Select to expand quote

Ian K said..

Chris 249 said..


Yes, but the point is that Schmidt remains an example of someone who showed that the existing paradigm was wrong and was rewarded for it instead of being punished. His is just one example that shows that the 'sceptics' are wrong when they claim that scientists have to follow the herd to save their careers.

Yes but Schmidt wasn't able to draw a link between the expanding universe and climate change. If so he would have tripled his fame, fortune and research funding.

In his dreams! :-)

As you'd know, of course, when he has campaigned to have the science accepted he has actually been personally attacked by "deniers". And the fawning way many "deniers" fall at the feet of the minority of scientists who agree with them shows that the easy way to get fame, as well as access to the trillions of dollars of fossil fuel funds, would be by declaring that the consensus was wrong. So if he wanted fame, fortune and funding he'd just have to follow the fossil fuel line.

Select to expand quote

Brent in Qld said..
Agree, there always was & always will be natural variability. This is mandatory historic data for calculating & presenting recommendations like the Garnaut Review.

TonyAbbott said..Natural variability

Brent in Qld said..
This discussion has little difference to any other in recent history where science proposes a shift beyond tradition or contemporary belief. Galileo, Darwin, Newton etc. all faced ridicule & persecution for their observations of nature.

The recourse sector and its cohort are currently engaging in comparable tactics the Tabaco lobby used when faced with growing evidence that smoking really isn't good for your health. The recourse sector are ensuring a prolonged debate so they can make money for as long as possible before the burning of fossil fuels is wound down to a whimper.

With regard to our house getting hotter, the Garnaut Report in the mid 2000s took a punt applying a timeline to the observable effects of climate change, in B&W below. Feel free to apply your own bias...


History has shown those that scream heresy to rising evidence & fact have the most to loose. When it comes to who to believe on this topic, I'll go with the consensus of scientist rather than a collective of politicians, a boardroom of billionaires or an internet of trolls.

Yes but TA thinks it's just about ALL natural and the human impact is minute, despite not providing a shred of evidence for this.

Jim Molan uses the same line, but on Q&A last night at least he was honest enough to admit that he's got no evidence.

The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Human influence there but is minor. Australian influence in absolutely minute.

Using alarmists predictions, it was calculated that if Australia was to go back to the stone age, it would only reduce global temperatures by 0.012 degrees over the next couple of hundred years. The real non-alarmist figure would be even less.

Relax, panic over.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..Human influence there but is minor.

Prove it.

Jim Molan said the same thing last night but at least he is honest enough to admit he can't back his opinion with any evidence.

if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Select to expand quote

boofta said..













if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously

What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

And who should get over themselves? The people who have spent tens of thousands of hours studying the issue, or people who think that they know all about it even when they have never looked into it properly? Why don't you get over yourself and respect the people who study climate change?

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Research the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, when the seas were about 120 metres lower than they are now. Find out the rate of change then.

We cannot stop the climate changing. No amout of virgin sacrifice in volcanoes or taxes will change that. Only a politician would tell you otherwise.

Select to expand quote

boofta said..













if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously

The funny thing is that the very form of power you advocate was entirely the product of "models and calculations". Mietner, Frisch, Oppenheimer, Teller - they relied on "models and calculations" to create the first nuclear reactions. Cockcroft and others who created nuclear power all relied on "models and calculations".

Without the approach that you abuse, we wouldn't have the power source that you advocate. It's illogical therefore to abuse that approach like you do.

Is this an attitude that's been passed down to you? I can imagine old grandfather Boofta Snr in 1945, sitting in a pub and ranting; "bah! nothing but models and calculations.....imagine how stupid to imagine that a bit of refined rock could blow up or power a city. Einstein and his friends are nothing but a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themelves".

And I can imagine Great Grandfather Boofta saying the same thing in 1900, if he'd heard about a couple of brothers filling their notebooks with calculations based on Smeaton and Lilienthal ....."nothing but models and calculations. Those Wright Brothers are nothing but a pair of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themselves; heavier than air flight is obviously impossible!"

