Welcome!

By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Sign Up Now!

Australian politics.

Lupi said:
get educated
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA

Ohhh boy.... get educated indeed turbo.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Farkin hell, the education system is well and truly gone..... blame all these years of liberal governments I suppose...

Denying year 9 science now.... HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHA
 
Lupi said:
all people like you have in your armory are insults
Click to expand...
I'm sorry you are literally too stupid to discuss this with.... I dont mean it as an insult but maybe you should have paid a little more attention in Science class rather than plot your overthrow of liberal democracy.

Here this may be more your speed..

climatekids.nasa.gov

Meet the Greenhouse Gases!

Get to know what's good and bad using these cards.
climatekids.nasa.gov climatekids.nasa.gov

and becuase youy probably think NASA is some sort of woke lefty agenda, I hope Nat Geographic for toddlers may help?

 
Lupi said:
carbon dioxide is a harmless trace gas that plants require to flourish

if the atmosphere is a football field, carbon dioxide is the football

there's been several periods throughout history where its been considerably higher in concentration than it is now...

taking it out of the atmosphere is detrimental to life on this planet

there remains no evidence that carbon dioxide traps heat in the Earth's atmosphere at any significant amount to cause climate change
Click to expand...
I sometimes think we overcomplicate the question of climate change. We need to deal with climate change because if we don’t the stresses it unleashes could easily overwhelm our ability to manage them. And I can't see why scientists would be economical with the truth with their scientific evidence showing a clear link between increased emissions and warming trends. It's my belief that climate deniers have lost the debate, at least in the peer-reviewed literature where the vast majority of scientists endorse the theory of climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions.

So you on the red pills?
 
Joparo said:
I sometimes think we overcomplicate the question of climate change. We need to deal with climate change because if we don’t the stresses it unleashes could easily overwhelm our ability to manage them. And I can't see why scientists would be economical with the truth with their scientific evidence showing a clear link between increased emissions and warming trends. It's my belief that climate deniers have lost the debate, at least in the peer-reviewed literature where the vast majority of scientists endorse the theory of climate change due to carbon dioxide emissions.

So you on the red pills?
Click to expand...
No mate, I dont think it IS an over complication. The science is pretty fundamental and basic... Its just this whole polarisation by dickheads on both sides of the fence that causes some to look at weirdo youtube idiots for justification of their leader's latest soundbite...

I bet anything if a "lefty" comes out tomorrow and declares something as universally agreed upon as "we should all have access to clean drinking water" the orange idiot and his idiocracy will declare this nonsense and good ol US citizens deserve fluoride free taps (which he is going to sort out in the next 24 hours btw) and trace metals never hurt anyone....
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
No mate, I dont think it IS an over complication. The science is pretty fundamental and basic... Its just this whole polarisation by dickheads on both sides of the fence that causes some to look at weirdo youtube idiots for justification of their leader's latest soundbite...

I bet anything if a "lefty" comes out tomorrow and declares something as universally agreed upon as "we should all have access to clean drinking water" the orange idiot and his idiocracy will declare this nonsense and good ol US citizens deserve fluoride free taps (which he is going to sort out in the next 24 hours btw) and trace metals never hurt anyone....
Click to expand...

Conversely it is true the other way around to be fair.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
No mate, I dont think it IS an over complication. The science is pretty fundamental and basic... Its just this whole polarisation by dickheads on both sides of the fence that causes some to look at weirdo youtube idiots for justification of their leader's latest soundbite...
Click to expand...
Fair point. But what I meant was we spend too much time debating whether or not the science is correct. There's not an awful lot of evidence around to say it isn't, so why the constant conjecture?

This is where people complicate things. Not me though, I'm not that argumentative or smart and while some might say I'm easily pleased, I do tend to think that the highly educated scientific community have our best interests at heart.
 
Joparo said:
Fair point. But what I meant was we spend too much time debating whether or not the science is correct. There's not an awful lot of evidence around to say it isn't, so why the constant conjecture?

This is where people complicate things. Not me though, I'm not that argumentative or smart and some might say I'm easily pleased but I do tend to think that the highly educated scientific community have our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

You're right about 'complicate'. The evidence is at kindergarten level experimentation.

