Current Affairs Australian Bush Fires

[Prevenger17]

What a fu*king plank, it's pretty clear Verrauxi has his opinion as many others do in this thread,

Eh? Nobody is arguing that people don't have different opinions. The argument is whether climate change is man-made or not. We have had actual scientists argue that it is the case, and they have backed that up with:

1. Peer-reviewed research
2. An actual knowledge of the subject
3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community

The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:
1. Wattsupwiththat.com
2. Greta and Noel Edmonds
3. It's my opinion

Nobody is taking away your right to an opinion, but don't expect a stance on climate change to go unchallenged in a thread about climate change.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

Eh? Nobody is arguing that people don't have different opinions. The argument is whether climate change is man-made or not. We have had actual scientists argue that it is the case, and they have backed that up with:

1. Peer-reviewed research
2. An actual knowledge of the subject
3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community

The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:
1. Wattsupwiththat.com
2. Greta and Noel Edmonds
3. It's my opinion

Nobody is taking away your right to an opinion, but don't expect a stance on climate change to go unchallenged in a thread about climate change.

It’s my opinion and you can’t change my mind! On ignore you go lol

 

[tremont]

Eh? Nobody is arguing that people don't have different opinions. The argument is whether climate change is man-made or not. We have had actual scientists argue that it is the case, and they have backed that up with:

1. Peer-reviewed research
2. An actual knowledge of the subject
3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community

The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:
1. Wattsupwiththat.com
2. Greta and Noel Edmonds
3. It's my opinion

Nobody is taking away your right to an opinion, but don't expect a stance on climate change to go unchallenged in a thread about climate change.

Peer-reviewed research

Science get’s it wrong.

In the 1970’s we were told there was a possibility of an ice age on the way. We were also told that by the end of the 20th century there would be mass starvation because of the climate. Fred Hoyle’s steady state model was the most popular theory for the universe back in 1920’s. We only discovered the Milky Way was not the whole universe back at that time – Hubble discovered Andromeda, and it blew everything we thought we knew, out of the water. The point is scientific theories are updated all the time. What they might think is correct today, may not be correct tomorrow.

2. An actual knowledge of the subject.

I don’t claim to be an expert. I would suggest I have as much knowledge on the subject as most on here.

3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community.

Your figure has dropped from 97% to anything as low as 90%? That’s a bit of a climb down isn’t it? I will also point out that I am saying it could be as low as 80%. This would mean 1 in 5 scientists disagree with the narrative, not 1 in 33. That’s a big difference.

The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:

1. Wattsupwiththat.com

I did not link to this webpage. I have not seen it before. Someone else did that. I have only linked to external websites when pushed to do so. Anyone can do that.

2. Greta and Noel Edmonds

This not an argument against global warming. This is a point I have made against the scaremongering that is present in the media. The world will not end in ten years.

3. It's my opinion

I have stated I will go with the geological records, instead of data from 170 years. And yes – it is my opinion.



What I have done is stated my points and why I think those points are correct. I will state them again:-

The planet is heating up. We are not the cause. At a push, we may be contributing (but not in any big way). I am not convinced this is true though. Global Warming is happening anyway, due to the cycles of the planet, ie hot – cold – hot – cold etc. The geological records show this.

The Australian Bush Fires were not caused by global warming. They were caused by high temperatures, deliberate human interaction and accidental human interaction. They were made worse due to policies introduced by the Australian Government with regards to fire breaks etc.

The Main Stream Media are scaremongering. This has been happening for years, and it is getting worse. I have listed Al Gore, Noel Edmonds, and various headlines from the past 50 years as way of examples of this – not as proof of no global warming. The current scaremongering is going through Greta Thunberg. I have no problem with Greta Thunberg. I do believe she is being exploited though. The figure of 97% of scientists supporting global warming is exaggerated. This is scaremongering. The world will not end in ten years.

Do you think posting links and repeating the same facts and figures I’ve already dismissed as inconclusive will change my mind? It’s not like I don’t have access to the same internet you do. Do you think saying it often enough will make it so?

So in finishing up – you have misquoted me and misrepresented my arguments. Perhaps you haven’t been following the thread.

Anyways – Enjoy your day. I’m out of this now. I - like Degs62 - haven’t got the energy to deal with the alarmists.

