Climate Change: Fact or Fiction

Sirlee oldman

NRL Player
1,290
1,623
Climate change isn’t real...
Oh ok it’s real but natural. Nothing to do with people at all...
Oh ok we are doing it but what’s the big deal? It’s not an emergency or something we should deal with urgently....
**** me. How bad does it have to get to be an emergency? What’s the lag time when the message finally gets through and we start trying to fix it before we actually make some progress? Why not get started now? Because the greedy cunts in power are too frightened to knock a couple of tenths of a percent off GDP while we transition to a better future and the dumb cunts who vote for them believe their bullshit. Politicians and the right wing media manipulate the figures far more than climate scientists.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,618
2,358
That's fine. I'm opposed to alarmist non-sense too. I just don't think you know the difference.

You are quoting Forbes. Jeez. LNP plans aren't good enough. Agree or disagree?
Try reading the article, surely the content is more important than the publisher... The author, though should meet even your ‘appeals to authority’ requirements though...

LNP plans? For now. As I have said repeatedly, I am a believer in removing ourselves from all major, carbon based energy production. I’m a big believer in reducing all forms of pollutants that we generate, especially plastics and that we need to have a nation wide tree planting scheme, something along the lines of the effort, and social goodwill we see in ‘Clean up Australia Day’ perhaps.

I also believe that such a shift should occur over time, not over night and that the climate driver is not actually so urgent, as to impact in any meaningful way, our standard of living, but rather there are good climate AND geo-strategic reasons for moving away from carbon based energy production and we as a country will be far better off if we never buy a single more barrel of oil or burn another piece of coal...
 

vertigo

NRL Captain
3,806
1,233
Not to further inflate a shitstorm but the ban on nuclear power is insane in a country like ours. Low carbon footprint, tons of material to power it and plenty of uninhabited land to permantenly bury the waste.

Australia is a great country run by people corrupted by lobbyists and corporations preventing any long-term goals. We should have been in the nuclear game a long time ago. We don't have major earthquakes and are not subject to tsunamis.

In my mind the climate change debate is not so much about politics as much as it is about energy policy. Who stands to benefit by staying on the current path. Now cast your mind back to the link between cigarettes and cancer and how long it took for that to be accepted. CFCs and their role in the ozone layer depletion was not up for debate, we got on top of that pretty quick.

Until fusion power ever becomes a reality we're going to be fighting over this for at Least 10-15 years.
 
Last edited:

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Try reading the article, surely the content is more important than the publisher... The author, though should meet even your ‘appeals to authority’ requirements though...

LNP plans? For now. As I have said repeatedly, I am a believer in removing ourselves from all major, carbon based energy production. I’m a big believer in reducing all forms of pollutants that we generate, especially plastics and that we need to have a nation wide tree planting scheme, something along the lines of the effort, and social goodwill we see in ‘Clean up Australia Day’ perhaps.

I also believe that such a shift should occur over time, not over night and that the climate driver is not actually so urgent, as to impact in any meaningful way, our standard of living, but rather there are good climate AND geo-strategic reasons for moving away from carbon based energy production and we as a country will be far better off if we never buy a single more barrel of oil or burn another piece of coal...
I understand your position quite clearly, you are not a denialist although you use the tools provided in the kit. You believe the changes and staggering records being set, planetwide are both natural and influenced ever so slightly by human activity. You seem to believe it's not happening at a particularly fast rate and all those dopey scientists are simply exaggerating. You base this on 'clouds' and their unpredictable nature and I'm betting it's a ludicrous claim made a short while ago.

I actually follow the science, the evidence as it rolls in. I'm not an expert, just an enthusiast but I don't latch on to 'science reports' that support a presupposition as you are currently doing. The very nature of global climate (not just localised weather) is unpredictable and difficult to assess and predictions made can be sloppy.

What you are failing to understand is that most of the scientific community are not making extremist claims. You need to understand that the only claims that are getting the headlines are the extremist claims, the clickbait headlines. The media keeps picking that which will stand out and when those claims are proven overzealous denialists will point to them as evidence that the science is flawed.

