Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
CC3 -- Why I believe that a third option is needed for climate change
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50172
Who is rejecting what? I asked you recently about climate scientists 'warnings' given out over the last 50 years or so, in how many have come to fruition vs the number that may not have. You follow 'climate science' very closely it seems, so I naturally expected you to have the answer, or an idea at least. Yet, you did not provide either.
Why?
Well there's a few:
The increase in extreme weather conditions over the past 20 years. (irrefutable fact. Also extreme weather includes hot and cold weather)
The fact that the last 5 years have been the hottest on record. The odds of all five being together is akin to winning on the lottery.
Also Nasa basically predicting the huge environmental impact CFC's would have on the environment. In that case action was taken in time and you are currently not being bombarded with radiation when you step outside your door.
So there's plenty environmental science has predicted and gotten right.There is a subtle distinction here that the experimental theorists can't discern. Competence in all professions where a danger to life is present require a statutory body to oversee the practitioners and that they have enacted actions based on regular and accepted practices. It happens for astronauts as well as surgeons, bus drivers or the lollipop man guiding children across the road.
In astronomy and Earth sciences it is a free-for-all among experimental theorists but there are areas where people do productive work on a different road which shows up in nature documentaries to marvel at. What went wrong with climate research is the same as what happened to biological evolution in the mid 19th century as experimental theorists tried to justify empire building using analogies of civilised and savage races and then scaling it up to all biology as 'survival of the fittest' which in turn led to Auschwitz .
It is the inability to discuss the foundations for conclusions that hovers over this thread as the academics have conveniently set up a self-promoting and self-protecting system which does not belong in astronomy and Earth sciences even when statutory bodies are required for so many professions where accountability and responsibility for life are present. A balanced approach is needed .
Are you trying to equate astrology and environmental science to a more sociological science? Because if you are you are wrong. Environmental science is a measurable science and there's no ambiguity to results, especially with such massive data sets as historical worldwide temperatures.
Also why bring the Nazi's up? Evolution by survival of the fittest is a true and verified theory. What happened with the final solution was the self-promoting and self-protecting system failed, in this case the government. In the case of climate change it's the same thing. The so called self-promoting and self-protecting group, again the government, has failed. All the information and proof for climate change is set out in front of them and yet they choose to ignore and not act on it out of self interest.But it’s not unprecedented in Australia.
It’s not the largest and we are already seeing the plant and fauna boom in the wake of the fire.
It’s almost like these animals adapted to fire, like over the course of 1000s and millions of years their gene pool naturally selected those best suited to survival. Hold onto your seat, this is going to knock you back, but I reckon fires in Australia are natural and that the current fires are also natural.
Plus the people who ignited the fires are somehow more accountable than my family car sitting in my driveway.
Just my non expert opinion!!!
Well it's pretty obviously not an expert opinion. It's true some of australias flora and fauna has evolved around intermittent bush fires. However the extent of the fires is unprecedented in recorded history and exponentially exceeds the expected levels of fire.
As for people starting fires, there are a handful of incidents, just like there always are at this time of year but their contribution is minimal to the overall levels of fire that occurred without human intervention. However the right wing climate change denying government is pushing this story to deflect away from the obvious cause of climate change so as to protect their vested interests. Australia is one of the biggest carbon emitting polluters, second only to the US and it's economy is built of coal extraction and mining which would be heavily impacted if the government actually acted to combat it's carbon emissions.
People are dying from climate change, 3 firefighters in a plane today yet people are still burying their head in the sand for economic purposes.
0 -
-
Interesting doco:
Talk of 'climate catastrophe', mass hunger, desertification. death.New Moon
0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 50172
That's just false causality and confirmation bias.
Deaths due to natural disasters are down. This is due to better technology and safety procedures.
There is nothing on that page to say if the number of natural disasters is increasing. Also many natural disasters are not climate related.
What is true is that three fire fighters have died in the last few hours due to fires on an unprecedented scale that were caused by man made climate change.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »What is true is that three fire fighters have died in the last few hours due to fires on an unprecedented scale that were caused by man made climate change.
You are only half-right. Much of the fires are man made.
Image: Australian Institute of Criminology0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »As for people starting fires, there are a handful of incidents, just like there always are at this time of year but their contribution is minimal to the overall levels of fire that occurred without human intervention.
However the right wing climate change denying government is pushing this story to deflect away from the obvious cause of climate change so as to protect their vested interests.
Australia is one of the biggest carbon emitting polluters, second only to the US and it's economy is built of coal extraction and mining which would be heavily impacted if the government actually acted to combat it's carbon emissions.
People are dying from climate change, 3 firefighters in a plane today yet people are still burying their head in the sand for economic purposes.
More horse manure. Australia is nowhere near the USA:
With your reference about "economic purposes" it's quite clear that you are using your climate change false alarms to usher in a communist/socialist system.
It's important for people to use their vote on February 8th wisely to keep candidates with closely aligned views to "Retr0gamer" well away from the levers of power in this country.
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50172
There's conflicting reports, most reputable sources claim about half have a verifiable natural cause, with many of the rest being 'suspicious'.
The government has also fudged the stats on how many arsonists have been arrested.
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/01/setting-the-record-straight-on-climate-change-and-arson-in-australias-bushfires/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/13/explainer-what-are-the-underlying-causes-of-australias-shocking-bushfire-season
However what isn't irrefutable is that climate change has created conditions to allow these fires to start and spread to far more devastating effect than naturally occurs.