 

[Prevenger17]

Your figure has dropped from 97% to anything as low as 90%? That’s a bit of a climb down isn’t it? I will also point out that I am saying it could be as low as 80%. This would mean 1 in 5 scientists disagree with the narrative, not 1 in 33. That’s a big difference.

Eh? You have issues with 97% bring touted, and I agreed that it was impossible to nail a precise figure, so I plumped for the general region of consensus. It is almost impossibly unlikely to be as low as 80%, which is the lowest figure from even your own imagination.

Unfortunately, science can't come up with the definite answers of someone who looks at geological records and forms their own opinion based on no expertise whatsoever, but I do think I see how your train of thought works on these issues:


The media says consensus is 97% ----> That's too specific and the media lies ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie
I read someone saying the world was going to end in ten years --->The world won't end in ten years ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie
Greta says Climate Change is man-made ---> Greta is a strange 15 year old girl, and 15 year olds are stupid ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie

 

[Prevenger17]

Anyways – Enjoy your day. I’m out of this now. I - like Degs62 - haven’t got the energy to deal with the alarmists.

Lol, the classic duck-out. See ya mate

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

If you are interested in "expanding" your knowledge you should definitely read a statistics textbook: statistics are not "generated to provide the answer that the analyst wants"...that is among the dumbest things I have ever read on GOT, and that's saying a lot.

Nah mate. There was a guy in December who wanted Alex Neil instead of Carlo Ancelotti.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

What a fu*king plank, it's pretty clear Verrauxi has his opinion as many others do in this thread, all I've done is withdraw because I just don't have the energy any more to deal with alarmists.

I have my opinions, you have yours, but at the end of the day we're all blues and should get along.

Opinion is fine, it's the merit of that opinion that's in question.

No doubt in my opinion, humans despite our advances are a very destructive species.

Would you like some examples?

 

[tremont]

Eh? You have issues with 97% bring touted, and I agreed that it was impossible to nail a precise figure, so I plumped for the general region of consensus. It is almost impossibly unlikely to be as low as 80%, which is the lowest figure from even your own imagination.

Unfortunately, science can't come up with the definite answers of someone who looks at geological records and forms their own opinion based on no expertise whatsoever, but I do think I see how your train of thought works on these issues:


The media says consensus is 97% ----> That's too specific and the media lies ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie
I read someone saying the world was going to end in ten years --->The world won't end in ten years ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie
Greta says Climate Change is man-made ---> Greta is a strange 15 year old girl, and 15 year olds are stupid ---> Therefore man-made climate change is a lie

Keep attacking the straw man mate haha

 

[Prevenger17]

Keep attacking the straw man mate haha

A straw man accusation from the man who brought Noel Edmonds into the argument, this is too much

 

[verreauxi]

Anyways – Enjoy your day. I’m out of this now. I - like Degs62 - haven’t got the energy to deal with the alarmists.

Stop posting your opinions and then shrinking away from them because you "haven't got the energy to deal with the alarmists." Either post or don't; but if you post, you can expect a response.

Peer-reviewed research

Science get’s it wrong.

In the 1970’s we were told there was a possibility of an ice age on the way. We were also told that by the end of the 20th century there would be mass starvation because of the climate. Fred Hoyle’s steady state model was the most popular theory for the universe back in 1920’s. We only discovered the Milky Way was not the whole universe back at that time – Hubble discovered Andromeda, and it blew everything we thought we knew, out of the water. The point is scientific theories are updated all the time. What they might think is correct today, may not be correct tomorrow.

You are attacking the epistemological institution that gave you computers, flight, the steam engine, vaccinations, electricity, painkillers, surgery, etc., etc. Do you really mean to suggest that "Science gets it wrong?" Even your examples are not convincing; for example, though few people were doing climate modeling back then, the majority of peer-reviewed scientific research produced in the late 60s and 70s did not predict an Ice Age, but in fact predicted global warming. Certainly science is fallible--it's what gives it its power over things like religious texts, which are viewed as unerring and immutable (fanciful as they may be). But science is also data-driven, question-oriented, and rigorous--opinions, such as your own, have no primacy over the received scientific consensus no matter your protests or repeated postings of them. Your argument amounts to "it could always be otherwise" which is valid in principle but not useful or relevant. Hundreds and hundreds of peer-reviewed studies show that climate change is happening and do so using a variety of different data. It could always be otherwise, in that tomorrow we turn into robots, or that Everton wins the PL, or that next week hell freezes over, etc. But at present there is no radical updating to the scientific consensus that humans are changing the earth's climate; there are only politically-driven skeptics who are funded by the fossil fuel industry, and a bunch of climate-denialist white conservative men who cannot wrap their head around terms like "white privilege" or "institutional racism."