The problem with a lot of climate alarmists is that they're uneducated and believe science is something akin to magic and sourcery, only to be understood by "their" noble scientists which can never be questioned.
Hence we have;
In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation's editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a "zero-tolerance" approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.
theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

Welcome to climate change heresy.

=============================

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.
Newtonian physics defines escape velocity, and that's where climate change falls over because "your science from your scientists" is categorically wrong on so many fronts nothing makes sense and "your scientists" know this so they have to fudge the figures so they can fool illiterate idiots who can't do simple physics.

What happens to the Earth's avg temperature over 10 years if you double CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% of atmospheric concentration?
If you can't answer that question, and you perport to be a "claimate change" believer, you are only a virtue signaling moron. We're not peddlingpseudoscience we just want the science, not your fantasy you call science, which has been proven wrong over 30 years.

Science is repeatable, demonstrable and consistent, which is not what we get from climate alarmists scientists.

How much has been spent on trying to blame CO2 for climate change vs proving it has no effect? My guess would be about 3000:1.

Looks like the black dude lost his "Fossil Fuel Industry" hat.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.

classic seabreeze post. the ol' autopsy on mother earth to settle the debate once and for all!!! who will be around to do it i wonder though?


some of your stuff is interesting FlyS but that has a very poor alternate example of science haha

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Research the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, when the seas were about 120 metres lower than they are now. Find out the rate of change then.

We cannot stop the climate changing. No amout of virgin sacrifice in volcanoes or taxes will change that. Only a politician would tell you otherwise.

Done that. It looks like there were local changes in temperature faster and slower than the global mean. Exactly what you would expect. If the changes plotted onto a dead smooth curve you'd smell a rat.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
The problem with a lot of climate alarmists is that they're uneducated and believe science is something akin to magic and sourcery, only to be understood by "their" noble scientists which can never be questioned.
Hence we have;
In September 2019, the editor of The Conversation, Misha Ketchell, declared The Conversation's editorial team in Australia was henceforth taking what he called a "zero-tolerance" approach to climate change deniers and sceptics. Their comments would be blocked and their accounts locked.
theconversation.com/media-impartiality-on-climate-change-is-ethically-misguided-and-downright-dangerous-130778

Climate change deniers and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet.

Welcome to climate change heresy.

=============================

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.
Newtonian physics defines escape velocity, and that's where climate change falls over because "your science from your scientists" is categorically wrong on so many fronts nothing makes sense and "your scientists" know this so they have to fudge the figures so they can fool illiterate idiots who can't do simple physics.

What happens to the Earth's avg temperature over 10 years if you double CO2 from 0.04% to 0.08% of atmospheric concentration?
If you can't answer that question, and you perport to be a "claimate change" believer, you are only a virtue signaling moron. We're not peddlingpseudoscience we just want the science, not your fantasy you call science, which has been proven wrong over 30 years.

Science is repeatable, demonstrable and consistent, which is not what we get from climate alarmists scientists.

The problem with the claim that "alarmists" are often uneducated is that many of those who are very well educated believe in global warming, like Nobel prize winners and most of the surveyed members of the US meteorological association.

You haven't explained what escape velocity has to do with anything so I can't respond to that.

Any claims that science must be utterly predictable in that it must provide accurate predictions of outcomes within a narrow range is just BS and utterly unscientific. Science doesn't claim that it can predict everything - that's why there are experiments and studies. It's generally predicted that doubling atmospheric Co2 will increase average global temps by 1-4.5 degrees. Sure, there's a range there, but that's perfectly normal with science. Look at the power of the first atom bomb - Teller predicted it would be 45 kilotons of TNT, Oppenheimer 0.3, Rabi got it right with 18 -or so some say, because the exact power of that bomb remains a subject of some debate. The fact is that there was a wide variation in the predicted outcome, and even a debate on its actual power, but that does not mean that the creation of the bomb was not science or that it was a dud.