Literally get 2 glass cases, put more carbon dioxide in one, shine a light on both, measure the temperature.

It couldn't be simpler.

Even the world's biggest oil producer predicted it with great accuracy. (And what's in it for them because apparently it's all the scientists driving Ferraris that are suckling off the gub'ment teat??)

But IF, IF it's all bullshit and we get a cleaner, greener, more renewable and sustainable earth then that's worth doing for that reason alone.

Weird that these days we have bootlicking, fanbois defending billionaires and 14th century thinking medieval Arabs and want to be shackled away from energy independence.

Some serious Stockholm syndrome stuff there. (Yes I'm aware it's been debunked but for the sake of the analogy.)
 
What we really should be worried about is dihydrogen monoxide.

That shit is poisonous and everywhere. Inhaling nominal amounts will literally kill you.
 
Joparo said:
Nah! I don't tend to do the you tube stuff much.
Click to expand...

A couple of comments down under that video this rebuttal from an atmospheric scientist.

Honestly thumbs up to these people for going to such lengths to debunk fools. (Though unfortunately I doubt anyone who watches that video completely cares one bit.)


I'll respond the some of the main points in Coleman's video. I can provide sources for each point upon request.

4:55 - The Antarctic ice sheet has seen net gains, but Coleman fails to mention that these gains are slowing. He also incorrectly states that Arctic sea ice is growing, it isn't. It has seen a general net decline for a long time. He also fails to mention the Greenland ice sheet, which is melting at an accelerating rate. The last figure I saw was a total mass loss of about 269 gigatons.

5:08 - Sea levels are rising at an accelerating rate. Both tidal gauges and satellite measurements report a current increase of 3.3mm/yr, nearly double the rate in the 1990s. If fact IPCC models has underestimated sea level rise due to thermal expansion.

5:25 - Unclear what he means by "incredibly bad weather", but hurricane intensity has increased as we have seen higher proportions of Cat 4 and 5 hurricanes and increases in PDI.

5:57 - Yes, climate does change naturally over time, but we are able to analyze and determine the reasons for natural climate change. CO2 fluctuations explain many shifts in temperature in climate.

6:10 - Yes, and the researchers who gathered those ice cores implicate CO2 as a driver of global temperature.

6:28 - Coleman confuses glaciation with ice age.

6:42 - Coleman confuses glaciation with ice age again.

6:55 - Coleman produces an erroneous graph.

7:24 – Another potentially erroneous graph.

8:11 – Another potentially erroneous graph.

8:25 – Scientists don’t just classify something as “natural” or “unnatural” but rather seek to uncover a specific cause. For example, the Medieval Warm Period, which was a regional phenomenon primarily impacting Europe, was most likely caused by shifting ocean currents with assistance from increasing solar irradiance and volcanic activity.

8:26 – I believe this graph ends before 1950, but I am not sure because no source is provided.

8:57 – Coleman neglects to mention that scientists found that solar variability primarily drove temperatures before humans really ramped up CO2 emissions in the mid 20th century. Earth’s temperature doesn’t just depend on a single factor.

9:16 – Because of falling solar irradiance and increases in anthropogenic aerosols.

9:25 – Also I believe this graph to be erroneous but there is no source given. Oh and the units for the y-axis aren’t labeled.

10:02 – The connection was actually proven by the researchers who took out the Vostok ice cores that Coleman mentioned earlier in the video, but Coleman appears to have never read their work.

10:19 – Coleman cherry-picks a starting point for “no warming” by choosing the year with the most significant positive activation of the El Nino Southern Oscillation in the past 100 years.

11:55 – Coleman appears unfamiliar with the wealth of published scientific evidence connecting the rise in 20th and 21st century temperatures with the rise in CO2 levels.

12:08 – There is no period in the past 1000 years when global temperatures have been higher than today. I believe Coleman is showing a graph of Greenland or European temperatures, but he doesn’t source his graph.

12:26 – Odd that the first temperature graph Coleman correctly cites is one he tries to discredit.

12:36 – Coleman brushes off the robustness of tree rings to act as temperature proxies.