2. An actual knowledge of the subject.
I don’t claim to be an expert. I would suggest I have as much knowledge on the subject as most on here.

You don't need to be an expert to think critically about 1) what the data say, and 2) what sources one quotes from. The data say the earth's climate is warming; some of the sources people link to or talk about are Op-Ed pieces written by former employees of Mobil Oil Co.

3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community.
Your figure has dropped from 97% to anything as low as 90%? That’s a bit of a climb down isn’t it? I will also point out that I am saying it could be as low as 80%. This would mean 1 in 5 scientists disagree with the narrative, not 1 in 33. That’s a big difference.
The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:

I already explained this to you in the post that you clearly didn't read. You posted a Forbes Op-ed written by a former Mobil Oil employee who was comparing opinions to peer-reviewed research. It wasn't convincing and, again, one has to question the motives of a fossil-fuel employee, in the same way that one might question the motives of a doctor who worked for the Tobacco industry who challenges the claim that smoking causes lung cancer. But again, it's data (and congruence of data), not consensus of opinion that matters.

1. Wattsupwiththat.com
I did not link to this webpage. I have not seen it before. Someone else did that. I have only linked to external websites when pushed to do so. Anyone can do that.

Good.

2. Greta and Noel Edmonds
This not an argument against global warming. This is a point I have made against the scaremongering that is present in the media. The world will not end in ten years.

Agreed. But I don't believe any climate scientist has ever said the world will end in 10 years.

3. It's my opinion
I have stated I will go with the geological records, instead of data from 170 years. And yes – it is my opinion.

And you're entitled to your opinion. But it is also irrelevant as it conflates time-scales--100000s of years versus 100s years--and just because you can't understand how scientists can measure different factors on different time-scales doesn't mean that scientists can't measure such factors and also can't point to a causal factor. Here is an analogy: Your body temperature has fluctuated about 1C from 36C to 37C over the last 1000 days (because body temperature has a circadian rhythm), but you can still measure the effect of it jumping to 38C in the last hour. It can be measured with a thermometer and one can also point to a causal factor that created this jump, such as a bacterial or viral infection. Importantly, the earth's climate doesn't naturally "cycle" between hot and cold--something forces these shifts, such as the earth's position relative to the sun and insolation, reflectance of energy back into space (albedo), or greenhouse gases. Scientists have a good grasp on these factors and can determine how the earth's climate is expected to change under one or a combination of these factors. No robust scientific scenario can be built on the recent increase in earth's temperature without invoking greenhouse gases due to humans.

 

[verreauxi]

@tremont By the way, I'm not claiming you are a "climate-denialist white conservative" man who cannot wrap his head around terms like "white privilege" or "institutional racism" but there is a global pattern of white conservative men who do exactly this.

 

[WA Toffee]

Peer-reviewed research

Science get’s it wrong.

In the 1970’s we were told there was a possibility of an ice age on the way. We were also told that by the end of the 20th century there would be mass starvation because of the climate. Fred Hoyle’s steady state model was the most popular theory for the universe back in 1920’s. We only discovered the Milky Way was not the whole universe back at that time – Hubble discovered Andromeda, and it blew everything we thought we knew, out of the water. The point is scientific theories are updated all the time. What they might think is correct today, may not be correct tomorrow.

2. An actual knowledge of the subject.

I don’t claim to be an expert. I would suggest I have as much knowledge on the subject as most on here.

3. The general agreement of 90-100% of the earth's scientific community.

Your figure has dropped from 97% to anything as low as 90%? That’s a bit of a climb down isn’t it? I will also point out that I am saying it could be as low as 80%. This would mean 1 in 5 scientists disagree with the narrative, not 1 in 33. That’s a big difference.