It's utterly stupid to claim that anyone who does not know a specific piece of science is "a moron" if they believe in the climate consensus. You don't know the specifics of every detailed action of every piece of medicine you've taken. Sceptics don't know every single piece of data for every single piece of science they believe in, or the science underlying the things they use every day.

It's ridiculous to claim that people are "morons" just because they believe what the top people in a field tell them. If (for example) the vast majority of top boatbuilders say that the best way to lay up a carbon/Nomex hull is by a certain type and temp of pre-preg, only a dickhead would be so arrogant as to not listen to them and accept it as a good base of knowledge. If most top heart surgeons say that there's a certain best way to perform a heart transplant, only a wanker would say "BS, I've never been a surgeon but I won't listen to you".

As far as calling people morons go, you are the person who fell for the "climate warriors trapped in ice" story and the "ice too thick so icebreaker turns back" story, which were were complete and utter bull****. Maybe someone who appears to be so gullible should not be throwing too much abuse around.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..
How much has been spent on trying to blame CO2 for climate change vs proving it has no effect? My guess would be about 3000:1.

Since the fossil fuel industry has an annual revenue of around 1.26 TRILLION USD, it's odd to claim that the science is being distorted by deep pockets.

That stereotypical guy in the lab coat would, on average, earn LESS than most people who work in the fossil fuel industry in Australia. The people who are grabbing the cash are the ones involved in the fossil fuel industry, not the ones who spent many more years learning and get paid less.

Select to expand quote

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Research the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, when the seas were about 120 metres lower than they are now. Find out the rate of change then.

We cannot stop the climate changing. No amout of virgin sacrifice in volcanoes or taxes will change that. Only a politician would tell you otherwise.

Done that. It looks like there were local changes in temperature faster and slower than the global mean. Exactly what you would expect. If the changes plotted onto a dead smooth curve you'd smell a rat.

I would expect you to notice that the rates of change were far greater than the rates of change that we have measured over the 100 years.

This happen naturally.

It was to time of great upheaval for humans at the time. Many Australia indigenous groups were coastal, those areas they occupied for 10's of thousands of years are now more than 100 metres underwater.

But they survived. Can we survive?? I think we will be ok.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

I would expect you to notice that the rates of change were far greater than the rates of change that we have measured over the 100 years.

It was to time of great upheaval for humans at the time. Many Australia indigenous groups were coastal, those areas they occupied for 10's of thousands of years are now more than 100 metres underwater.

But they survived. Can we survive?? I think we will be ok.

In Greenland ice cores. In case you haven't kept up with observations, the Arctic regions are once again warming much faster than the global average
arcticwwf.org/work/climate/

Last time I looked there was no metropolis built by coastal aborigines 10 000 years ago, so shifting inland as the sea rose over the course of several centuries didn't affect their great god "the economy"

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Research the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, when the seas were about 120 metres lower than they are now. Find out the rate of change then.

We cannot stop the climate changing. No amout of virgin sacrifice in volcanoes or taxes will change that. Only a politician would tell you otherwise.

The very same that told you the sea level was 120m lower 20,000 years ago are the same that say it is now warming more rapidly than ever before because of our pollution.

So, you need to find another source. Good luck.

Select to expand quote

mazdon said..

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.

classic seabreeze post. the ol' autopsy on mother earth to settle the debate once and for all!!! who will be around to do it i wonder though?


some of your stuff is interesting FlyS but that has a very poor alternate example of science haha

OMG FFS dude, let me help you understand what you read.
Chris 249 said: ""models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills"
I replied with: Never heard of an autopsy
Chris 249 said " that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them"
I replied: Newtonian physics defines escape velocity... ie we don't make models we calculate for pinpoint accuracy, that's how we sent New Horizons to f'ing PLUTO.
THe climate alarmist have for 30 years being saying a whole load of crap based on junk.
DO I really need to further elaborate? It's not science it's ~literature!

