Sydney Protesters

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,733

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580

Cue the specific discrediting that’s imminent on this forum now for each of these scientists.
85 names, Bro. This doesn't exactly validate your 1 for every 1 statement. It is also worth noting not all of them are denying there is a problem. Some are questioning the current modelling, some are saying climate change is real but its causes are unknown....so there isn't even consensus among those who dispute the consensus. In addition, some are dead (and have been for over 10 years in some cases) and many do not appear to be climate scientists. Not going to attempt to individually discredit them all, but I'm still sticking with the overwhelming majority who agree there is a serious problem.
 

CaptainJackson

Kennel Immortal
Gilded
Joined
Nov 28, 2016
Messages
16,215
Reaction score
19,733
85 names, Bro. This doesn't exactly validate your 1 for every 1 statement. It is also worth noting not all of them are denying there is a problem. Some are questioning the current modelling, some are saying climate change is real but its causes are unknown....so there isn't even consensus among those who dispute the consensus. In addition, some are dead (and have been for over 10 years in some cases) and many do not appear to be climate scientists. Not going to attempt to individually discredit them all, but I'm still sticking with the overwhelming majority who agree there is a serious problem.
The article is from 2018, that website is written by nutcase and that list has been shared multiple times across many different websites and DISCREDITED multiple times.

As I said, it's INSULTING, don't waste your time
 

Doogie

Kennel Lizard Lord
Joined
Oct 6, 2012
Messages
9,728
Reaction score
12,207
85 names, Bro. This doesn't exactly validate your 1 for every 1 statement. It is also worth noting not all of them are denying there is a problem. Some are questioning the current modelling, some are saying climate change is real but its causes are unknown....so there isn't even consensus among those who dispute the consensus. In addition, some are dead (and have been for over 10 years in some cases) and many do not appear to be climate scientists. Not going to attempt to individually discredit them all, but I'm still sticking with the overwhelming majority who agree there is a serious problem.
On that note (and surprised you posted something sensible for a change 8-)), I'll start with the disclaimer that I've been funded and have published climate change research (was easy money back in the day). So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Is climate change real? Depends how you look at it. Do I think its proven - no. Do I think the process arguments that drive the concept are realistic - yes. Do I think the modelling is sound - no - scientists have no idea of how basins, sinks and various feedback loops associated will operate. Nothing is linear in this space.

So - given this - do I think we should act on climate change now - yes. Simple risk management perspective. If you spend the money to fight it or moderate the impacts, the worst that can happen is you've spent a bucket load building a more resilient and holistic society. If you don't spend the money or wait, the worst that can happen is you are woefully unprepared if climate change is real and underestimated.

My view - go the protestors. May not agree with the way they have done things and think they've done a crap job at spreading their message but 100% believe in the message.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411

Cue the specific discrediting that’s imminent on this forum now for each of these scientists.
Pretty easy to discredit it. You have about 25 that think that the current climate change is primarily driven by natural sources. Only a few of those are climatologists but if we expand it out to all earth/atmospheric scientists then we're looking at around 23 of those.

So we're looking at around 23 out of around 70,000-80,000 atmospheric and earth sciences who are actively researching. Of course we need to adjust that statistic more because many of those in the list aren't active. They've been retired for a while.

But Anyways... Here's a fun game if you're bored. Go down the list one at a time and see how long it takes you to hit one that isn't funded by the fossil fuel companies. It'll take you a while.

I'll get you started:

1) Khabibullo Abdusamatov - a Russian astrophysicist sponsored by the Heartland Institute. A group that runs climate change disinformation and is funded by Fossil Fuel interest parties including The Koch's

2) Sallie Baliunas - another astrophysicist. She worked with Willie Soon. The one I mentioned earlier who lied about being funded by the fossil fuel industry. She was also funded by the Marshall Institute which was almost entirely funded by the fossil fuel industry. BTW, she also testified in court that CFCs have no effect on the ozone layer. A point that was proven wrong extensively many times

3) Timothy Ball - a retired climatologist who is paid by the fossil fuel industry to do public disinformation talks, and right climate denial pieces for newspapers

Should I keep going?
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Safe to say that you have been fed disinformation and you have taken it hook, line and sinker.
 

The DoggFather

OG DF
Premium Member
Gilded
Site's Top Poster
Joined
Sep 2, 2012
Messages
106,385
Reaction score
117,483
My view - go the protestors. May not agree with the way they have done things and think they've done a crap job at spreading their message but 100% believe in the message.
What if the legalise weed and you get dickheads protesting?

Will you still say "go the protestors"? ;)
 

Bullpit

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 4, 2016
Messages
1,050
Reaction score
1,289
85 names, Bro. This doesn't exactly validate your 1 for every 1 statement. It is also worth noting not all of them are denying there is a problem. Some are questioning the current modelling, some are saying climate change is real but its causes are unknown....so there isn't even consensus among those who dispute the consensus. In addition, some are dead (and have been for over 10 years in some cases) and many do not appear to be climate scientists. Not going to attempt to individually discredit them all, but I'm still sticking with the overwhelming majority who agree there is a serious problem.
Fair enough. And you have every right to do so and good on you! What I was merely highlighting is that there are contrarian views and to be blatantly dismissive of these is being closed minded. For the record, I am not saying that the contrarian views are correct - just that they exist and the nature and extent of this issue is not black and white.
 