When the bullshit clouds conjecture was put out there recently it was touted as scientific evidence but no, it wasn't a study and wasn't peer reviewed. It was a 4 page essay with a bunch of unproven claims and junk science. It was rubbish and it has been debunked but denialists were running around saying 'look here, valid scientific study proves the changes aren't really that bad because clouds'.

I reckon the clever approach is this: discount the extremes in the claims, listen to the teeming majority of the scientific community. Few scientists are claiming the absolute catastrophe end and none are claiming it's not real. You cannot find climatologists saying it's not real or not serious, they just aren't out there.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,618
2,358
I understand your position quite clearly, you are not a denialist although you use the tools provided in the kit. You believe the changes and staggering records being set, planetwide are both natural and influenced ever so slightly by human activity. You seem to believe it's not happening at a particularly fast rate and all those dopey scientists are simply exaggerating. You base this on 'clouds' and their unpredictable nature and I'm betting it's a ludicrous claim made a short while ago.

I actually follow the science, the evidence as it rolls in. I'm not an expert, just an enthusiast but I don't latch on to 'science reports' that support a presupposition as you are currently doing. The very nature of global climate (not just localised weather) is unpredictable and difficult to assess and predictions made can be sloppy.

What you are failing to understand is that most of the scientific community are not making extremist claims. You need to understand that the only claims that are getting the headlines are the extremist claims, the clickbait headlines. The media keeps picking that which will stand out and when those claims are proven overzealous denialists will point to them as evidence that the science is flawed.

When the bullshit clouds conjecture was put out there recently it was touted as scientific evidence but no, it wasn't a study and wasn't peer reviewed. It was a 4 page essay with a bunch of unproven claims and junk science. It was rubbish and it has been debunked but denialists were running around saying 'look here, valid scientific study proves the changes aren't really that bad because clouds'.

I reckon the clever approach is this: discount the extremes in the claims, listen to the teeming majority of the scientific community. Few scientists are claiming the absolute catastrophe end and none are claiming it's not real. You cannot find climatologists saying it's not real or not serious, they just aren't out there.
Fair enough, at least that is a point we can discuss, the clouds issue though, isn’t a claim from a few wild denialists, it’s straight from the IPCC AR5 report... Chapter 7, p:579.

‘Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget. This chapter focuses on process understanding and considers observations, theory and models to assess how clouds and aerosols contribute and respond to climate change. The following conclusions are drawn...’
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Fair enough, at least that is a point we can discuss, the clouds issue though, isn’t a claim from a few wild denialists, it’s straight from the IPCC AR5 report... Chapter 7, p:579.

‘Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget. This chapter focuses on process understanding and considers observations, theory and models to assess how clouds and aerosols contribute and respond to climate change. The following conclusions are drawn...’
Oh, so it's down to this! You've misinterpreted what was written as your quote doesn't actually support your view.
If I can explain. Let's rephrase it a little. Here goes.
Of the areas where the data and evidence are not conclusive our biggest problem is quantifying the effects of changing cloud cover and the distribution of aerosols.

This doesn't mean they don't know anything for certain, it doesn't mean all data is invalid, it doesn't mean it's all junk science, it doesn't mean the scientists do slip shod work. All of these claims which you have made either directly or by inference are incorrect and appear to be motivated by a presupposition, namely 'human made change is true but I know the rate and all the scientists are wrong'.

It appears that you're a victim. A victim of the clickbait headline. You've been fooled by the hysterical claims although there aren't as many as you think but boy, do/did they ever get the attention. You've made the incorrect assumption that when the outrageous claims haven't panned out the reason must be that it's not as serious.

One last thing, your quote is from 2013 or at least the data is that old. In fact, like all things put together for a big organization like a government or international panel the dat was collected over the preceding years and could be 10 years old by the time it's collated. You'd only have to witness that same slowness in an enquiry in your world.

I'm not saying it's invalid or useless but since that data was collected and since the opinion was offered the science has moved on, the modelling more refined, the computer power has greatly advanced AND NO ONE is saying "hey everybody, it's not serious, we've got plenty of time". Well, no scientists or climatologists.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Fair enough, at least that is a point we can discuss, the clouds issue though, isn’t a claim from a few wild denialists, it’s straight from the IPCC AR5 report... Chapter 7, p:579.