Let's get 1 thing straight; I am totally in favour of reducing the human stain on the planet. Ban combustion cars, ban plastics, ban pesticides, massively expand nature reserves, create marine reserves, etc... just don't give leftist control over energy consumption and production, by claiming CO2 is a pollutant.

I run off solar, I mostly use an electric vehicle and I shower in the garden to save water... but I'm not joining the Climate Change religion, regardless of how many noble laureates, and famous people have, until I can verify their claim.

If you want to go blame CO2 then provide the equation, so we can independently verify your claims. Like CFCs in the 90's we introduced them in to a container w/ O3 the chlorine atom attached to 1 oxygen atom creating O2 and chlorine monoxide (ClO). The ~world banned CFCs, we're all on board, end of story.

CO2 believe us it makes the world hotter 1~4.5c; well mo'fo show us how you got that figure, no, just believe scientists said so.

You want change, you want to reduce your CO2 output, do it yourself don't be a useless fool and ask for a supranational entity to do it for you.

Select to expand quote

boofta said..
if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously

What a load of crap. Those who deny the science and pretend there is some scientific equivalent for "natural variability" at present and instead trust their favourite fossil fuel industry backed ideological propagandists and internet conspiracy theorists are the hysterics.

Seriously, read some philosophy of science to understand basic principles of logic and process.

A good example of the accuracy of predictions is Ross Garnaut's conclusions in 2008 that by 2020 we would see significantly worse bushfires, versus the climate change deniers who claim the predictions are always wrong.

There's a bunch of different fields in maths and science. Orbiting satellites is simple rocket science that can be calculated to an order of precision, whereas weather is mathematically chaotic. I'm happy for someone to say human's 'may' be causing global warming, or could even hold the view that they are 'probably' causing it if that is what you think, but anyone who says it's 'definite' is really just a religious climate change zealot. Once you have people who hold that position playing around with calculations that are chaotic, you can pretty much draw any conclusion you want.

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..

mazdon said..

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.

classic seabreeze post. the ol' autopsy on mother earth to settle the debate once and for all!!! who will be around to do it i wonder though?


some of your stuff is interesting FlyS but that has a very poor alternate example of science haha

OMG FFS dude, let me help you understand what you read.
Chris 249 said: ""models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills"
I replied with: Never heard of an autopsy
Chris 249 said " that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them"
I replied: Newtonian physics defines escape velocity... ie we don't make models we calculate for pinpoint accuracy, that's how we sent New Horizons to f'ing PLUTO.
THe climate alarmist have for 30 years being saying a whole load of crap based on junk.
DO I really need to further elaborate? It's not science it's ~literature!

Let's get 1 thing straight; I am totally in favour of reducing the human stain on the planet. Ban combustion cars, ban plastics, ban pesticides, massively expand nature reserves, create marine reserves, etc... just don't give leftist control over energy consumption and production, by claiming CO2 is a pollutant.

I run off solar, I mostly use an electric vehicle and I shower in the garden to save water... but I'm not joining the Climate Change religion, regardless of how many noble laureates, and famous people have, until I can verify their claim.

If you want to go blame CO2 then provide the equation, so we can independently verify your claims. Like CFCs in the 90's we introduced them in to a container w/ O3 the chlorine atom attached to 1 oxygen atom creating O2 and chlorine monoxide (ClO). The ~world banned CFCs, we're all on board, end of story.

CO2 believe us it makes the world hotter 1~4.5c; well mo'fo show us how you got that figure, no, just believe scientists said so.

You want change, you want to reduce your CO2 output, do it yourself don't be a useless fool and ask for a supranational entity to do it for you.

It sounds like you are saying that you are smarter than all of us put together. Collectively, both now and historically.

Even though I am not overly familiar with climate science, it is not my field of expertise, it just seems more likely, far more likely, that hundreds of years now of scientific OBSERVATIONS of how "greenhouse gases" work are more correct than you.

