Current Affairs Australian Bush Fires

Status
Not open for further replies.
WA Toffee said:
Ahh, the "I think" argument without doing any actual research.
The "I choose to believe this bit of science but not that bit of science" argument.

Those are the reasons your "points" aren't getting taken seriously
Click to expand...

I choose to believe the bit of science that goes back more than a couple of hundred years. I choose not to believe the climate alarmists.

I think you are also missing the point here. Here's how I see it:-

I am not telling you that you are wrong.
I am disagreeing with you.
I am not trying to change your mind.
I am explaining why I think what I think.
You do not have to agree.
If you do not agree that's fine.
I am not telling you or anyone else on here what I think of their character.
 
verreauxi said:
Why "Ice Age" is not the answer lies in the simple fact of time-scale. Your graph shows temperature changes on the order of 100,000s of years. Consider what the time scale is of the graphs below. Do you notice anything about the change in a given variable relative to the time-scale involved?

View attachment 76595
View attachment 76596
View attachment 76597
View attachment 76598
Click to expand...

I have already mentioned that, according to science, the temperature of the planet rises and falls in cycles. The cycles, according to science,span thousands of years - not just a couple of hundred.

The graphs you have shown go back to 1750. They prove the population is growing at a quicker rate, and that our use of energy has accelerated.
I have not made any arguments or points against those stats.

I agree - we should be exploring better and more efficient ways of powering the planet. We should be looking at our emissions etc. The thing is - Even when we do those things, the temperature will still rise. And then it will drop again. It always has, so why would it not?

What I do not buy into is the scaremongering. Not one nightmare scenario has played out. I've listed a few of them in previous posts. Remember Noel Edmonds a couple of years ago, banging on about daily power cuts by 2017, if we didn't change our ways. What was that all about, and who the hell is Noel Edmonds?!

There is also a narrative that somehow this is all our fault. It isn't. Unfortunately it will be the little guy that ends up paying and suffering for this. We are already seeing it in the little things - plastic straws for example. We are now paying for carrier bags. We are being conned into thinking by paying that bit extra, we are saving the planet. Imagine a Green Tax on fuel? Even at 1% I would be paying an extra couple of pound per week in petrol only. If I am paying that, what would the supermarkets be paying? How much would a flight go up? And who would be covering the cost? And even after all that, the planet would still be getting slightly warmer. And it would still be our fault.
 
tremont said:
Remember Noel Edmonds a couple of years ago, banging on about daily power cuts by 2017, if we didn't change our ways. What was that all about, and who the hell is Noel Edmonds?!
Click to expand...


Aye, but we're not listening to Noel Edmonds either. We're listening to the approximately 97% of the world's experts who agree that the current rate of climate change is being fuelled mostly by human activity. Of all the arguments against man made climate change, the "remember when Al Gore said..." type of ones have to be the dumbest
 
Prevenger17 said:
Aye, but we're not listening to Noel Edmonds either. We're listening to the approximately 97% of the world's experts who agree that the current rate of climate change is being fuelled mostly by human activity. Of all the arguments against man made climate change, the "remember when Al Gore said..." type of ones have to be the dumbest
Click to expand...


No - We're listening to a sixteen year old kid from Sweden with asperger's and OCD.
 
tremont said:
No - We're listening to a sixteen year old kid from Sweden with asperger's and OCD.
Click to expand...

By 'we are' do you mean grumpy old white men or climate change deniers?

Pretty sure most everyone else just thought how brave and passionate she seemed to be whether they agreed with everything she said or not.

No one else is mentioning her as an expert. The only people who are, are those perturbed by her and automatically angry that a 16 year old has an opinion. Love how people like you throw in the mental diagnosis too as if it makes a difference. Shaming a teenager because she has a deficiency is pathetic.

For the record OCD and Aspergers don't make her any less smart than she appears to be. Nor does it make her incapable of having an opinion and learning like you or I.
 
Prevenger17 said:
Aye, it's weird and almost a bit noncey imo. We haven't mentioned her at all in the argument, Barry had her as his avatar the utter creep
Click to expand...