‘Clouds and aerosols continue to contribute the largest uncertainty to estimates and interpretations of the Earth’s changing energy budget. This chapter focuses on process understanding and considers observations, theory and models to assess how clouds and aerosols contribute and respond to climate change. The following conclusions are drawn...’
I downloaded the report and waded through your highlighted section. What you quoted was from page 573, the executive summary in fact. The pdf is 88 pages long so a lot went over my head and was beyond my understanding as it involved a fair bit of jargon. What was certain though was the rigorous attention paid to detail and evidence. It's true there's uncertainty but if you stick to the middle ground and ignore the extremes from both sides I believe you're way better informed.
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,618
2,938
Waiting to win lotto
I downloaded the report and waded through your highlighted section. What you quoted was from page 573, the executive summary in fact. The pdf is 88 pages long so a lot went over my head and was beyond my understanding as it involved a fair bit of jargon. What was certain though was the rigorous attention paid to detail and evidence. It's true there's uncertainty but if you stick to the middle ground and ignore the extremes from both sides I believe you're way better informed.
I am afraid I maintain a healthy cynicism about both sides of this debate. Given what has occurred about the fudging of data by significant scientic figures on the pro-climate change side and their defensiveness against proper scrutiny of their data and analysis, I am afraid (apparently unlike yourself) I don't take everything they say as `gospel'.

 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
I am afraid I maintain a healthy cynicism about both sides of this debate. Given what has occurred about the fudging of data by significant scientic figures on the pro-climate change side and their defensiveness against proper scrutiny of their data and analysis, I am afraid (apparently unlike yourself) I don't take everything they say as `gospel'.

Ha ha ha ha . Riiiiight! We know you're a clever bloke so you should be able to pinpoint the time where I believed unquestioningly, you know evidence of my blind faith. Can you be a little more forthcoming about these 'significant scientific figures' who allegedly fudged their data and then were defensive?

Name names so I can be convinced (it's gospel, yes?) as you appear to be about these nefarious activities.
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,618
2,938
Waiting to win lotto
Ha ha ha ha . Riiiiight! We know you're a clever bloke so you should be able to pinpoint the time where I believed unquestioningly, you know evidence of my blind faith. Can you be a little more forthcoming about these 'significant scientific figures' who allegedly fudged their data and then were defensive?

Name names so I can be convinced (it's gospel, yes?) as you appear to be about these nefarious activities.
You did not read the link before you replied?
 

lynx000

NRL Captain
3,618
2,938
Waiting to win lotto
Huge Huge, here is another one for you, given your stated desire for peer reviewed papers.

Very handy it is to conspire with your peers who all hold the same view as you and who are all trying to manipulate the data to achieve the same conclusion (confirmation bias anyone) whilst shutting down any genuine peer criticism of your work. With you desire for intellectual, scientific and academic honesty I would expect you would be rightly outraged at what they did?
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Yes I did click on the link and saw references to Climategate from years ago, when was it now? More than a decade back. Apparently some emails were obtained that when taken out of context seemed to indicate some wrongdoing. Turns out that at least 8 inquiries from three different countries all came to very similar conclusions and that was there was nothing in it. No collusion, conspiracy or fakery. I suppose you could conclude that all those people who ran the inquiries all agreed to protect a few scientists from scrutiny or you could go with the much simpler and more likely explanation that there was nothing amiss.

Turns out there was no fudging of data but there was quite a deal of crankiness about having to deal with SOME sloppy data and data sets. After exhaustive investigations no charges were laid, no scientists hauled over the coals, they found **** all except a couple of lines in two emails which were deliberately misrepresented. Even your toothy mate, Tony Thomas tried to beat it up. He even said the mainstream media ignored Climategate AND that the 8 or 10 inquiries all were flawed! Talk about being agenda driven! He couldn't even accept the refs decision, even when there was ten of them telling him there were no fuckups.

