Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Dash

NRL Captain
3,234
2,422
Brisbane
Evidence for those claims, Dash Dash ? And, what's your point?

Also - is Greta sponsored by anyone?
It's not a claim, it's a cold hard fact. The Heartland Institute.

My point is that they are scum who will spout any bullshit once paid for by any company that makes their money off destroying the environment and/or human lives. My secondary point is that anything they have to say, and by association this girl has to say, is not worth listening to.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
It's not a claim, it's a cold hard fact. The Heartland Institute.

My point is that they are scum who will spout any bullshit once paid for by any company that makes their money off destroying the environment and/or human lives. My secondary point is that anything they have to say, and by association this girl has to say, is not worth listening to.
I'm well aware of Heartland. I was looking for you to provide an actual source rather than an assertion, but I guess you're not going to....why not?

From their website:

"Smoking is habit-forming and isn’t healthy, and kids shouldn’t smoke. But at some point, now some years ago, we went well beyond reasonable measures to discourage smoking and protect nonsmokers, and are now waging all-out war on smokers. That’s wrong."

"Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks. We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues."


From a Joe Bast article:

"“Forecast the Facts” falsely claims that we take the positions we do because we are funded by tobacco companies. In fact, tobacco companies have never contributed more than 2 percent of our total income in a given year. I repeat: Not more than 2 percent. Our positions on tobacco control are based on facts and principles, not on who funds us."


Would you consider that perhaps you've misunderstood, or been misled in your views on Heartland? A source for your claims would, again, be useful here.


Secondly, if you disagree with someone / a group of people on one point, why on earth does that make anything they (or who they fund) say, "not worth listening to"? Personally I find that astoundingly closed-minded. The implication is that someone is either right about everything or wrong about everything....that's absurd. They could be totally wrong with their views on tobacco and smoking - what on earth does that have to do with a bright teenager in Germany talking about climate change?

Question for you - if"Big Oil" companies contributeg funding the likes of Greenpeace, WWF etc, would that mean those organisations are beholden to "Big Oil"?
 
Last edited:

Dash

NRL Captain
3,234
2,422
Brisbane
I'm well aware of Heartland. I was looking for you to provide an actual source rather than an assertion, but I guess you're not going to....why not?

From their website:

"Smoking is habit-forming and isn’t healthy, and kids shouldn’t smoke. But at some point, now some years ago, we went well beyond reasonable measures to discourage smoking and protect nonsmokers, and are now waging all-out war on smokers. That’s wrong."

"Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks. We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues."


From a Joe Bast article:

"“Forecast the Facts” falsely claims that we take the positions we do because we are funded by tobacco companies. In fact, tobacco companies have never contributed more than 2 percent of our total income in a given year. I repeat: Not more than 2 percent. Our positions on tobacco control are based on facts and principles, not on who funds us."


Would you consider that perhaps you've misunderstood, or been misled in your views on Heartland? A source for your claims would, again, be useful here.


Secondly, if you disagree with someone / a group of people on one point, why on earth does that make anything they (or who they fund) say, "not worth listening to"? Personally I find that astoundingly closed-minded. The implication is that someone is either right about everything or wrong about everything....that's absurd. They could be totally wrong with their views on tobacco and smoking - what on earth does that have to do with a bright teenager in Germany talking about climate change?

Question for you - if"Big Oil" companies contributeg funding the likes of Greenpeace, WWF etc, would that mean those organisations are beholden to "Big Oil"?
So your source in their defence is Heartland itself? OJ Simpson also says he's innocent.

Their opinion is not worth listening to because it's paid for. Also, they exist only to support issues on one side of politics, so it's safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are far from unbiased.

To answer your question, I'm going to assume that 'Big Oil' do in fact contribute to such organisations, otherwise why would you be asking. And I'd say it's probably so the Kool-Aid drinkers have an easy rebuttal at hand when proving how smart they are on the internet.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
So your source in their defence is Heartland itself? OJ Simpson also says he's innocent.

Their opinion is not worth listening to because it's paid for. Also, they exist only to support issues on one side of politics, so it's safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are far from unbiased.

To answer your question, I'm going to assume that 'Big Oil' do in fact contribute to such organisations, otherwise why would you be asking. And I'd say it's probably so the Kool-Aid drinkers have an easy rebuttal at hand when proving how smart they are on the internet.
So you have, quite literally, nothing of any substance then? C'mon mate, you can do better than this.

Everyone who is not completely self-funded, is paid for by someone else. Do you honestly believe that makes their opinions worthless? Do you apply this logic to both 'sides' of any debate or do you only hold the 'other' side responsible to their funders? Any organisations paid, for example by the 'leftist' Soros, or Gates...it's also safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are also far from unbiased and should be ignored? Science is science...if it's right, it's right, no matter WHO pays for it or makes the findings. If it's wrong, then it can be disproved...that's kind of the point of science.

And yes. 'Big Oil' does in fact financially support a lot of environmental organisations and put vast sums into renewable energy etc. Does that change your views on anything or do you genuinely believe that's simply so some keyboard warriors can use it as an easy rebuttal?
 