Is it possible, just perhaps, that you have a need to feel smarter than everyone else? It is POSSIBLE, right?

Have you explored and excluded that possibility? It seems more likely, is all.

Perhaps you and a few journalists are just exceptional geniuses. But it seems unlikely.

But, again, it is POSSIBLE that some people just have a strong need to feel smarter than everyone else. Yeah?

I could list the tens of thousands of OBSERVATIONS of the effect of greenhouse gases, but what's the point? It's not relevant. I mean you only have to look next door, to Venus.

The debate is something else. It's "Why do a small number of disproportionately vocal people have to continuously argue that they are smarter than everyone else combined?"

Take Flat Earthers for example. You know what I'm talking about. You've heard them, possibly even argued with them. Yet they are a very, very small minority. They are disproportionately represented. So are Climate Change deniers.

Why? Is it because our news feeds have become customised to what we want to hear? The algorithms show us what we have seen or read before. Over and over, a feedback loop. A personalised and isolated echo chamber.

If you jump on YouTube now and watch a Flat Earth video it will suggest more of the same to you. It looks like a consensus. It is just your own reflection.

Select to expand quote

Harrow said..
There's a bunch of different fields in maths and science. Orbiting satellites is simple rocket science that can be calculated to an order of precision, whereas weather is mathematically chaotic. I'm happy for someone to say human's 'may' be causing global warming, or could even hold the view that they are 'probably' causing it if that is what you think, but anyone who says it's 'definite' is really just a religious climate change zealot. Once you have people who hold that position playing around with calculations that are chaotic, you can pretty much draw any conclusion you want.

There are also OBSERVATIONS.

It is a combination of models, and observations that are proving some models more accurate than others.

It is not just models in isolation. That would be stupid. Of course.

It's odd that people claim to think it is only models.

...let me prove to you in simple terms that anyone will understand.

(My post above about algorithmic news feeds)

There is a lot of incest porn on PornHub.

It's weird, right? Practically nobody is into that. And yet there it is, all over the front page.

Why is there recently so much incest porn on PornHub

Because the algorithms picked it up as a "trending" topic. (One very popular producer made one incest vid and a million people saw it because they like the girl in it)

People that make videos saw it as a trending topic and jumped on the bandwagon. TO MAKE MONEY.

Now "incest" is a "popular" topic on PornHub. It's sort of stuck there now because there is so much of it it is "popular" so it remains "popular".

It is EXACTLY the same with Flat Earth, anti-vax, and climate change deniers.

Divisive and/or emotional and/or ridiculous click-bait that is created by people to MAKE MONEY.

Do you really think all these content creators are into incest, believe the earth is flat? Of course not, they just know how to make money out of these algorithms/are trapped having to make content that works with these algorithms.

Other platforms like FaceBook are the same. Anything the tracks your history is suggesting stuff you've already seen, and/or is trending, and/or is trendy.

Select to expand quote

TonyAbbott said..

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..

Mr Milk said..

TonyAbbott said..
The evidence is millions of years of climate change. The climate has had far greater changes at faster rates of change than anything that is being experienced.

Can you provide an instance of this very rapid climate change in the past? The meteor that put an end to the dinosaurs will be allowed, but remember that it had major consequences

Research the end of the last ice age about 10,000 years ago, when the seas were about 120 metres lower than they are now. Find out the rate of change then.

We cannot stop the climate changing. No amout of virgin sacrifice in volcanoes or taxes will change that. Only a politician would tell you otherwise.

Done that. It looks like there were local changes in temperature faster and slower than the global mean. Exactly what you would expect. If the changes plotted onto a dead smooth curve you'd smell a rat.

I would expect you to notice that the rates of change were far greater than the rates of change that we have measured over the 100 years.

This happen naturally.

It was to time of great upheaval for humans at the time. Many Australia indigenous groups were coastal, those areas they occupied for 10's of thousands of years are now more than 100 metres underwater.