The people who don't believe climate change is man-made have so far offered as evidence:

1. Wattsupwiththat.com

I did not link to this webpage. I have not seen it before. Someone else did that. I have only linked to external websites when pushed to do so. Anyone can do that.

2. Greta and Noel Edmonds

This not an argument against global warming. This is a point I have made against the scaremongering that is present in the media. The world will not end in ten years.

3. It's my opinion

I have stated I will go with the geological records, instead of data from 170 years. And yes – it is my opinion.



What I have done is stated my points and why I think those points are correct. I will state them again:-

The planet is heating up. We are not the cause. At a push, we may be contributing (but not in any big way). I am not convinced this is true though. Global Warming is happening anyway, due to the cycles of the planet, ie hot – cold – hot – cold etc. The geological records show this.

The Australian Bush Fires were not caused by global warming. They were caused by high temperatures, deliberate human interaction and accidental human interaction. They were made worse due to policies introduced by the Australian Government with regards to fire breaks etc.

The Main Stream Media are scaremongering. This has been happening for years, and it is getting worse. I have listed Al Gore, Noel Edmonds, and various headlines from the past 50 years as way of examples of this – not as proof of no global warming. The current scaremongering is going through Greta Thunberg. I have no problem with Greta Thunberg. I do believe she is being exploited though. The figure of 97% of scientists supporting global warming is exaggerated. This is scaremongering. The world will not end in ten years.

Do you think posting links and repeating the same facts and figures I’ve already dismissed as inconclusive will change my mind? It’s not like I don’t have access to the same internet you do. Do you think saying it often enough will make it so?

So in finishing up – you have misquoted me and misrepresented my arguments. Perhaps you haven’t been following the thread.

Anyways – Enjoy your day. I’m out of this now. I - like Degs62 - haven’t got the energy to deal with the alarmists.

You do make a valid point that repeating the same argument which you refuse to acknowledge will get us nowhere, so let me try to approach it from a different angle.

Burning carbon in the presence of oxygen creates carbon dioxide. Simple chemistry

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat. Simple physics

So, ignoring all the hysteria, hyperbole and opinions, and just using the laws of physics, can you explain how burning carbon on a global scale does not cause global warming?

 

[tremont]

You do make a valid point that repeating the same argument which you refuse to acknowledge will get us nowhere, so let me try to approach it from a different angle.

Burning carbon in the presence of oxygen creates carbon dioxide. Simple chemistry

Carbon dioxide absorbs heat. Simple physics

So, ignoring all the hysteria, hyperbole and opinions, and just using the laws of physics, can you explain how burning carbon on a global scale does not cause global warming?

It may contribute, but it is not the cause. The planet is heating up anyway. It will then cool again. Global Warming is not man made. The media are scaremongering. The bush fires in Australia were not caused by global warming, they were caused by high temperatures, arson and accidents. They were made worse by government policies concerning fire breaks.

That’s it. That’s all I have to say on the subject.

However…

This is an internet forum. I am not attending university and disagreeing with my professor. I am not here to be educated. Nobody here is qualified to do that. It really doesn’t matter that we disagree. It’s not important. I do not dislike you for your opinion, nor do I think you are uneducated. I do not judge you for having your opinion. Your opinion means nothing to me, and mine should mean nothing to you. If I want to be, in your opinion, wrong about something - I can be. You can be too. I don’t care if you are wrong. I am not going to try and change anyone’s opinion. This is an internet forum.

Can we just agree to disagree.

 

[Bishop Thumpety-Thump]

'Can we just agree to disagree.'

Nope. You're wrong.

 

[Prevenger17]

This is an internet forum. I am not attending university and disagreeing with my professor. I am not here to be educated. Nobody here is qualified to do that. It really doesn’t matter that we disagree. It’s not important. I do not dislike you for your opinion, nor do I think you are uneducated. I do not judge you for having your opinion. Your opinion means nothing to me, and mine should mean nothing to you. If I want to be, in your opinion, wrong about something - I can be. You can be too. I don’t care if you are wrong. I am not going to try and change anyone’s opinion. This is an internet forum.

Nobody is denying you your opinion. We're saying your opinion is dumb and based on no evidence or reality whatsoever. You seem to be confusing the two