2015 the hottest year on record

[daisycutter 29,343]

meanwhile..................Siberian cold front sweeps across Europe, bringing record low temperatures

shhhhh........................

[dieter 3,325]

11 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

meanwhile..................Siberian cold front sweeps across Europe, bringing record low temperatures

shhhhh........................

Once again, Herr Sniper, Zis means nuzhink. All is really means is ze temperatures und weather patterns zind topzy turfy to the max. But dumkopfs like you zink it means hell ist freezink over the rainbow.

You zilly, zilly boy..

[jackaub 1,402]

Carnarvon yachtclub is blaming climate change for the silting up of their yacht basin

hmmmmm methinks they should get on the government grant system

of course this would never have hapened before

Such  a tragedy for the yacht club members

is there no end to the daage this climate change thingo is  causing 

Hold on to your hairpieces more news soon

 

[nutbean 8,838]

On 03/03/2018 at 2:15 PM, Jara said:

They may be wrong - but surely we should take steps to reduce our impact on the planet, just in case they're not?

Ahh.. that argument will see you get pilloried on this thread.

I don't profess to know the answers as to the validity of all the data and opinions on this issue. However this has always been my belief. What is the consequences of global warming being a hoax and action being taken unnecessarily to prevent a non existent problem as opposed to the consequences of global warming being real but doing zero nothing because there is no irrefutable evidence as to the existence of a problem. I know what side I want to be on. 

You get intellectually knee-capped for holding views like this.

[Jara 1,153]

4 minutes ago, nutbean said:

Ahh.. that argument will see you get pilloried on this thread.

I don't profess to know the answers as to the validity of all the data and opinions on this issue. However this has always been my belief. What is the consequences of global warming being a hoax and action being taken unnecessarily to prevent a non existent problem as opposed to the consequences of global warming being real but doing zero nothing because there is no irrefutable evidence as to the existence of a problem. I know what side I want to be on. 

You get intellectually knee-capped for holding views like this.

Yes, exactly, none of us here really know what we're talking about - all we can do is trust the science, the vast majority of which says that global warming is a threat to our civilisation. 

 

Personally, i think the denialists are in denial because, somewhere deep down, they are afraid to face the truth and its consequences. We've all got truths we're reluctant to face.

 

Re your last comment, don't worry - I've yet to meet anybody on this site capable of "intellectually knee-capping" me. 

 

 

[daisycutter 29,343]

2 hours ago, nutbean said:

Ahh.. that argument will see you get pilloried on this thread.

I don't profess to know the answers as to the validity of all the data and opinions on this issue. However this has always been my belief. What is the consequences of global warming being a hoax and action being taken unnecessarily to prevent a non existent problem as opposed to the consequences of global warming being real but doing zero nothing because there is no irrefutable evidence as to the existence of a problem. I know what side I want to be on. 

You get intellectually knee-capped for holding views like this.

not at all, nut

i'm all in favour of doing something if only to reduce pollution, wanton destruction of the planet and deletion of finite resources

the issue is not to do something but HOW one does something and responsibly managing the impact /transition 

[Jara 1,153]

The trouble is, Daisy, that at present we're doing virtually nothing.

 

And the reason is because a lot of people pretend it's not happening.

 

It's pretty obvious what we should do: reduce our impact. As a society, an ETS would be a good place to start. On a personal level, do things like use public transport, recycle, stop eating meat, turn off the lights, encourage alternative energy, etc. 

[daisycutter 29,343]

4 minutes ago, Jara said:

The trouble is, Daisy, that at present we're doing virtually nothing.

 

And the reason is because a lot of people pretend it's not happening.

 

It's pretty obvious what we should do: reduce our impact. As a society, an ETS would be a good place to start. On a personal level, do things like use public transport, recycle, stop eating meat, turn off the lights, encourage alternative energy, etc. 

'virtually nothing'.......surely you jest?

[Jara 1,153]

Not really, but I'm not sure what you mean. Do you think we do a lot, or that we do absolutely nothing?

[dieter 3,325]

9 hours ago, Jara said:

Re your last comment, don't worry - I've yet to meet anybody on this site capable of "intellectually knee-capping" me

Hasn't been for the want of takers.

By the way, that Communist Broadcaster the ABC - even after Turnbulldust and his gang of cut throat fascist butchers has totally emaciated it - is showing Climate Change on Four Corners tonight.

Utterly shameless, these Climate Change Warriors!

[Earl Hood 6,063]

On 02/03/2018 at 11:53 PM, Wrecker45 said:

Of course Exxon want to protect the billions they have in oil but they will move in a second to any other energy technology that is more profitable. How much have Exxon invested in solar or wind? Your question and your virtue signalling. Why should the worlds leading energy company invest in doubtful technology? The more the Government subsidies it the more they will invest but it would be just a ponsey scheme. Thank goodness for Trump calling the industry for what it is.

Exxon has diversified their investment in energy and profits from renewables. The more profitable renewables become the more Exxon will invest in them. Unless you are a socialist it is pretty easy to understand.

i have and do work in business and can assure you i understand. I'm guessing you don't and are a teacher, nurse, ambo or other union related field that relies on group wage rise.

As to your questions the answer is no to all the above. I work off an individual management contract. 

However Do I detect a sneering attitude to those who work to support our community and may belong to a union to negotiate their employment conditions? And the recent history is that collective bargaining is not gaining unionised workers much above the average. But then those not in a union are being screwed over the last 10years. 

Let me guess you are from the self employed small business sector that believes in the Margaret Thatcher view of the world, there is no such thing as a society, there is just an economy? 

 

Lets talk conspirancies: 

While I am at it just think of the logistics of conspiring to falsefy the data coming into the B of Meterology that is full of professional scientists, who mostly take pride in their professional integrity and the intercity in the work they do versus the ease of throwing up doubts about climate change by wealthy vested interests via donations to the LNP and to existing lobby groups such as the Minerals Council of Australia which admits openly that it lobbies parliamentarians to promote coal. Take the example of Morrison taking a lump of coal into question time. These guys have been bought by the coal lobby, hook, line and sinker. It is a disgrace, and they cannot be trusted to make sensible economical decisions. Coal fired power stations are dead, solar power with battery storage is now a more economic alternative, but don’t expect Matt (coal firedCanavan) to recognise that anytime soon

[jackaub 1,402]

The best thing we  can do is reduce the population

Given that the world population has grown exponentialy the industrialisation of two largest populations,China and India,

the world in my opinion is in remakably good shape considering.

REDUCING THE POPULATION AND THE RESULTANT ECO PRESSURE  IS THE BIG CHALLENGE

[daisycutter 29,343]

19 minutes ago, jackaub said:

 

REDUCING THE POPULATION AND THE RESULTANT ECO PRESSURE  IS THE BIG CHALLENGE

absolutely jack, but no-one will even talk about it, let alone develop policies to address it

[dieter 3,325]

26 minutes ago, jackaub said:

 

REDUCING THE POPULATION AND THE RESULTANT ECO PRESSURE  IS THE BIG CHALLENGE

Is that what the USA is doing in using its considerable arsenal of weapons of mass destruction by starting all those wars and then paying its Terrorist proxies to start others?

Just a question..

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 05/03/2018 at 10:26 AM, nutbean said:

Ahh.. that argument will see you get pilloried on this thread.

I don't profess to know the answers as to the validity of all the data and opinions on this issue. However this has always been my belief. What is the consequences of global warming being a hoax and action being taken unnecessarily to prevent a non existent problem as opposed to the consequences of global warming being real but doing zero nothing because there is no irrefutable evidence as to the existence of a problem. I know what side I want to be on. 

You get intellectually knee-capped for holding views like this.

This is a religious argument and not one of mitigating risks.

The more severe the unlikely consequence of not complying with a religous rule the more you need to do it just in case.

 

[daisycutter 29,343]

14 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

This is a religious argument and not one of mitigating risks.

The more severe the unlikely consequence of not complying with a religous rule the more you need to do it just in case.

 

yes, it's like the dying man turning to religion just in case there really is a heaven

a bob each way. or groupthink?

[Jara 1,153]

On 10 March 2018 at 8:25 PM, Wrecker45 said:

This is a religious argument and not one of mitigating risks.