So when I ask you for precise details of scientists falsifying data etc I mean that exactly. Toothy Tony and his agenda don't cut it.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
Huge Huge, here is another one for you, given your stated desire for peer reviewed papers.

Very handy it is to conspire with your peers who all hold the same view as you and who are all trying to manipulate the data to achieve the same conclusion (confirmation bias anyone) whilst shutting down any genuine peer criticism of your work. With you desire for intellectual, scientific and academic honesty I would expect you would be rightly outraged at what they did?
Err, an article from 11 years ago? Huh? This is just more of the same dribble about the so called Climategate which after 8 or 10 inquiries was found to be **** all! Not sure what you're trying to lrove with this old rehash of a non event. Unless of course you think it more likely that all 8 or 10 inquiries on three continents colluded to protect a couple of scientists!! It might be only two continents but I know they had numerous inquiries in Britain and the United States at least.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
So, it didn't go the way that some denialists wanted it so they attack the credibility of the inquiry as well as the scientists. This isn't surprising is it ? What I'm struggling to understand is this is what you have? Something from 11 years ago that proved absolutely nothing, has no relevance today and was investigated (even if some didn't like or couldn't accept the refs decision)

How about something from this decade? Where's the evidence? Rehashing old baseless shit isn't proving your point, it's weakening your position because it looks desperate. ****, I wouldn't want this 'quality' evidence as my only defence if I were on trial!! A few old emails that could be taken out of context or outright misrepresented prove nothing.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,160
17,506
The "cloud" factor is almost irrelevant. Our climate modelling is incomplete as there are factors such as these that can't be included because of our limitations in computing power, but it is not such a factor that it renders our models useless. As it stands, natural climate change occurs, but over thousands, millions of years. There is no precedent that we can find that it has ever happened as drastically fast as it is now. And there is no way that throwing clouds in to the calculations can have such a huge impact in the modelling as to suggest that what we are experiencing is natural, not affected by humans.

What is 100% fact is that there are people muddying the waters on both sides of the argument in order to push their own agenda. Somewhere in the middle would suggest that while the world won't end in a decade or two, it is possible a tipping point will be reached in that timeframe that means our damage can not be reversed, and will certainly affect humanity greatly in the future. The ones lobbying against this are simply wanting the status quo for their lifetime, so they can enjoy the profits of their damaging industries, or the votes to keep them in power, at the expense of humanities long-term survival.

Someone here once claimed that Jesus' sacrifice is not that special, that a lot of people would gladly give up their lives to say the world. Something a clear-cut may well be true. But it seems to me that very few people will take even a slight hit to the quality of their lifestyle to save the planet.
 

Morkel

International Captain
Staff
21,160
17,506
To follow that up:

Scomo, there is no way anyone with a sane mind can pin the current bushfires on him, at least not in a climate sense. Any policies he puts in place will only start having an impact in 10-20 years time, and they won't be the decisive factor in things like bushfires. The only blame he can be proportioned is for his policies on vegetation and preventing bushfires in that sense, if he even has control over those things. I get that the Firies are exhausted and angry, but unless they're pissed off about the bushfires that will happen in 50 years time as a direct result of climate inaction, they're anger is being misdirected. It's like people forget that things like Ash Wednesday happened, or that bushfires have been a thing forever.

Greta, this whole story is just sad. There is no way someone her age gets these ideas / beliefs without being brainwashed. Even if everything she is saying is completely correct, those influencing her should be letting her worry about pimples, boys, and why her friends are so moody all the time. Instead, they're happy for her to be exploited on an international stage to push an agenda.
 

Huge

State of Origin Rep
7,741
4,655
Ipswich
The "cloud" factor is almost irrelevant. Our climate modelling is incomplete as there are factors such as these that can't be included because of our limitations in computing power, but it is not such a factor that it renders our models useless. As it stands, natural climate change occurs, but over thousands, millions of years. There is no precedent that we can find that it has ever happened as drastically fast as it is now. And there is no way that throwing clouds in to the calculations can have such a huge impact in the modelling as to suggest that what we are experiencing is natural, not affected by humans.

