Ive heard some stars are 25 trillion miles away

The closest stars (Alpha Centauri A&B) are that distance away.


The radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years and 1 light year is 5.88 trillion miles
So the furthest stars are 270 BILLION TRILLION miles away

Select to expand quote

azymuth said..

petermac33 said..
Ive heard some stars are 25 trillion miles away

The closest stars (Alpha Centauri A&B) are that distance away.


The radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years and 1 light year is 5.88 trillion miles
So the furthest stars are 270 BILLION TRILLION miles away

Are u saying , we may not be alone ?

The distances they claim are ridiculous considering we can see them.

No one can even begin to comprehend these distances. Not even a fraction of a single percent.

Just another one of their lies to go with the countless others that we have also been spun.

The whole idea of a Big Bang creating all this is ludicrous to me in the first place.

Anyone who dares to question the science on this is of course refused airtime on the media. Similar to what we are currently seeing with the scientists who question man made climate change. A conspiracy of silence.

Select to expand quote

Imax1 said..

azymuth said..

petermac33 said..
Ive heard some stars are 25 trillion miles away

The closest stars (Alpha Centauri A&B) are that distance away.


The radius of the observable universe is 46 billion light-years and 1 light year is 5.88 trillion miles
So the furthest stars are 270 BILLION TRILLION miles away

Are u saying , we may not be alone ?

You'll have to ask this fellow. He seems to know how come it's 92 billion light years wide but only 14 billion years old?

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
The distances they claim are ridiculous considering we can see them.

No one can even begin to comprehend these distances. Not even a fraction of a single percent.

Just another one of their lies to go with the countless others that we have also been spun.

The whole idea of a Big Bang creating all this is ludicrous to me in the first place.

Anyone who dares to question the science on this is of course refused airtime on the media. Similar to what we are currently seeing with the scientists who question man made climate change. A conspiracy of silence.

Because you can't understand it doesn't make it less factual.

The measurement of stars has 100 years of science (evidence) behind it.

What you think is irrelevant.

Science these days is nothing but the prevailing dogma pushed by the media. Any scientist who disagrees is given the cold shoulder. David Bellamy a good example.

Im sure it's possible to come with any complex mathematical equation to fit any theory.

NIST came up with an explanation that has 18 years of science behind it - does not make it factual.

No one on here or anywhere else can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed.

The figures are taken 100 percent on trust.

Pete, science usually proves what isn't rather than what is.
Like a flat earth.. you know it's not flat because you can prove it's not flat.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Science deniers these days are nothing but the prevailing dogma pushed by conspiracy theorists who are captive of internet trash groupthink. Any scientist who disagrees with bible bashing nutters is given the cold shoulder. Carl Sagan is a good example.

I'm sure it's possible to come with a complex illogical stupid conspiracy theory to fit any psychosis.

Flat earthers came up with an explanation that has half an hour of pseudo science behind it - but that does not make it factual.

Why would anyone in their right mind deny that we have the knowledge to verify that the stars are vast distances from earth?

The figures are measured using scientific methods, which carry more weight than the Old Testament.

I took the liberty to rationalise your contribution petermac33. ^

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
No one on here or anywhere else can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed.
The figures are taken 100 percent on trust.

You'd be happier if you could just accept that there are millions of scientists that think/understand to a much deeper level than you do.
The universe doesn't operate on childish logic or anecdotal observations.


Astronomers estimate the distance of nearby stars using a method called trigonometric parallax.


This article is an overview of the determination of astronomical distances from a metrological standpoint.

Distances are considered from the Solar System (planetary distances) to extragalactic distances, with a special emphasis on the fundamental step of the trigonometric stellar distances and the giant leap recently experienced in this field thanks to the ESA space astrometry missions Hipparcos and Gaia

Here's an extract referring to the observations of the Gaia Space Telescope;



Full article;
www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1631070519300155

there must be a brain injury that's happened to some of our guests

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Science these days is nothing but the prevailing dogma pushed by the media. Any scientist who disagrees is given the cold shoulder. David Bellamy a good example.

Im sure it's possible to come with any complex mathematical equation to fit any theory.

NIST came up with an explanation that has 18 years of science behind it - does not make it factual.

No one on here or anywhere else can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed.

The figures are taken 100 percent on trust.

Nope, the science is published in peer reviewed journals. The MSM have their science journalists who sometimes misread or exaggerate for clicks. For reliable info you can go directly to the sources on line via scholar.google.com.

As far as trusting science, the civilized world relies on science to get it right and holds it to a high standard of veracity. They don't just make stuff up. They don't even raise hypotheses without good justification. The culture of science is rigorous. All assertions have to be testable. All assertions have to be independently verified. People caught cheating are pilloried. That's why Andrew Wakefield ex-physician was de-registered when he was found to be fiddling his data with respect to MMR vaccines. Science fraud is not uncommon but the scientific method is self correcting. Fraud is picked up sooner or later.

When you confidently assert that no one "can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed" you are wrong. Nuff said.