12:43 – Mann did not ignore them. It is just that the events Coleman mentioned are regional events. Multiple independent studies have affirmed Mann’s work using both the same data Mann used and different proxies, but Coleman neglects to mention that.

13:07 – Actually Mann’s study was done in 1998 and the first IPCC report came out in 1990.

13:28 – Coleman does not provide evidence of his assertion of manipulation. He doesn’t substantiate his claims.

14:05 – Coleman confuses temperature records at certain regions with global temperature records. The hottest year on record globally was 2016.

14:45 – Coleman brushes aside the significance of CO2 based on its relatively small atmospheric compensation. This is highly unscientific as we don’t dismiss things in science based on them seeming small, but rather look to see what measured impact they have. For example, what would 0.04% of your body mass in cyanide do to you?

15:35 – Water vapor acts as a positive feedback to increases in CO2 concentration

15:52 – Coleman alludes to a conspiracy theory.

15:58 – There is over 120 years of research done by thousands of scientists from dozens of different countries working in a variety of different disciplines from atmospheric physics to volcanology that support the notion that humans are impacting global temperatures. To say they are all falsifying research for money would be to believe in the most fantastic conspiracy of all time.

17:11 – Coleman isn’t a scientist either and I am unfamiliar with this “vote” he is talking about.

17:40 – Actually most scientific researchers choose to do research because it is something they have a passion for. They could easily get jobs working in industry and command high salaries, but instead they take pay cuts because they enjoy research.

17:50 – Scientific notoriety and accolades are earned by refuting and disproving commonly held ideas, not “going along” with them.

18:10 – Coleman again confuses glaciation with ice age. He also neglects to mention that glacial melting is accelerating.

19:27 – Coleman honestly sounds a bit buffoonish here.

19:54 – Actually it was first theorized in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius and confirmed in the 30’s and 40’s by Guy Stewart Callander.

20:50 – Isn’t gravity just a theory? Isn’t electromagnetism just a theory? Isn’t evolution just a theory?

21:18 – Another conspiracy theory.

23:36 – Coleman glosses over the fact that it was actually Margaret Thatcher, a staunch conservative, who was primarily responsible for brining the issue of global warming into the political arena.

24:24 – I never saw this movie in school.

25:55 – I have seen this petition. Most of the signatories are not scientific researchers any area related to climate change. I’ve seen medical doctors, retired airline pilots, wood engineers, lawyers, and many other occupying unrelated fields on this petition.

26:35 – Overwhelmed by money? Conservatives don’t have money? Even during the periods they controlled the White House and Congress? How about when Ted Cruz effectively determined NASA’s budget. What about all the backing from the fossil fuel industry?

27:39 – Fred Singer has no published work on global warming.

28:03 – Willie Soon is highly funded by the Koch Brothers, Exon, and other fossil fuel companies and special interest groups.

29:12 – Interesting the Coleman considers Lindzen, Spencer, and Christy heroes but many of the ideas and statements he has made thus far in his video are in disagreement with their work.

29:33 – No they haven’t.

30:17 – Plants do benefit from CO2, but the relationship is far more complicated than it is portrayed here. Overall increased CO2, leading to a warmer planet, will negatively impact vegetation due to impactions, such as flooding and droughts. Also, weeds will become a greater threat to agricultural processes. I had a discussion with a plant physiologist about this a few months ago. Food security is going to become an issue.

32:00 – Coleman misquotes and shows emails out of context. Investigations by a number of scientific bodies, universities, government agencies from multiple different countries found no evidence of wrongdoing.

23:50 – I don’t know what he is talking about here, but NCDC has increased data centers.

33:14 – Temperature trends have been the same in urban and rural areas.

33:10 – They did not “drop out the polar locations”.

33:40 – Oh this is adorable. The real chart is at is https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/isd

34:16 – Temperature adjustments are an important part of maintaining the integrity of station data and openly talked about by monitoring bodies. They always show when temperatures were adjusted, why they were adjusted, and the calculation to make the adjustment. As newer and more accurate means of measuring temperatures are developed, it is important that these adjustments are made.

34:39 – Thought science wasn’t decided by a vote? Also no information given about who was polled and how the people who were polled were selected.