What is 100% fact is that there are people muddying the waters on both sides of the argument in order to push their own agenda. Somewhere in the middle would suggest that while the world won't end in a decade or two, it is possible a tipping point will be reached in that timeframe that means our damage can not be reversed, and will certainly affect humanity greatly in the future. The ones lobbying against this are simply wanting the status quo for their lifetime, so they can enjoy the profits of their damaging industries, or the votes to keep them in power, at the expense of humanities long-term survival.

Someone here once claimed that Jesus' sacrifice is not that special, that a lot of people would gladly give up their lives to say the world. Something a clear-cut may well be true. But it seems to me that very few people will take even a slight hit to the quality of their lifestyle to save the planet.
I was right with you up until you introduced you know who. 😊

Aside from that though your first thoughts are on the money I believe. In my experience the hysterical claims do not come from the science community at large rather it comes from commentators, politicians and activists. Sometimes it's just overzealous enthusiasm, they want people to pay attention and occasionally over reach. Some commentators have found a niche crowd of denialists, a healthy audience and play into their presuppositions.

People like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones are prime examples but I don't believe they have any credibility and certainly no qualifications. I'm not saying you need quals to have an opinion but I don't believe these guys are genuine. I think the tipping point has already been reached and we are gathering speed towards a much worse situation. I think people generally speaking are taking notice now and fortunately the minds of the young have the future care of our planet firmly fixed in their minds. This media push to portray them as unthinking and unquestioning is reprehensible and in 20-40 years they'll be our politicians and industry leaders. I reckon it's great they are so aware of the damage we've all done and so many will spend a life fixing what they can and caring so much more than my generation.
 

Jason Simmons

NRL Player
2,618
2,358
To follow that up:

Scomo, there is no way anyone with a sane mind can pin the current bushfires on him, at least not in a climate sense. Any policies he puts in place will only start having an impact in 10-20 years time, and they won't be the decisive factor in things like bushfires. The only blame he can be proportioned is for his policies on vegetation and preventing bushfires in that sense, if he even has control over those things. I get that the Firies are exhausted and angry, but unless they're pissed off about the bushfires that will happen in 50 years time as a direct result of climate inaction, they're anger is being misdirected. It's like people forget that things like Ash Wednesday happened, or that bushfires have been a thing forever.

Greta, this whole story is just sad. There is no way someone her age gets these ideas / beliefs without being brainwashed. Even if everything she is saying is completely correct, those influencing her should be letting her worry about pimples, boys, and why her friends are so moody all the time. Instead, they're happy for her to be exploited on an international stage to push an agenda.
Unfortunately, the below is not a conversation anyone seems to want to have at the moment. People would rather just blame ScoMo or Climate Change (or blame ScoMo FOR climate change) and leave it at that...

51E4D19F-10C8-4D69-B5A3-51CC6A7DFFCF.jpeg
- Merged

I was right with you up until you introduced you know who. 😊

Aside from that though your first thoughts are on the money I believe. In my experience the hysterical claims do not come from the science community at large rather it comes from commentators, politicians and activists. Sometimes it's just overzealous enthusiasm, they want people to pay attention and occasionally over reach. Some commentators have found a niche crowd of denialists, a healthy audience and play into their presuppositions.

People like Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones are prime examples but I don't believe they have any credibility and certainly no qualifications. I'm not saying you need quals to have an opinion but I don't believe these guys are genuine. I think the tipping point has already been reached and we are gathering speed towards a much worse situation. I think people generally speaking are taking notice now and fortunately the minds of the young have the future care of our planet firmly fixed in their minds. This media push to portray them as unthinking and unquestioning is reprehensible and in 20-40 years they'll be our politicians and industry leaders. I reckon it's great they are so aware of the damage we've all done and so many will spend a life fixing what they can and caring so much more than my generation.
The young certainly do have the environment on their minds, so long as the chance to ‘do something’ occurs on a Friday and they get to go to that instead of school.

It is unfortunate but realistic that not very many of those with the environment supposedly so much on their minds, are there again Saturday morning...
 
Last edited:

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.

Login or Register

Forgot your password?
Don't have an account? Register now

Twitter

Top