It really is. Especially when they seem to be fixated on the fact she is OCD and has Asperger's. Made how people still think illness or defect is an automatic dis qualifier in life.
 
tremont said:
I choose to believe the bit of science that goes back more than a couple of hundred years. I choose not to believe the climate alarmists.

I think you are also missing the point here. Here's how I see it:-

I am not telling you that you are wrong.
I am disagreeing with you.
I am not trying to change your mind.
I am explaining why I think what I think.
You do not have to agree.
If you do not agree that's fine.
I am not telling you or anyone else on here what I think of their character.
Click to expand...
That's all really sweet, and it is entirely up to you what you believe and what you post (although I think you may get into a bit of trouble from the admins for your OCD/aspergers comment)
I was just hoping to help you avoid getting drawn into an argument with people that know what they're talking about by letting you know why your posts were being ridiculed. ;)
 
steveojcc said:
By 'we are' do you mean grumpy old white men or climate change deniers?

Pretty sure most everyone else just thought how brave and passionate she seemed to be whether they agreed with everything she said or not.

No one else is mentioning her as an expert. The only people who are, are those perturbed by her and automatically angry that a 16 year old has an opinion. Love how people like you throw in the mental diagnosis too as if it makes a difference. Shaming a teenager because she has a deficiency is pathetic.

For the record OCD and Aspergers don't make her any less smart than she appears to be. Nor does it make her incapable of having an opinion and learning like you or I.
Click to expand...

My reply was in reference to me bringing up the "Al Gore/Noel Edmonds said" remark as being pathetic or whatever it was described as.

In my opinion, it is an absolute disgrace what is happening to Greta Thunberg. She is being exploited by publicity hungry parents, and weaponized as a spokesperson for Climate Change. It is utterly shocking. We have a poor sixteen year old girl who I believe genuinely thinks we are all doomed. As parents they should be comforting her, and guiding her away from that sort of thinking. Instead, they are running with it. It's basically child abuse.

At sixteen, my thing was nuclear war. I genuinely thought that it was going to happen. It sometimes terrified me. I could never understand why people around me didn't give it too much thought. I grew out of that. Greta Thunberg's thing is global warming. She is being fed that fear. It's shocking.

The mental diagnosis does make a difference, but only in the exploitation. Her parents have allowed her to become obsessed with this. As mentioned previously - It's child abuse.
 
tremont said:
My reply was in reference to me bringing up the "Al Gore/Noel Edmonds said" remark as being pathetic or whatever it was described as.

In my opinion, it is an absolute disgrace what is happening to Greta Thunberg. She is being exploited by publicity hungry parents, and weaponized as a spokesperson for Climate Change. It is utterly shocking. We have a poor sixteen year old girl who I believe genuinely thinks we are all doomed. As parents they should be comforting her, and guiding her away from that sort of thinking. Instead, they are running with it. It's basically child abuse.

At sixteen, my thing was nuclear war. I genuinely thought that it was going to happen. It sometimes terrified me. I could never understand why people around me didn't give it too much thought. I grew out of that. Greta Thunberg's thing is global warming. She is being fed that fear. It's shocking.

The mental diagnosis does make a difference, but only in the exploitation. Her parents have allowed her to become obsessed with this. As mentioned previously - It's child abuse.
Click to expand...
Do you know her or her parents? Do you know her? More importantly do you even understand OCD or Asperger?


As what you have typed is the exact same thing these people i mentioned always repeat...

- abuse
- spoon fed
- exploitation
- publicity

etc....

Have you considered the fact a 16 year old can actually think for themselves and have intelligent thoughts and opinions.

This does not make your case any better. You make it seem like she is 8 not 16. Have you considered like many parents who have 16 and 17 year olds that they trust their daughter and want to allow her express her thoughts and opinions.

There are many teens and children who do good work for causes even younger than her. If she was speaking up about some ranbdom thing no one would care and would probably say fair play. But anything devisive and she is exploited and abused. Just like the teens in the US against guns.