35:07 – Conservative politicians, such as Ted Cruz, often sit on the committees that determine these budgets. NASA has actually had their funding threatened due to support of anthropogenic climate change.

36:05 – This statement is contradicted by a large amount of scientific evidence.
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:


Been doing your research Muzzie:P hahahahahaha
Click to expand...


Sumner Miller. Took money for that ad no doubt. FuKiNg sHIll.


But anyway. It's far more dangerous than you think.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division provides an international clearinghouse for information on Dihydrogen Monoxide including current research results, governmental regulations, and exposure and contamination alerts. Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) can be dangerous to humans. Dihydrogen Monoxide...
dhmo.org
 
If you didn't laugh you'd cry but if you read that site you can recognise the language that food influencers use, that shill their own products 99/100, regards seed oils, fluoride, food additives etc etc etc. Part of the MAHA movement in the US that RFK is the torchbearer for.

Facts About Dihydrogen Monoxide

Dihydrogen Monoxide Research Division provides an international clearinghouse for information on Dihydrogen Monoxide including current research results, governmental regulations, and exposure and contamination alerts. Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO) can be dangerous to humans. Dihydrogen Monoxide...
dhmo.org
 
Joparo said:
so why the constant conjecture?
Click to expand...

Multi-trillion dollar fossil fuel industries fuelling (pun intended) misinformation maybe?

Joparo said:
I do tend to think that the highly educated scientific community have our best interests at heart.
Click to expand...

But apparently they're all in on it because gub'ment 'grants' and woke agendas. Like every scientist you know is driving a Lambo and living in a $5 million home. No scientists goes into it for the 'sick coin and bitche'.


I can't believe that wanting clean water, an environment that's not raped endlessly and less pollution is a partisan issue.

Imagine if this thinking applied to other fields of science. (It's coming I suppose.)

Well the GOP believes in the steady state model of the universe but the Dems believe the science suggests and expanding universe and then deciding who you believe based on who you vote for?!
 
Last edited:
Muz said:
Well the GOP believes in the steady state model of the universe but the Dems believe the science suggests and expanding universe and then deciding who you believe based on who you vote for?!
Click to expand...
dismiss it at your peril ... how else can you explain what is happening (even on this forum alone)?
 
Monoethnic Social Club said:
dismiss it at your peril ... how else can you explain what is happening (even on this forum alone)?
Click to expand...

I'm not dismissing it. It's a real worry. You have fools in Australia that think this way.

Can almost guarantee which way a person votes on various issues and various scientific questions.

Just look at nuclear power here. It should be a simple as getting our most respected science institution to produce a report and say yay or nay on whether its a goer or not.

Which they did but then Adolf Kipfler (Herr Dutton) decided to pour a bucket all over one of our most respected organisations and call into doubt their scientific credentials.

Now we have fuckwits who are anti-nuclear, greens and Labor or pro-nuclear, coalition, one nation etc based on who they vote for.

FFS.
 
Muz said:
You're right about 'complicate'. The evidence is at kindergarten level experimentation.

Literally get 2 glass cases, put more carbon dioxide in one, shine a light on both, measure the temperature.

It couldn't be simpler.

Even the world's biggest oil producer predicted it with great accuracy. (And what's in it for them because apparently it's all the scientists driving Ferraris that are suckling off the gub'ment teat??)

But IF, IF it's all bullshit and we get a cleaner, greener, more renewable and sustainable earth then that's worth doing for that reason alone.

Weird that these days we have bootlicking, fanbois defending billionaires and 14th century thinking medieval Arabs and want to be shackled away from energy independence.

Some serious Stockholm syndrome stuff there. (Yes I'm aware it's been debunked but for the sake of the analogy.)
Click to expand...

a simplistic procedure to brainwash schoolchildren that has no basis in reality.

The Earth's atmosphere is not a glass case and the quantity of carbon dioxide to liquid is not comparable to that in the atmosphere.

We can thank the national curriculum for producing a generation of retards.

I've already posted a video here about Enron and their incentive to promote the climate change lie which went over your flat head. Al Gore was quizzed about it in the Senate and stumbled all over his words. That ended him and his credibility for good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top