0 -
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50172
https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/uk-climate-scientist-corrects-australian-mp-craig-kellys-blatant-misrepresentation
Who to trust? The politician looking after his own bottom end or the expert in the field?
0 -
-
Join Date:Posts: 50172
Water John wrote: »If the climate science predicting further heating was false or from falsified data, the fossil fuel industry would be onto it like a ton of bricks. They already use some of the same antagonists who argued for the tobacco industry that smoking could not be irrefutably linked to lung cancer. If any climate scientist wanted to sell out for money, he would be handsomely rewarded.
Here is what they have effectively lobbied with Trump;
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2020/jan/23/trump-weakened-environmental-laws-after-bp-lobbying
It's very obvious why the fossil fuel industry would want to bury the results of the research and muddy the waters with their own propaganda but it amazes me that there's normal joe soaps that falling for it and don't recognize climate change denial for what it is, propaganda from large corporations.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 50172
The notion of 'climate change' comes from a subculture which attached itself to astronomy and Earth sciences in late 17th century England where Newton attempted to make astronomical predictions look like experimental predictions. hence experimental analogies could be swapped with planetary orbital dynamics in a parasitic relationship.
Given the day that it is in it with the commemoration of Auschwitz and the attempted extermination of an entire European culture, how a nation convinced itself of the need for extermination owed itself to an empirical doctrine based on the same notion that some humans were closer to gorillas therefore could be considered subhuman -
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate
and replace throughout the world the savage races. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in
a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between
the negro or Australian and the gorilla." Darwin
Six million people, yes, six million people walked into the crematoria because the people who built those death factories had convinced themselves that their empire building justifications had a formal academic stamp of approval and that aggression and exploitation is at the centre of biology along with a human/subhuman element -
” A lopsided education has helped to encourage that illusion. Man must realize that a fundamental law of necessity reigns throughout the whole realm of Nature and that his existence is subject to the law of eternal struggle and strife. He will then feel that there cannot be a separate law for mankind in a world in which planets and suns follow their orbits, where moons and planets trace their destined paths, where the strong are always the masters of the weak and where those subject to such laws must obey them or be destroyed.” Hitler
For those who still manage to demand that the Darwin/Wallace notion remains the pinnacle of human reasoning never have taken the other road of biological and geological evolution where Steno's superposition was passed on to William Smith and from there into plate tectonics of Wegener of the early 20th century -
https://www.geolsoc.org.uk/~/media/shared/images/education%20careers/KS4/Chapter%201/chapter%201%20slide%2018.jpg?la=en
The theorists who used an empire building analogy based on superficial notions of civilised/savage by using native Australians and negroes as evolutionary props back to gorillas simply whitewashed the subhuman ideology out and replaced them with neanderthals while retaining the aggressive instincts of population control as a 'law of nature'.
This is our turn, 'climate change' is our era's national socialist doctrine based on an academic-political alliance where a large scale Earth science turns from a fountain of exploration into a cistern of human behaviour based on a nuisance belief of human control over planetary temperatures. Nobody can bring those people back who died in the Irish famine or the holocaust based on Malthus via Darwin/Wallace, however, their deaths have an insidious academic component attached with the coldness and detachment of the same academics today who would suck the people of the planet into their dire and dull cistern. After WWII, what existed as a social and political phenomena shrunk back into the academic world where it re-invented itself for the same self-promoting and self-protecting agendas of peer review science that now have hijacked climate research.
There is another road to climate research where it joins other large scale sciences with the same freedom of consideration they have. Time to snap out of the subculture.
What the actual ****? Nonsense.
Also saying the final solution has anything to do with science is nonsense. It has nothing to do with Darwinism or evolution. It is pure and simple the product of ignorant people using confirmation bias to support their own sick and corrupt agenda and beliefs. There is no scientific rational behind it. Same with racists trying to argue that evolution supports their sick views. It's doesn't bit they'll make it fit anyway. Both are extreme examples of the very non scientific method of coming up with a theory and fitting evidence around it. In fact it's closer to climate change denial were confirmation bias is used to support an agenda with no scientific support or justification.
0 -
Retr0gamer wrote: »https://amp.theguardian.com/environment/2020/jan/22/uk-climate-scientist-corrects-australian-mp-craig-kellys-blatant-misrepresentation
Who to trust? The politician looking after his own bottom end or the expert in the field?
Very brave and very noble of that 'working scientist' to take on that 'serial climate denier' (what does that even mean?)
Did this same 'working scientist' generously spare some of her precious time in calling out AOC, who has continual spread false and misleading prophecies (because apparently, scientists say so) regarding the ending of the world within the next decade, thus leading, understandably, to utterly deranged reactions such as this?
No? thought not.
'Even if we bomb Russia, we still have too many people'.New Moon
0 -
Join Date:Posts: 50172
Very brave and very noble of that 'working scientist' to take on that 'serial climate denier' (what does that even mean?)
Did this same 'working scientist' generously spare some of her precious time in calling out AOC, who has continual spread false and misleading prophecies (because apparently, scientists say so) regarding the ending of the world within the next decade, thus leading, understandably, to utterly deranged reactions such as this?
No? thought not.
Why would they? AOC is doing what a politician should do, acting on the information provided to her by sciensts and experts in those areas and not her corporate masters who dictate actions and decisions with bags of money.
Anyway we are talking about science not politics. Science deals with observations and truth while politics is not concerned about the truth at all as ably demonstrated by right wingers like Trump, Boris and all the climate deniers in office.
0 -
-
Advertisement
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSDLRm3jhc8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HULW-ODeqLg
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement