Climate change

[CroydonDog]

Congratulations Time Magazine, you have lost all credibility.

The fact that a child who is merely trying to get us to listen to what scientists have been trying to say for a while triggers so many people (including being called a "mutt"), means she is doing something right.

Whether you like her or not, she has has more influence on debate etc than pretty much anyone else.

 

[CroydonDog]

This whole thread really highlights something that is arguably as dangerous to society as climate change - and that is anti-intellectualism and misinformation.

Once upon a time, we looked to scientists and said: hey these dudes are smart we should listen to them. Now, with climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and what have you, something someone has read on facebook that satisfies one's prejudices, can be given the same airtime as actual researched, supported by facts reasoning.

Where has it com from? Why does it persist? I don't really know for sure, but I consider part of it to be driven by those who feel it gets to make them feel a bit smarter/superior themselves. The kid who wasn't particularly bright at school now gets to stick to those university-educated wankers or whatever... it appears to be prevalent in all generations too, it just manifests in different ways.

 

[Jabba the Mutt]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/how-to-win-a-climate-change-debate/11787486

 

[wendog33]

I also don't know why ignoramos' get so triggered by a 16 year old girl who is doing nothing more than trying to stop multi national criminals from polluting future generation's existence....our grandchildren.

A "misplaced angry" Hansonite type msg me this yesterday. I just could not bring myself to vilify a teenager in such a way. Murdoch, Jones, Hadley, and the Fox Fools have ruined this country. There is very little decency left.

 

[Nexus]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-12-11/how-to-win-a-climate-change-debate/11787486

I stopped reading when I read this line

“economic concerns are irrelevant in the face of collapsing ecosystems”

Um sorry, no they’re not.

 

[wendog33]

I stopped reading when I read this line

“economic concerns are irrelevant in the face of collapsing ecosystems”

Um sorry, no they’re not.

Do you want to be rich and unable to breathe the air?

Or do you want a job yet no one can produce any food due to weather conditions?

 

[Hacky McAxe]

Congratulations Time Magazine, you have lost all credibility.

Time Person of the Year is merely who they thought was the most influential person of the year. The person who brought up the most news stories.

As an example here's some other Time Person of the Years:

2016 - Donald Trump

2007 - Vladimir Putin

2006 - You

1938 - Adolf Hitler

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This whole thread really highlights something that is arguably as dangerous to society as climate change - and that is anti-intellectualism and misinformation.

Once upon a time, we looked to scientists and said: hey these dudes are smart we should listen to them. Now, with climate change deniers, anti-vaxxers, flat earthers and what have you, something someone has read on facebook that satisfies one's prejudices, can be given the same airtime as actual researched, supported by facts reasoning.

Where has it com from? Why does it persist? I don't really know for sure, but I consider part of it to be driven by those who feel it gets to make them feel a bit smarter/superior themselves. The kid who wasn't particularly bright at school now gets to stick to those university-educated wankers or whatever... it appears to be prevalent in all generations too, it just manifests in different ways.

Don't think too much of it. Many people on this forum believe that evolution is fake and even worse, they support the Bulldogs even after watching them play the last few years.

 

[Howard Moon]

The fact that a child who is merely trying to get us to listen to what scientists have been trying to say for a while triggers so many people (including being called a "mutt"), means she is doing something right.

Whether you like her or not, she has has more influence on debate etc than pretty much anyone else.

I don't think you quite understand what a political pawn is

 

[Dawgfather]

I find it short sighted for anyone to suggest that our current bush fires are the result of 'climate change' and by inference 'Australia's coal and mining industries'.

I'm 35, but I remember very well 1994 when bushfires were so bad that they cut off every exit and entrance to Sydney with the exception of the Hume Highway to the South West.

So the fires this year while bad, are clearly not as bad as 1994 (at least according to some measures)

2003 Canberra Fires - need I share the detail of how horrific they were and how close to a major city they were?

Yes Australia (particularly the East Coast) is currently in the grip of an extremely bad drought. The ground and bush are dry and are ripe for awful fires.

Some areas in Australia are having fantastic rain fall and therefore farming there is great right now - including parts of Victoria and Western Australia.

Also, the majority of these fires are started by little shits who intentionally light them or by lightning strikes (neither of which have anything to do with climate change).

So if the ignition of these fires is nothing to do with climate change then how has everyone suddenly arrived at the conclusion that the world is about to burn down because of climate change?

There have clearly been just as bad and also worse fires in AUstralia's history and there have been periods of shocking drought (although I accept this one seems to be one of the worst).

But how are people so certain of a link to climate change? I just don't see it.

 

[Howard Moon]

Don't think too much of it. Many people on this forum believe that evolution is fake and even worse, they support the Bulldogs even after watching them play the last few years.

yeah far out.. fancy not believing in something that has yet to be proven, and supporting the mighty dogs.. shame on us lol

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I stopped reading when I read this line

“economic concerns are irrelevant in the face of collapsing ecosystems”

Um sorry, no they’re not.

This is what I never got about the whole climate change debate. A large majority of the right think that climate change isn't a problem, while the large majority of the left think that the economic system doesn't matter. Both will result in the deaths of millions and possibly billions. Just have to figure out a way to reduce the casualty rate. Fix the climate problem without destroying the economy. Completely possible but not while people pretend that it isn't a problem.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

I find it short sighted for anyone to suggest that our current bush fires are the result of 'climate change' and by inference 'Australia's coal and mining industries'.