But they survived. Can we survive?? I think we will be ok.

Believe the consensus of science that proposes info about the past.
Refute the very same consensus of science that shows real-time data about the present.
Deny the consensus of science indicating trend forecasts for the future.

By default you acknowledge the shift is happening, its a matter of causation. If we know this natural shift is happening, we do nothing when the cause is identified, even if it is within our power to change the outcome for better? Nor act to avoid human suffering or the wider threat to life because 'it will be ok'?

Select to expand quote

FlySurfer said..

mazdon said..

Chris 249 said..
What do you want apart from "models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills, that snorting asbestos is bad for you, that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them. It's models and calculations that allow us to find oil, nuclear power plants and computers.

Never heard of an autopsy? No models or calculations.

classic seabreeze post. the ol' autopsy on mother earth to settle the debate once and for all!!! who will be around to do it i wonder though?


some of your stuff is interesting FlyS but that has a very poor alternate example of science haha

OMG FFS dude, let me help you understand what you read.
Chris 249 said: ""models and calculations"? That's the way science works. It's the way they found out that smoking kills"
I replied with: Never heard of an autopsy
Chris 249 said " that you can send satellites into orbit and get GPS readings from them"
I replied: Newtonian physics defines escape velocity... ie we don't make models we calculate for pinpoint accuracy, that's how we sent New Horizons to f'ing PLUTO.
THe climate alarmist have for 30 years being saying a whole load of crap based on junk.
DO I really need to further elaborate? It's not science it's ~literature!

Let's get 1 thing straight; I am totally in favour of reducing the human stain on the planet. Ban combustion cars, ban plastics, ban pesticides, massively expand nature reserves, create marine reserves, etc... just don't give leftist control over energy consumption and production, by claiming CO2 is a pollutant.

I run off solar, I mostly use an electric vehicle and I shower in the garden to save water... but I'm not joining the Climate Change religion, regardless of how many noble laureates, and famous people have, until I can verify their claim.

If you want to go blame CO2 then provide the equation, so we can independently verify your claims. Like CFCs in the 90's we introduced them in to a container w/ O3 the chlorine atom attached to 1 oxygen atom creating O2 and chlorine monoxide (ClO). The ~world banned CFCs, we're all on board, end of story.

CO2 believe us it makes the world hotter 1~4.5c; well mo'fo show us how you got that figure, no, just believe scientists said so.

You want change, you want to reduce your CO2 output, do it yourself don't be a useless fool and ask for a supranational entity to do it for you.

1 - Whoever characterised autopsy as a science in itself? It can provide evidence for science, but that is an example of why your approach is deadly. Autopsies help science work out deadly diseases - and we follow that scientific advice even if we have not cut open hundreds of lungs ourselves, carried out hundreds of biopsies and blood tests with our own hands, and learned enough about molecular biology etc to work out exactly why a single particle, for example, can cause lung cancer .

If you followed your idea that you would ignore science unless you could verify it yourself, you'd ignore any related health warnings unless you had yourself viewed the bodies and studied anatomy enough to know about the possible effects and causes. Following your approach you'd have breathed in asbestos happily, smoked four packs of cigarettes a day, and had lots of unprotected sex during the AIDS epidemic, because in none of those could you have verified the science yourself. If we followed your approach, we'd probably be dead - so why follow it for the whole planet?


2 - Is wrong. Many scientific models do not provide pinpoint accuracy; for example, the science of meteorology does not provide "pinpoint accuracy". The science of modelling sailboat performance by using VPPs derived from tow tank testing does not provide "pinpoint accuracy". To claim that all science requires pinpoint accuracy is just wrong, as the Trinity test example proves.

3- We just don't live long enough to be able to verify all the science we use every day. You can't verify the claims about modern medicine. If you've been under general anaesthetic, you have put your life into a science you do not understand. Every time you take a new medicine, you put your life in science. Science underpins the car tyres that keep us on the road, the systems that keep our airliners in the air instead of spreading over the ground, the computers we are using now.