Again OCD is not severe and seemingly her Asperger is controllable ie she has normal functions. She is educated and seemingly has no issues with that aspect in her life.

Stop using them as some sort of quantifier. Again shame on you.
 
WA Toffee said:
That's all really sweet, and it is entirely up to you what you believe and what you post (although I think you may get into a bit of trouble from the admins for your OCD/aspergers comment)
I was just hoping to help you avoid getting drawn into an argument with people that know what they're talking about by letting you know why your posts were being ridiculed. ;)
Click to expand...

I appreciate that - genuinely.

There are two arguments here. I am being hit with facts and graphs etc that are telling me that the temperature has been rising for the last 200 years. I am also being shown how the population has increased, and our use of energy is accelerating also. I am not denying any of this. I am not arguing those points. I am not even disagreeing that we should be looking into ways we can improve our use of energy etc. I believe pollution is an issue, and something should be done. I am agreeing with everything on those graphs. I have not , at any time, said they are nonsense.

The issue - and nobody has even addressed this - is that I am saying the temperature of the planet falls and rises in cycles. We are on the up at this point in time. The long term data shows this. The temperature will continue to rise - even if we disappeared from the planet completely. The temperature will then begin to decline, until eventually we will probably see another ice age. This won't be in the next ten years or even thousand - But it will happen.

So I am being challenged with arguments - that I am not even disagreeing with - but that aren't relevant to my point of view.
 
tremont said:
I appreciate that - genuinely.

There are two arguments here. I am being hit with facts and graphs etc that are telling me that the temperature has been rising for the last 200 years. I am also being shown how the population has increased, and our use of energy is accelerating also. I am not denying any of this. I am not arguing those points. I am not even disagreeing that we should be looking into ways we can improve our use of energy etc. I believe pollution is an issue, and something should be done. I am agreeing with everything on those graphs. I have not , at any time, said they are nonsense.

The issue - and nobody has even addressed this - is that I am saying the temperature of the planet falls and rises in cycles. We are on the up at this point in time. The long term data shows this. The temperature will continue to rise - even if we disappeared from the planet completely. The temperature will then begin to decline, until eventually we will probably see another ice age. This won't be in the next ten years or even thousand - But it will happen.

So I am being challenged with arguments - that I am not even disagreeing with - but that aren't relevant to my point of view.
Click to expand...


What drives this change?
 
tremont said:
I appreciate that - genuinely.

There are two arguments here. I am being hit with facts and graphs etc that are telling me that the temperature has been rising for the last 200 years. I am also being shown how the population has increased, and our use of energy is accelerating also. I am not denying any of this. I am not arguing those points. I am not even disagreeing that we should be looking into ways we can improve our use of energy etc. I believe pollution is an issue, and something should be done. I am agreeing with everything on those graphs. I have not , at any time, said they are nonsense.

The issue - and nobody has even addressed this - is that I am saying the temperature of the planet falls and rises in cycles. We are on the up at this point in time. The long term data shows this. The temperature will continue to rise - even if we disappeared from the planet completely. The temperature will then begin to decline, until eventually we will probably see another ice age. This won't be in the next ten years or even thousand - But it will happen.

So I am being challenged with arguments - that I am not even disagreeing with - but that aren't relevant to my point of view.
Click to expand...
I understand where you are coming from, but I think the part which probably hasn't explained very well to you is that the science you agree with and the science you disagree with are actually the same science, using the same methods - Reviewing past data points and using those data points to simulate what temperatures were and are going to be.
So the science which determined that there has always been temperature fluctuations is the exact same science that is saying it has never happened at this rate before. The change we are currently seeing in 50 years is the same change which naturally happens over 50000 years. So what could be causing that? Why is the Earth suddenly warming 100 x faster than it has ever done before? That is the point they are trying to get across to you ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join the Everton conversation today.
Fewer ads, full access, completely free.

→ Log in 🔑 Register
🛒 Visit Shop

Support Grand Old Team by checking out our latest Everton gear!
Back
Top