Select to expand quote

decrepit said..

I haven't seen it for a while, but there was also the chaos theory worry that the climate could slip into another "strange attractor" state, which would mean a completely different unknowable planetary weather system.

Now THAT is really fkn scary. I've read James Gleick's "Chaos", and think I understand some of the basics, at least I understand the basics of strange attractors... Far out. Now it's making sense.

Sadly most of the people on here have no idea what you're on about, and won't do any research, save what they can find to reinforce their own opinion.

Come on decrepit,there are around two and a half million people in the Perth metro area.

Many of them who are old enough.......sorry ALL of them who are old enough will testify that the Swan River in the last 23 years has not encroached 25 feet on to the beaches around the river. In fact it has not encroached at all in this period. This basic fact alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are living a lie. A monstrous,monstrous lie I might add.

The trust in their data overrides observation,intelligence and basic commonsense.

Its how they are able to get away with it,just like with 911.


Fear not the path of truth, fear the lack of people walking on it.

- Robert Francis Kennedy

Your assuming that research equals an informed opinion and thus if one does some then they have an opinion worth reading.

So much misinformation out there. You really don't know if what your reading or watching has any merit plus you tend to only subscribe to what aligns with your own conditioned assumptions anyway.

The entire process is utterly pointless.

Just everyone dancing their their own dance in their own limited space saying "look at me I'm right and your wrong".

The only sensible thing is to sit back, laugh at the show and watch it all go by.

Select to expand quote

decrepit said..
you're still quoting brietbart

So???

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

decrepit said..
you're still quoting brietbart

So???

See!!!! What are we meant to think? You do know that Breitbart is a far right wing site populated by crackpots and cranks...........not a climate scientist for miles and miles.

do you know that?........everyone knows that but you sight Breitbart as your bit gotcha moment.
You're posting cringe.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
So???

You're the one that profess to believe that all sides of the argument should be published equally!

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
>>>in the last 23 years has not encroached 25 feet on to the beaches around the river. In fact it has not encroached at all in this period. This basic fact alone proves beyond a shadow of a doubt you are living a lie. A monstrous,monstrous lie I might add.

The trust in their data overrides observation,intelligence and basic commonsense.

Its how they are able to get away with it,just like with 911.


Fear not the path of truth, fear the lack of people walking on it.

- Robert Francis Kennedy

So explain to me again how 3" suddenly becomes 25'

I must admit to not studying all the swan's banks, but I'm fairly sure most of them are 3" above water level. you're only going to get 25' where the shore is very close to horizontal and already at water level. This would regularly be underwater and dry with slight tide changes. As I've said before 3" is stuff all. Tide and storm surge are so much bigger, they'll mask that amount. If there were no tides or storm surge then yes people would notice the change.

Try and think logically Pete, and perhaps you'll get on the path of truth.

It's a result of re-blending the sea floor into the new MSL. To keep the same bottom curve with a new raised 3" sea-level sand would have to evenly accumulate to an extra 3 inches all the way to the edge of the shelf. Doesn't happen. Easier for the wave and tide action to just extend that 1 : 50/100 gradient inland. It's all a bit rough and needs to be averaged. Some places may loose 50 feet, some will stay the same.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bruun_Rule

www.abc.net.au/news/2019-09-25/un-ipcc-climate-report-warns-oceans-at-tipping-point/11547454

So we're talking sea floor on a sand beach, not river on a grass shore.

Yes a three inch rise in the sea could potentially mean the water encroaching a mile or more inland. It could also mean only a small encroachment if the incline is steep.

Go to a beach with a ruler and measure 3 inches above water height and obviously that is where the water will encroach to.

The 8 inches they claim over the last century is off the charts significant and 3 inches in the last two decades is still significant in that in most places you would still be able to see the change.

decrepit and his cultists mates will not do the above experiment for a valid reason....

As for their other theory regarding thermal expansion - like a degree or so is going to a make such a difference.

I will see you hopefully soon decrepit down the river with your ruler rather than just accepting their data. Verify first then by all means you have earned the right to spout the truly amazing fantastic increases in sea level that no one but no one can observe.

Short of the cultists anyway.

Idiot

have you done the "experiment" with binoculars, ships and ocean that decrepit has repeatedly asked you to yet?!

Pete, tell me exactly what I'll do with that ruler?

STOP, and think now, can you visualise what it could possibly achieve.

Because, I've no idea what you are talking about.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Yes a three inch rise in the sea could potentially mean the water encroaching a mile or more inland. It could also mean only a small encroachment if the incline is steep.

You may have noticed Pete, at a lot of beaches there are waves, if it's a sandy beach there are also sand hills.

The problem with a sandy ocean beach, there is erosion. The waves move the sand all over the place, in this case incline has little effect, it's what the waves do to the sand that matters.
Here groynes were built, which stopped the natural sand movement and our beach disappeared 5m one year, then they started pumping sand around the groynes to replicate the natural movement, but they only do it for 6 months each year, so now our beach is all over the place, as sand comes and goes. There's no way of telling what sea level is doing by the beach, but the reef is a different matter, and my impression is that extreme low tides aren't as low.

On the rivers grassy banks, this isn't such an issue.

The above excuse sounds like the compressed air theory to explain away what we all observed on that fateful day.

Keep believing without verifying decrepit and you'll always remain on the winning side,the majority.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..