Blueandwhiteblood1968

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 19, 2016
Messages
2,872
Reaction score
1,982
$22,000 fine and/or 6 months in jail - looks like it'll be the norm soon. Deputy Premier was speaking about it this morning. That'll sting hard.
Problem is they never pay and 100% guaranteed they won't go to gaol, that's why they keep doing this and it's the same people, if they went to gaol for 6 months everytime there wouldn't be anyone to protest, the government is full of shit, all they get is a slap on the wrist and a warning.
Eventually some driver will snap and beat one of the protesters to death before the cops can intervene, that will be the end of the protesters.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
On that note (and surprised you posted something sensible for a change 8-)), I'll start with the disclaimer that I've been funded and have published climate change research (was easy money back in the day). So take what I say with a grain of salt.

Is climate change real? Depends how you look at it. Do I think its proven - no. Do I think the process arguments that drive the concept are realistic - yes. Do I think the modelling is sound - no - scientists have no idea of how basins, sinks and various feedback loops associated will operate. Nothing is linear in this space.

So - given this - do I think we should act on climate change now - yes. Simple risk management perspective. If you spend the money to fight it or moderate the impacts, the worst that can happen is you've spent a bucket load building a more resilient and holistic society. If you don't spend the money or wait, the worst that can happen is you are woefully unprepared if climate change is real and underestimated.

My view - go the protestors. May not agree with the way they have done things and think they've done a crap job at spreading their message but 100% believe in the message.
Awww Doogs…. Couldn’t resist the slu dig, even when we actually agree on something… lol

I don’t trust the modelling…. They try to be too specific with their predictions and get shit wrong. But I’m absolutely convinced the planet is in trouble and we are contributing to that. Well, the species living on the planet are in trouble, I should say. The planet will recover.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Fair enough. And you have every right to do so and good on you! What I was merely highlighting is that there are contrarian views and to be blatantly dismissive of these is being closed minded. For the record, I am not saying that the contrarian views are correct - just that they exist and the nature and extent of this issue is not black and white.
Look, I’m all for healthy debate and respecting other views, mate. I just think the vast majority of experts are together on this. And in most cases, it is wisest to defer to the experts on matters like this. And it’s sort of understandable that people get heated when they think the welfare of their kids of grandchildren is at stake.
 

Flanagun

Banned
In the Sin Bin
Joined
May 25, 2011
Messages
22,588
Reaction score
20,580
Weed + protestors would be the best protest of all time. Yo bro, lets light up here eh - 20 mins later - munchies, off we go to 7-11.

Shit yeah.
Just don’t light up before you leave l, or you’ll end up turning on the Todsy show and thinking, ‘man, this Stefanovic dude has a point’.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
Awww Doogs…. Couldn’t resist the slu dig, even when we actually agree on something… lol

I don’t trust the modelling…. They try to be too specific with their predictions and get shit wrong. But I’m absolutely convinced the planet is in trouble and we are contributing to that. Well, the species living on the planet are in trouble, I should say. The planet will recover.
The modelling is a bit tricky. Deniers like to throw out, "all the models have been incorrect". Most haven't though. Most were off but within acceptable margins of error. But they are just short term models as the old models were old.

Newest models seem to be accurate but the only way to test them is to use them to model past events. Which is fine. But it doesn't allow for certain variables.

As Doogs said. There's certain feedback systems that just can't be modelled because we don't have enough data to model the impacts climate variation will cause.

There's no doubt that there is already an impact and will be more of an impact. But how much variation there will be is a fair unknown.

Basically put, we're not sure if it's going to be bad or very bad. But there will be an impact and there already is an impact.
 

Philistine

Kennel Established
Joined
Jun 7, 2022
Messages
830
Reaction score
1,285
I am not going to come on here and say that anthropogenic climate change is a load of old rubbish, nor am I going to say it is the great moral challenge of our generation. What I will say is that those of us who are fixated on carbon footprints and the like are addressing the wrong problem.

The population of the World is predicted to rise to 17.4 billion people by 2100 - and there won't be enough resources to sustain them or enough food to feed them. The World was beginning to run short of food in the 1930s, with a population of about 3 billion. Super-fertilisers appeared on the market just in time to make the problem go away (this wasn't the only factor but it was a big one). Our population is now about 8 billion and food shortages are starting to reappear. Unless technology can come up with a super duper mega fertiliser, we are in trouble.

I am not advocating building gas chambers to remove the surplus population - as a society, if people are already here, we are duty bound to provide for them. But we (I mean governments) should absolutely not be subsidizing people to have children.
 

Hacky McAxe

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
37,038
Reaction score
29,411
I am not going to come on here and say that anthropogenic climate change is a load of old rubbish, nor am I going to say it is the great moral challenge of our generation. What I will say is that those of us who are fixated on carbon footprints and the like are addressing the wrong problem.

The population of the World is predicted to rise to 17.4 billion people by 2100 - and there won't be enough resources to sustain them or enough food to feed them. The World was beginning to run short of food in the 1930s, with a population of about 3 billion. Super-fertilisers appeared on the market just in time to make the problem go away (this wasn't the only factor but it was a big one). Our population is now about 8 billion and food shortages are starting to reappear. Unless technology can come up with a super duper mega fertiliser, we are in trouble.

I am not advocating building gas chambers to remove the surplus population - as a society, if people are already here, we are duty bound to provide for them. But we (I mean governments) should absolutely not be subsidizing people to have children.
The predictions have the population stopping around 10 billion then declining a bit. But it's also possible the population growth won't stop and we'll flood the earth and you're right. We'll be screwed.

But it's not just population growth that's the problem. Currently around 1% of the earth's land is unsustainable for living. Climate projections have that expanding to 14% by 2100. The amount to land that can be farmed will drop even more. So not only will we have too many mouths to feed, but we also won't have any land to grow crops to feed them.
 
Top