I'm 35, but I remember very well 1994 when bushfires were so bad that they cut off every exit and entrance to Sydney with the exception of the Hume Highway to the South West.

So the fires this year while bad, are clearly not as bad as 1994 (at least according to some measures)

2003 Canberra Fires - need I share the detail of how horrific they were and how close to a major city they were?

Yes Australia (particularly the East Coast) is currently in the grip of an extremely bad drought. The ground and bush are dry and are ripe for awful fires.

Some areas in Australia are having fantastic rain fall and therefore farming there is great right now - including parts of Victoria and Western Australia.

Also, the majority of these fires are started by little shits who intentionally light them or by lightning strikes (neither of which have anything to do with climate change).

So if the ignition of these fires is nothing to do with climate change then how has everyone suddenly arrived at the conclusion that the world is about to burn down because of climate change?

There have clearly been just as bad and also worse fires in AUstralia's history and there have been periods of shocking drought (although I accept this one seems to be one of the worst).

But how are people so certain of a link to climate change? I just don't see it.

It's a misunderstanding most people have. Not just about the bushfires but climate change in general.

Earth's systems and the sun have a much greater influence on the climate than we do. The bushfire link to climate change isn't "Climate change caused bushfires", it's "This was going to be a bad bushfire season anyway. Climate change made it worse"

Earth goes through natural CO2 cycles. Think of a dam that fills up and empties as it rains. The dam would naturally range between 50% and 90%. We're adding another 6% to that. So when it's low it's 56%, but when it's high it's 96%. That's more pressure on the dam. But that 6% keeps increasing. So eventually it's a low of 61% and a high of 101% and the dam starts overflowing. We're now reaching that 100% point and it's having an effect. But we keep throwing more water in the dam. Eventually the dam will start cracking. It won't break, but it'll start leaking water onto the town below and it'll be very difficult to stop.

 

[wendog33]

This is what I never got about the whole climate change debate. A large majority of the right think that climate change isn't a problem, while the large majority of the left think that the economic system doesn't matter. Both will result in the deaths of millions and possibly billions. Just have to figure out a way to reduce the casualty rate. Fix the climate problem without destroying the economy. Completely possible but not while people pretend that it isn't a problem.

This is why we need statesmen and leaders who can deliver. This situation should not be a political football or fought on party line.

We should have sensible debate, arrive at a scientific consensus and start making significant improvements to our environment.

I hate all the terms and the tooing and froing. Forget about the names... climate change, global warming etc.

Just call it pollution. We all agree thats bad. Well maybe not everyone.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

yeah far out.. fancy not believing in something that has yet to be proven, and supporting the mighty dogs.. shame on us lol

It was proven though with 100% certainty. It's actually been proven many times but people keep denying it. It was proven in 2004. It was proven 1995. 1988, 1985, 1984. It was even proven back in 1938.

 

[Hacky McAxe]

This is why we need statesmen and leaders who can deliver. This situation should not be a political football or fought on party line.

We should have sensible debate, arrive at a scientific consensus and start making significant improvements to our environment.

I hate all the terms and the tooing and froing. Forget about the names... climate change, global warming etc.

Just call it pollution. We all agree thats bad. Well maybe not everyone.

Unfortunately I don't think we'll ever get to that stage. We had 13 major research projects on consensus each showing scientific consensus on the subject but people still deny it. Unfortunately many of those people are politicians.

 

[Howard Moon]

It was proven though with 100% certainty. It's actually been proven many times but people keep denying it. It was proven in 2004. It was proven 1995. 1988, 1985, 1984. It was even proven back in 1938.

lol no it wasn't... oh wait... what was it... a wolf pup had similar characteristics to a dog? I don't care what others believe.. but don't try and put us on the crazy when you believe something as retarded as "evolution"

 

[doggieaaron]

Some of time magazine’s other winners over the years,cleary some good weed there

 

[Hacky McAxe]

lol no it wasn't... oh wait... what was it... a wolf pup had similar characteristics to a dog? I don't care what others believe.. but don't try and put us on the crazy when you believe something as retarded as "evolution"

I hoped someone would at least get the year reference in my post

 

[Dawgfather]

The bushfire link to climate change isn't "Climate change caused bushfires", it's "This was going to be a bad bushfire season anyway. Climate change made it worse"

I find that claim also really hard to believe (personally). I mean - I do agree that the climate changes. The world is a variable place and of late, it seems like we've had some warmer temperatures. That's a pretty reasonable statement I think most of Australia would agree with.

But from there you have to ask:

- What's causing the changes
- Are the changes leading to negative or positive outcomes

I have an open mind on the first question and I Do accept climate change due to human impact is possible (but I haven't concluded that way).

On the second question it would seem that many measurable indicators of propserity have actually been positive over the same period that climate change has supposedly been about to kill the whole world. For example - grain crops have reached record highs. The old fears that humans would run out of food because of over population was proven very very wrong. Poverty around the world has been reduced by record amounts (particularly in Africa and China). Average life expectancy in most countries has increased and not decreased.

If climate change is as bad as these self indulgent 16 year olds from Sweden say it is, then surely you would expect to see some negative impacts on human life expectancy or food production or natural disasters. But I don't think you see any of those (arguably).