Select to expand quote

holy guacamole said..

petermac33 said..
Science deniers these days are nothing but the prevailing dogma pushed by conspiracy theorists who are captive of internet trash groupthink. Any scientist who disagrees with bible bashing nutters is given the cold shoulder. Carl Sagan is a good example.

I'm sure it's possible to come with a complex illogical stupid conspiracy theory to fit any psychosis.

Flat earthers came up with an explanation that has half an hour of pseudo science behind it - but that does not make it factual.

Why would anyone in their right mind deny that we have the knowledge to verify that the stars are vast distances from earth?

The figures are measured using scientific methods, which carry more weight than the Old Testament.

I took the liberty to rationalise your contribution petermac33. ^

Gold!!

I watched a video around 3 years ago of a oldish professor at a university who was giving a discussion.

He said he personally knows around 200 academics who do not agree with the science of evolution etc but they are not willing to come out publicly as they are fully aware how their jobs and funding will likely be put in jeopardy.

This is exactly what we are seeing with climate change.

You come out publicly and disagree with the science - expect your contract to not be renewed or least your prospects of further promotion are reduced greatly. This is common knowledge these days.

So much for science being up for debate.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
I watched a video around 3 years ago of a oldish professor at a university who was giving a discussion.

He said he personally knows around 200 academics who do not agree with the science of evolution etc but they are not willing to come out publicly as they are fully aware how their jobs and funding will likely be put in jeopardy.

This is exactly what we are seeing with climate change.

You come out publicly and disagree with the science - expect your contract to not be renewed or least your prospects of further promotion are reduced greatly. This is common knowledge these days.

So much for science being up for debate.

You obviously understand nothing yet seem compelled to say a lot

Yep,that's the first thing you have ever said that I agree with.

I take their science with a pinch of salt especially after the NIST finding on what took place on 911.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Yep,that's the first thing you have ever said that I agree with.

I take their science with a pinch of salt especially after the NIST finding on what took place on 911.

What did happen on 9/11 Pete?
After all this time of debunking everyone else's reports and theories, you've never told us the chain of events from your own physical observations.
Oh wait, that's right. You don't have any physical observations or experience with it because you've never been there or talked to anyone involved first hand.
Just YouTube

Select to expand quote

NotWal said..

petermac33 said..
Science these days is nothing but the prevailing dogma pushed by the media. Any scientist who disagrees is given the cold shoulder. David Bellamy a good example.

Im sure it's possible to come with any complex mathematical equation to fit any theory.

NIST came up with an explanation that has 18 years of science behind it - does not make it factual.

No one on here or anywhere else can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed.

The figures are taken 100 percent on trust.

Nope, the science is published in peer reviewed journals. The MSM have their science journalists who sometimes misread or exaggerate for clicks. For reliable info you can go directly to the sources on line via scholar.google.com.

As far as trusting science, the civilized world relies on science to get it right and holds it to a high standard of veracity. They don't just make stuff up. They don't even raise hypotheses without good justification. The culture of science is rigorous. All assertions have to be testable. All assertions have to be independently verified. People caught cheating are pilloried. That's why Andrew Wakefield ex-physician was de-registered when he was found to be fiddling his data with respect to MMR vaccines. Science fraud is not uncommon but the scientific method is self correcting. Fraud is picked up sooner or later.

When you confidently assert that no one "can possibly verify the stars are anywhere near the vast distances claimed" you are wrong. Nuff said.

Norwal, that is very well written and said explanation!!

If someone still wants to argue the validity of science after that then I suggest they get off the internet, stop using all electronic devices, never see a doctor again and enjoy their bronze age technology!!

Scientists are not allowed to criticise the climate change dogma

They will be sacked.

ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/fake-photographs-at-heart-of-peter-ridds-sacking

The peer review process is only good in theory. It is flawed because of human bias, because free and independent thought is not allowed. The reviewers fear persecution if they criticise left wing pet issues.

There was a group not long ago that wanted to see what absolute rubbish they could get peer reviewed and published. They just made up crap, rolled it in left wing gliter, and it got through review to be published.

If a climate scientist wants to keep getting paid, they have no choice but to keep roll crap in left wing glitter.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
The peer review process is only good in theory. It is flawed because of human bias, because free and independent thought is not allowed. The reviewers fear persecution if they criticise left wing pet issues.

What total paranoid bollocks Tony.

Free independent thought is the whole point of the scientific method and has nothing to do with being left or right wing.

It's very much the same in medicine as well,were you to question the effectiveness and safety of vaccination.

If a doctor or nurse wants to keep getting paid they have to tow the line irrespective of their concerns.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
It's very much the same in medicine as well,were you to question the effectiveness and safety of vaccination.

petermac33 said..
I take their science with a pinch of salt especially after the NIST finding on what took place on 911.

FFS pete this is the "Global climate strike day" thread,
It is NOT your Pro Disease Bloody Rubbish thread.
It is NOT your 911 garbage thread.

Just for effing once do you think you could possibly keep your trashy conspiracies confined to their own threads?
By hijacking other threads into your misguided and uninformed fantasy world does nothing to enhance any credibility you think you may have had, if you cant do that how about you just don't say anything and let the adults talk.