Last edited:

Dash

NRL Captain
3,234
2,422
Brisbane
And yes. 'Big Oil' does in fact financially support a lot of environmental organisations and put vast sums into renewable energy etc. Does that change your views on anything or do you genuinely believe that's simply so some keyboard warriors can use it as an easy rebuttal?
No I don't really believe that. They do it for the same reason McDonalds pays money to the Heart Foundation - so they can claim they are doing the right thing while profiting off the complete opposite. It's simple PR.
 

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
No I don't really believe that. They do it for the same reason McDonalds pays money to the Heart Foundation - so they can claim they are doing the right thing while profiting off the complete opposite. It's simple PR.
What about being involved in the future...not having all their eggs in the 'oil' basket, so to speak? That would make good business sense, right? Like a blacksmith who also pioneered mechanical work during the changeover from horses to cars. These are some of the richest companies on the planet...they do not want to become defunct. BP for example has been involved in solar research and production since 1989 I believe.

Of course there's the usual PR sops as well, and you're right, funding to green groups is a part of that PR work. But, does that mean that the likes of Greenpeace/WWF/etc who accept the 'tainted' 'oil money' can't be trusted because of where their funds come from?

I don't think you can have it both ways...
 
Last edited:

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
25,524
10,071
Third Rock from the Sun
So your source in their defence is Heartland itself? OJ Simpson also says he's innocent.

Their opinion is not worth listening to because it's paid for. Also, they exist only to support issues on one side of politics, so it's safe to assume their 'scientific' investigations are far from unbiased.

To answer your question, I'm going to assume that 'Big Oil' do in fact contribute to such organisations, otherwise why would you be asking. And I'd say it's probably so the Kool-Aid drinkers have an easy rebuttal at hand when proving how smart they are on the internet.
Which is something that can be said of any significant organisation on any side of the fence, or even on top of it.

You're not dismissing what she says because of her sponsors , but because you don't want to hear her message. It's called bias mate...
 

Porthoz

International Captain
Staff
25,524
10,071
Third Rock from the Sun
"Science" is broad. "Experts" is broad. What exactly is it that you're hoping will happen here?
I'm actually a bit concerned that the costs of COVID-19's consequences, will leave governments short to invest in the necessary technologies and proper environmental measures they should implement regardless of climate change facts and/or myths.
 

theshed

NRL Captain
3,061
3,837
"Science" is broad. "Experts" is broad. What exactly is it that you're hoping will happen here?
Experts in each respective field. I feel like no one took covid 19 serious to start with despite the warnings of medical professionals until we started seeing body counts rise. No one really seemed to listened to the countless experts who have been warning about an inevitable pandemic for decades. Now everyone is starting to take it seriously but far more damage has been done than necessary.

I hope this teaches the world a lesson about listening to the warnings before climate change shakes the whole world the same way covid 19 currently is.
 
Last edited:

LittleDavey83

NRL Player
1,329
963
Bundy
Experts in each respective field. I feel like no one took covid 19 serious to start with despite the warnings of medical professionals until we started seeing body counts rise. No one really seemed to listened to the countless experts who have been warning about an inevitable pandemic for decades. Now everyone is starting to take it seriously but far more damage has been done than necessary.

I hope this teaches the world a lesson about listening to the warnings before climate change shakes the whole world the same way covid 19 currently is.
With all due respect, the tangents you’re drawing aren’t as similar as they seem.

COVID-19 is a known issue. It’s happening, and fast. It’s causing deaths worldwide. The fact that another pandemic would occur is the same – it’s happened many times over in the past, so of course it’s highly likely (or even certain) to happen again. COVID-19 is not unprecedented. Pandemics are planned for and prepared for, however the Western world who did not have to deal with any recent outbreaks have been caught unprepared. I think you’ll find countries who went through the SARS and other recent outbreaks (Japan, South Korea, etc) have taken this extremely seriously and dealt with the situation exceedingly well. The fact that it can be spread prior to symptoms appearing, and by those with very mild symptoms, makes COVID-19 far more difficult to control than the others which were only contagious once symptoms appear. I do agree however that more damage has been done than necessary. Confirmed cases on ICU support in Aus jumped from 11-12 yesterday to 16 thismorning…this could be the pointy end of the arrow starting to appear.

HOWEVER.

Climate change is a different beast altogether. There is conjecture about how much is happening now (assuming “climate change” to mean anthropomorphic impacts on various components of the climate system globally). It’s a slow burn, there are no immediate, fast changes like COVID-19. The horrific, terrifying predictions are a product of incomplete, unverified, unvalidated models which do not model earth’s physical processes at all well, fed with overinflated estimates of emissions that in some cases are not even physically possible – that is to say, the worst “projections” of climate change are so exceedingly unlikely to ever occur they may as well be impossible. The unprecedented nature of the projections, particularly the catastrophic top-end ones, cannot be compared to a rapidly-evolving, physically known pandemic which was predictable and planned for.

Some experts in one field being right about one thing (that has happened before and was always going to be repeated, yet as you say there was still conjecture and a lack of understanding of this basic fact) does NOT by any stretch of the imagination mean that all ‘experts’ in all fields must be right about everything, all of the time. Particularly when you have a field projecting unprecedented things far into the future with very little actual physical evidence in support of the claims. “Rising body counts” proven to be victims of this virus is vastly different to a meandering but slowly increasing global average temperature of which there is heavy conjecture about the cause.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create free account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Top