Thread: The Climate Change Hoax

Originally Posted by AlexS

Please don't waste peoples' time by posting links to dubious experts. If you disagree with the existing scientific evidence, post your refutation of it and the evidence that it's wrong, not just a link to "some bloke on the internet."

Does that also apply to people quoting the ABC ad nauseum?

But the point was that the CSIRO omitted important information from their report and were obviously embarrassed by this. The point (which may have been subtle, as you suggest) was that there is no data to suggest ANY connection between (perceived) climate change and the recent bushfire season. The even more subtle point was that this behaviour seems to be a common theme in the CC 'industry'.

Originally Posted by Lappa

Does that also apply to people quoting the ABC ad nauseum?

...not forgetting The Project and The Guardian!

Carl Sagan - "The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

If it had not been for the effort of Carl Sagan the whole ozone layer thing probably wouldn't have been addressed before it was too late and the climate would already be a lot more uncomfortable than it is now. Notwithstanding the deniers, science has help fix some of the ozone layer and many of the acid rain issues of the 70's.

I believe I'm old enough to acknowledge the weather I experienced during my childhood is not like we experience now. I have more trust in the scientific explanations for why that might be rather than somebody chuckling over scoring points by misunderstanding scientific process and making somebody feel uncomfortable for not having an instant response ready. So it takes 10 seconds to read back through a technical document? That's not unusual, but it is cheap fodder for shock jocks who are principally interested in quick comebacks and cheap laughs.

Another one from Carl Sagan -

"We're in very bad trouble if we don't understand the planet we're trying to save."

Originally Posted by Fuzzie

I have more trust in the scientific explanations for why that might be rather than somebody chuckling over scoring points by misunderstanding scientific process and making somebody feel uncomfortable for not having an instant response ready. So it takes 10 seconds to read back through a technical document? That's not unusual, but it is cheap fodder for shock jocks who are principally interested in quick comebacks and cheap laughs.

None of this discussion has been about scientific evidence. My first point was that I had not seen any change in sea level since my childhood. No one even attempted to provide a scientific explanation for this. My second comment was to add a reference to a YouTube video which showed a "bloke on the internet" (MIT PhD) explaining how the Paris Climate Accord worked. I doubt anyone even watched this as no one tried to refute it, there was just a sharp rebuke for posting videos from "some bloke on the Internet". This had nothing to do with science - it was all about the transfer of wealth (from you to them). My third reference was to a video showing how a 'respected' Australian scientific organisation was apparently caught out omitting important information which would have weakened their position.

Notwithstanding the apparent verboten nature of searching on the Internet for useful information about this debate (rather than the ABC or The Project) I find no shortage of material that shows many different points of view. I'm happy to accept scientific evidence if that's what it really is, not after its been 'sanitized' by the party.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

My first point was that I had not seen any change in sea level since my childhood. No one even attempted to provide a scientific explanation for this.

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

Originally Posted by Fuzzie

Sea Level | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

This article is concocted by an organisation called "Global Climate Change". Have you considered that they might have some skin in the game? And that they might fudge the figures 'just a little' to enhance their position?

Regardless of whether that's true or not the graphs show a steady increase since 1880. No one disputes that but what has been the net effect of this rise in sea levels? Nothing! Zilch, nada! The kids still learn to swim at the Towradgi rock pool. and no one has to evacuate to higher ground. In other words IT DOESN'T MATTER! It's just part of the cycle on our way to a new ice age, but it's so far away that you and I don't have to worry, nor do your grand children or grandchildrens grandchildren.

I guess it depends on whether or not you are concerned about trying to save your grandchildren's children after all. It will be a much longer time after the human race is extinct before the planet is extinct. I'll leave now as I only have my own skin in the game, no issue here.

OK fellas, I'm sorry I started this post. Seems to have created a heap of criticism of one comment after another and nobody has suggested a 'fix'.
Everybody would have to admit that the planet is in serious trouble and there is no 'simple, straight forward' solution.
If the world leaders can't agree and make the necessary adjustments, eventually God and Nature will take care of it.
Yes. I fear for our younger generations.

Originally Posted by Dareen

OK fellas, I'm sorry I started this post. Seems to have created a heap of criticism of one comment after another and nobody has suggested a 'fix'.
Everybody would have to admit that the planet is in serious trouble and there is no 'simple, straight forward' solution.
If the world leaders can't agree and make the necessary adjustments, eventually God and Nature will take care of it.
Yes. I fear for our younger generations.