Every day we accept science that we have not verified. We cannot verify the scientific claim that using many heaters inside a boat cabin will kill us - does that mean you just go ahead and do it? We cannot verify the scientific claim that taking an overdose of tablets can kill us - does that mean we just go ahead and do it? We cannot personally verify that a skin tumour we may have is dangerous - does that mean we just ignore skin cancer until it kills us?


4 - Why do you assume I'm not reducing my own Co2 output? In fact, we are having a positive effect on the climate by growing a few hundred trees at the moment, as well as using solar and electric vehicles.

5- It's ironic that the same guy who showed himself to be so gullible when he repeated the BS about the arctic "explorers" is now claiming that he doesn't believe science unless it's verified. Your post about the Arctic "explorers" was utterly misleading and simply wrong and you could have checked it if you wanted to - but you just threw it up here.

By the way, exactly how did you verify the cartoon above, with its claim that 97% of scientists believe in AGW because of funding? Did you ask that 97% or whatever? Did you learn so much about scientific funding that you know it's true? How many scientists did you ask? Do you know what they normally use funds for? Did you work out why the fossil fuel industry does not fund science in the same way?

You're swallowing one side's story hook line and sinker while demanding perfect proof from the other side, and ignoring the proof that is out there.

Select to expand quote

Chris 249 said..

boofta said..













if any crazy climate change hysteric was asked the same question that Jim Molan got I.E.where's the evidence, the answer
would be the same. a hollow load of crap about the science being settled, 97% agree blah, blah
Both sides of the argument have nothing except opinions, models, calculations, bushfires are not caused by climate change.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED except a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, get over yourselves, seriously

The funny thing is that the very form of power you advocate was entirely the product of "models and calculations". Mietner, Frisch, Oppenheimer, Teller - they relied on "models and calculations" to create the first nuclear reactions. Cockcroft and others who created nuclear power all relied on "models and calculations".

Without the approach that you abuse, we wouldn't have the power source that you advocate. It's illogical therefore to abuse that approach like you do.

Is this an attitude that's been passed down to you? I can imagine old grandfather Boofta Snr in 1945, sitting in a pub and ranting; "bah! nothing but models and calculations.....imagine how stupid to imagine that a bit of refined rock could blow up or power a city. Einstein and his friends are nothing but a bunch of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themelves".

And I can imagine Great Grandfather Boofta saying the same thing in 1900, if he'd heard about a couple of brothers filling their notebooks with calculations based on Smeaton and Lilienthal ....."nothing but models and calculations. Those Wright Brothers are nothing but a pair of idiots raving madly about their BELIEF, they should get over themselves; heavier than air flight is obviously impossible!"

My grandfather was involved with the development of the first helicopter, worked with Sikorsky, and you are a full time troll
lost in a demented belief system, as twisted as ISIS, full time monitor of anything against your twisted ideas.

Select to expand quote

evlPanda said..
...let me incest porn on PornHub.
It's weird, right? Practically nobody is into that.
so much incest porn on PornHub
It is EXACTLY the same anti-vax, and climate change.

Divisive and/or emotional and/or ridiculous click-bait that is created by people to MAKE MONEY.

Yes, I've made millions argueing about your intellect over 10yrs... we had this discourse 10 years ago when that Juliar wanted to shaft Australia w/ a carbon tax, and you were jumping up and down chanting shaft me, shaft me.

And in that time we've lost our entire manufacturing industry, bcos among other labor reason, sky high energy costs. SA had rolling black outs. And we have less energy production capacity than we did last millenium while having 25% more people.

So if I understand you correctly, you watch incest porn on PornHub and bcos you have such an interest in incest, PornHub offers "YOU" more of the content you enjoy. Amazon does the same to me with tools... and Scotch blue tape.

I know I'm fighting a losing battle bcos of the indoctrination of newborns to uni student, but I'm airing my concerns while I still can.