The more severe the unlikely consequence of not complying with a religous rule the more you need to do it just in case.

 

Wrecker - you've lost me here. Nut is simply saying is that if we heed what the scientists tell us and reduce our carbon emissions, the worst that can happen is that we reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. Whereas  if we follow your advice and do nothing, we are risking global catastrophe. 

 

How is is that religious?

[Earl Hood 6,063]

On 10/03/2018 at 8:25 PM, Wrecker45 said:

This is a religious argument and not one of mitigating risks.

The more severe the unlikely consequence of not complying with a religous rule the more you need to do it just in case.

 

Sorry what is religious about Nutbeans comments? The cost of compliance to minimising CO2 emissions is minimal, globally but yes there are local winners and losers big time. So the logical decision is to reduce emissions. However if we, logical thinking people are in fact wrong, well what are the costs? A totally renewed energy system that is clean and efficient, ready for the next century. 

Nothing remotely religious here but I suspect you are holding on desperately to some religious beliefs Wrecker. 

[nutbean 8,838]

On 11/03/2018 at 10:35 AM, daisycutter said:

yes, it's like the dying man turning to religion just in case there really is a heaven

a bob each way. or groupthink?

I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert but a bob each way or group think smacks to me of an issue or debate where there has been little research or intellectual/scientific input to reach conclusions. Do you you believe the vast majority of highly qualified experts in this field reaching the conclusions they have is a bob each way or group think ?

Edited March 12, 2018 by nutbean

[daisycutter 29,343]

7 hours ago, nutbean said:

I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert but a bob each way or group think smacks to me of an issue or debate where there has been little research or intellectual/scientific input to reach conclusions. Do you you believe the vast majority of highly qualified experts in this field reaching the conclusions they have is a bob each way or group think ?

it was a reference to those crusaders whose zeal could be described as tending to religious

it wasn't a reference to all

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 11/03/2018 at 9:47 PM, Jara said:

Wrecker - you've lost me here. Nut is simply saying is that if we heed what the scientists tell us and reduce our carbon emissions, the worst that can happen is that we reduce the amount of pollution in the atmosphere. Whereas  if we follow your advice and do nothing, we are risking global catastrophe. 

 

How is is that religious?

The fact you say we heed what the scientists tell us shows you have a religious belief system. Do all scientists tell us or just the ones that follow your belief! 

[Wrecker45 3,378]

On 13/03/2018 at 9:18 AM, nutbean said:

I don't claim to be anywhere near an expert but a bob each way or group think smacks to me of an issue or debate where there has been little research or intellectual/scientific input to reach conclusions. Do you you believe the vast majority of highly qualified experts in this field reaching the conclusions they have is a bob each way or group think ?

What is the conclusion "they" have?

[Jara 1,153]

15 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

The fact you say we heed what the scientists tell us shows you have a religious belief system. Do all scientists tell us or just the ones that follow your belief! 

A majority of them do - see the list of organisations I quoted above..

 

And if you can't tell the difference between religion and science, well...I'm a bit lost for words, really. It's so obvious. One is based on evidence, the other is based on superstition.

[daisycutter 29,343]

32 minutes ago, Jara said:

A majority of them do - see the list of organisations I quoted above..

 

And if you can't tell the difference between religion and science, well...I'm a bit lost for words, really. It's so obvious. One is based on evidence, the other is based on superstition.

we weren't talking about science but scientists

scientists are only human and have the same faults, frailties, egos, ambitions and lusts as everyone else. but your faith trust in them is touching nevertheless.

[nutbean 8,838]

6 hours ago, daisycutter said:

we weren't talking about science but scientists

scientists are only human and have the same faults, frailties, egos, ambitions and lusts as everyone else. but your faith trust in them is touching nevertheless.

Hmmm.. you did leave out years of research and study in their given fields, unless you believe that advances in say, medicine and technology are more down to good luck than any expertise in their given fields. I am not saying that scientist’s are infallible but the sheer weight of qualified people worried about overall direction of climate change may leave me sceptical about the world ending tomorrow but does have me paying attention to what they are saying.