No need to apologise Dareen for saying what a lot of us think. And don't be cowed by the strident few who will try to shout you down, not with scientific reasoning and logic, but with name calling and accusing you of a callous disregard for the wellbeing of future generations. That's the way the left argues. The world is in no more trouble than it's ever been. Yes it's been a hot few years, just as has happened in the past (look to the start of the twentieth century) but we're not about to self destruct.

If you really want something to worry about listen to a Podcast by an American, Dan Carlin, called Blueprint for Armageddon. It runs for about twelve hours and is about WWI. But more importantly it's a good illustration of what man is capable of and the dire consequences. Mother Nature has nothing on this.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

If you really want something to worry about listen to a Podcast by an American, Dan Carlin, called Blueprint for Armageddon. It runs for about twelve hours and is about WWI. But more importantly it's a good illustration of what man is capable of and the dire consequences. Mother Nature has nothing on this.

Not going to comment on your earlier diatribe about your assessment of how CSIRO works nor how people summarise extensive works into readable summaries, but I think you're wrong on this account.

Human kind absolutely is a blight on the planet, but humans can change their behaviour. Mother Nature will absolutely keep doing what it does, with no regard for humans. All we can do is not have our action exacerbate things.

Originally Posted by poundy

Not going to comment on your earlier diatribe about your assessment of how CSIRO works nor how people summarise extensive works into readable summaries, but I think you're wrong on this account.

Human kind absolutely is a blight on the planet, but humans can change their behaviour. Mother Nature will absolutely keep doing what it does, with no regard for humans. All we can do is not have our action exacerbate things.

"My third reference was to a video showing how a 'respected' Australian scientific organisation was apparently caught out omitting important information which would have weakened their position" That's a diatribe? ("a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something"). I can assure you I can do a lot better than that.

"Humans can change their behaviour"? That's not what history shows. Or do you believe we've now 'turned the corner'?

Dup post

Originally Posted by FenceFurniture

I couldn't be fagged participating in this thread any more - it's just giving it oxygen (unless something really has to be refuted as complete tosh).

Well it didn't take too long for the tosh to rear its head.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

My first point was that I had not seen any change in sea level since my childhood. No one even attempted to provide a scientific explanation for this.

Firstly, you are relying only on anecdotal evidence from a memory of what it may have been like around 60 years ago - my childhood home is much smaller than I remembered it too - in other words, it is ridiculous to base an assertion on what we may have distorted our memory of. Hardly a scientific approach in the first place.

Second, it's not up to anyone else to provide you with your explanation - that's your job! You are the one making the claim.

Originally Posted by Tccp123

I'm happy to accept scientific evidence if that's what it really is, not after its been 'sanitized' by the party.

Really? The nature of your comments are evidence of the strongest denial of Anthropogenic Climate Change Denial I think I've ever seen (except maybe Andrew Dolt), so I don't think that there is anything at all that you could read or hear that would change your mind one iota. Especially when I read this:

Originally Posted by Tccp123

This article is concocted by an organisation called "Global Climate Change". Have you considered that they might have some skin in the game? And that they might fudge the figures 'just a little' to enhance their position?

Regardless of whether that's true or not the graphs show a steady increase since 1880. No one disputes that but what has been the net effect of this rise in sea levels? Nothing! Zilch, nada! The kids still learn to swim at the Towradgi rock pool. and no one has to evacuate to higher ground. In other words IT DOESN'T MATTER! It's just part of the cycle on our way to a new ice age, but it's so far away that you and I don't have to worry, nor do your grand children or grandchildrens grandchildren.

Are you seriously suggesting that NASA has concocted that article? You did see that it was from NASA didn't you? Given that you raised these points:
"Have you considered that they might have some skin in the game?"
"And that they might fudge the figures 'just a little' to enhance their position?"

..how about you provide evidence of your assertions. Or are they baseless, and just thrown into the rhetoric like a bomb to inflame the debate?

Kids still learning to swim in a rock pool is NOT evidence that there is no sea level rise or climate change. For a start, rock pools (in my extensive experience of the Cronulla suite of 4 pools - 100s of visits) generally rely on waves changing the water over, not the tides as such - the walls of the pools are above normal high tide levels - for good reason. That is so that they can still be used safely at high tide without the danger of being flushed over the back wall (they may go under a king tide). So any rise in sea level is not going to change the rock pools much (until it does submerge the walls, of course). Which means I'm hardly surprised that your childhood pool still appears to be the same. Now as for the water line around the outside of the pool, that may have changed.