I will see you hopefully soon decrepit down the river with your ruler rather than just accepting their data. Verify first then by all means you have earned the right to spout the truly amazing fantastic increases in sea level that no one but no one can observe.

Does that verification requirement apply to all the images taken of your broken leg? For all you know it could be a medical conspiracy to keep you in the dark using stock images. That would explain the slow healing.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
keep believing without verifying decrepit and you'll always remain on the winning side,the majority.

OK I ask again Peter, If I come to the river with a ruler, how do I verify anything. Just explain this please, I'm at a loss here.

The shepherd always tries to persuade the sheep that their interests and his own are the same.

- Stendhal

^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

Select to expand quote

Poida said..
^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

There is one, its called Nuclear but lefties don't want to know about it for some reason, that then leads you to believe their agenda is more political or ideological then it is environmental.

Select to expand quote

Poida said..
^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

So if it is cheaper then why don't these greedy companies use the cheaper source and sell it at the current higher price anyway?

Select to expand quote

cammd said..

Poida said..
^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

There is one, its called Nuclear but lefties don't want to know about it for some reason, that then leads you to believe their agenda is more political or ideological then it is environmental.

Well, I for one think nuclear is too risky at the moment. People seem to forget about the waste that has to just sit around somewhere for 10s of thousands of years, just decaying.

On the other hand, after watching a program on Bill Gates, I think it may be an option, if done right. He has looked at options and wants to see if his foundation can sponsor the development of a nuclear reactor that is relatively safe and can use otherwise wasted fuel.

They were looking at something that will fail safe where loss of coolant means it just heats up the surrounding air, where it uses depleted uranium, and where it is designed using current tools and knowledge, not the designs from the 1960s. Sounds promising. Obviously this is not cheap, but maybe that's the future?

Would you want a nuclear power station near your house using the same technology that has had a few incidents?

If you use current technology, how far from your house would you deem acceptable, and what is the cost of the transmission lines to get it to you?

The more you delve into this the more you realise that many people are being had.

Big time had.

Select to expand quote

petermac33 said..
Come on decrepit,there are around two and a half million people in the Perth metro area.
Many of them who are old enough.......

May 31 1947 The West Australian "Warming of climate causes concern"
trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/46315410

18 Feb 1952 Cairns Post "Polar Ice thaw Increasing"
trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/42734540

How dare you all, my childhood and dreams were stolen!

Select to expand quote

japie said..
The more you delve into this the more you realise that many people are being had.

Big time had.

surely that's a heresy

Select to expand quote

FormulaNova said..

cammd said..

Poida said..
^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

There is one, its called Nuclear but lefties don't want to know about it for some reason, that then leads you to believe their agenda is more political or ideological then it is environmental.

Well, I for one think nuclear is too risky at the moment. People seem to forget about the waste that has to just sit around somewhere for 10s of thousands of years, just decaying.

On the other hand, after watching a program on Bill Gates, I think it may be an option, if done right. He has looked at options and wants to see if his foundation can sponsor the development of a nuclear reactor that is relatively safe and can use otherwise wasted fuel.

They were looking at something that will fail safe where loss of coolant means it just heats up the surrounding air, where it uses depleted uranium, and where it is designed using current tools and knowledge, not the designs from the 1960s. Sounds promising. Obviously this is not cheap, but maybe that's the future?

Would you want a nuclear power station near your house using the same technology that has had a few incidents?

If you use current technology, how far from your house would you deem acceptable, and what is the cost of the transmission lines to get it to you?

Anyone watched inside bill gates mind short series. He makes it clear that nuclear power generation plants are built on technology from the 70s, some earlier. They rely too much on the operators skill and vulnerable to catastrophic weather occurrences.

So they redesigned a nuclear power generation plant that not only doesn't need water to cool the rods and requires no electricity to get water to the the cooling baths. Cools them by a passive heat loss system.

Also can use use all the depleted uranium being dangerously stockpiled.
Not enriched uranium.


Makes sense to me and solves a growing waste problem. They where just about to start building scaled plants in China but the trump trade war put an end to it.

Makes sense to me as the really only viable option at the momentum we want to severely reduce green house gas emission and still meet current energy requirements.oh formula one mentioned this ... soz

Select to expand quote

japie said..
The more you delve into this the more you realise that many people are being had.
Big time had.

No, I think you've been had - The Heartland Institute is a joke

climateinvestigations.org/who-is-paying-for-heartland-institute-climate-denial-palooza/

Select to expand quote

bjw said..

Poida said..
^^^^^ you have been brainwashed by a very clever oil and gas industry, throwing money at propaganda cartoons, using beliefs rather than science.

Hypothetically, if someone could say here is an alternative fuel and energy source rather than oil and gas and its cheaper and cleaner, what would you do?

So if it is cheaper then why don't these greedy companies use the cheaper source and sell it at the current higher price anyway?

maybe the cost of a clean energy will never get as cheap as fossil fuels, which is basically pump the stuff out of the ground, basic processing, storage and distribution. Maybe with costs of batteries reducing and quality of battery life improving, multiple renewable energies, and a kick arse modern nuclear base load.

The cost of fossil fuels doesn't cover or factor in the environmental damage that will be caused with the population expected in the future, if they are still using fossil fuel. Imagine double and triple the current earths population still using fossil fuel for transport and energy?