In my post above I never mentioned 911,you were the one who did.
I was making the point that if you work in any industry and criticise their science then there is a good chance you'll find yourself down at your local Centrelink office pretty quickly.
If you are a scientist there clearly is a huge financial motivation to keep your views to yourself if you do not share their science on climate change and a huge financial incentive to go along with their science.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
The distances they claim are ridiculous considering we can see them.
No one can even begin to comprehend these distances. Not even a fraction of a single percent.
Just another one of their lies to go with the countless others that we have also been spun.
The whole idea of a Big Bang creating all this is ludicrous to me in the first place.
Anyone who dares to question the science on this is of course refused airtime on the media. Similar to what we are currently seeing with the scientists who question man made climate change. A conspiracy of silence.
Yes they're all just little holes in the dome letting in a little bit of heaven's light.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
In my post above I never mentioned 911,you were the one who did.
In your post on the previous page - you did, what you said was . . . . ..
"I take their science with a pinch of salt especially after the NIST finding on what took place on 911."
Pm33, can you please not hijack this thread with any more 911, anti-vax, flat earth or any other rubbish.
It is not helpful
Thank you.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..
The peer review process is only good in theory. It is flawed because of human bias, because free and independent thought is not allowed. The reviewers fear persecution if they criticise left wing pet issues.
What total paranoid bollocks Tony.
Free independent thought is the whole point of the scientific method and has nothing to do with being left or right wing.
I perhaps could have written my post better. In the above, I was was talking about the bias of the peer reviewers and their ability to review papers without bias.
However, the scientific method is not really there to promote free thought. It is about acquiring knowledge. It is about being skeptical. Ones personal thoughts and beliefs should be irrelevant, only the empirical data and evidence matters.
What is your view on the Peter Ridd case?
ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/fake-photographs-at-heart-of-peter-ridds-sacking
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..holy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..
The peer review process is only good in theory. It is flawed because of human bias, because free and independent thought is not allowed. The reviewers fear persecution if they criticise left wing pet issues.
What total paranoid bollocks Tony.
Free independent thought is the whole point of the scientific method and has nothing to do with being left or right wing.
I perhaps could have written my post better. In the above, I was was talking about the bias of the peer reviewers and their ability to review papers without bias.
However, the scientific method is not really there to promote free thought. It is about acquiring knowledge. It is about being skeptical. Ones personal thoughts and beliefs should be irrelevant, only the empirical data and evidence matters.
What is your view on the Peter Ridd case?
ipa.org.au/publications-ipa/fake-photographs-at-heart-of-peter-ridds-sacking
How much bias do you think a fossil fuel company has when commenting on the science of AGW?
How much fake misinformation do these corporations feed us daily?
They're no better than the asbestos product killers or tobacco companies who methodically and systematically lied to us for decades.
Ok, we can ignore the Peter Ridd case for now if you like.
What bad things fossil fuel companies do does not excuse the alarmists science.
Can you post a link to some fraudulent big oil sponsered peer reviewed papers. Show us how bad they are.
This shameful piece of Alarmist propaganda must be called out.
academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/70/1/8/5610806
The first paragraph of this report states;
''Scientists have a moral obligation to clearly warn humanity of any catastrophic threat and to "TELL IT LIKE IT IS''. On the basis of this obligation and the graphical indicators presented below, we declare, with more than 11,000 scientist signatories from around the world, clearly and unequivocally that planet Earth is facing a climate emergency.''
Tell it like it is ?
Let's look at the deceptive and fraudulent way they go about ''telling like it's not'' in regards the ''graphical indicators'' they use for wildfires.
The report shows a chart 'Area Burnt in the United States' starting in 1983/4 (one of the 'graphical indicators')
Firstly, if you are talking about 'global warming' surely you'd look for GLOBAL DATA on wildfires and not just the USA. After all, the US is only 6% of the world's landmass - and there are numerous peer-reviewed studies containing global fire data.
It is inconceivable that all those behind this report were unaware of the peer-reviewed science that has found global fires have been substantially declining. (The exact opposite of the impression they create)
Therefore, the only conclusion one is left with, is that they engaged in scientific fraud by ignoring the unequivocal peer-reviewed data - simply because it debunks the the alarmist propaganda they are seek to peddle.
www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2017/nasa-detects-drop-in-global-fires
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4874420/
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/2017JD027749
royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rstb.2015.0345
Secondly, if you are only going to use US data, why would you cherry-pick the year 1983/84 to start your time series graph - especially when the US data goes back to the 1920's ?
If you look at the graph of all the US, the answer is obvious.
The only explanation for picking 1983/4 as a starting point, is an intention to hide the data from the years before, as it shows the exact opposite of the Alarmist propaganda they are peddling.
This report is a disgrace. It's not science, it's Alarmist propaganda created by using deceptive methods to push a political agenda.
Those that signed it should be embarrassed and held in contempt. And if that's the quality of their work, they don't deserve to be paid a cent.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Don't be to harsh Mickey mouse signed it.
This is true, apparently
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Can you post a link to some fraudulent big oil sponsered peer reviewed papers. Show us how bad they are.
LOL. The trouble with people like you Tony, is that you're playing the victim when really, all of humanity is the victim of your incessant bull**** merchandising.
Why does it have to be about peer reviewed papers? Most of the propaganda fossil fuel companies put out isn't even peer reviewed. It's just ordinary bull****. Comparing peer reviewed science with fossil fuel lobby propaganda is ridiculous.
Sure thing....how about fraudulent propaganda on natural gas?
theintercept.com/2019/04/03/branded-content-fossil-fuel-companies/
Or more straight out propaganda?
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/
www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
www.ucsusa.org/resources/holding-major-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Or how about those retired tobacco company spin doctors now working for fossil fuel companies? LOL
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..Can you post a link to some fraudulent big oil sponsered peer reviewed papers. Show us how bad they are.
LOL. The trouble with people like you Tony, is that you're playing the victim when really, all of humanity is the victim of your incessant bull**** merchandising.
Why does it have to be about peer reviewed papers? Most of the propaganda fossil fuel companies put out isn't even peer reviewed. It's just ordinary bull****. Comparing peer reviewed science with fossil fuel lobby propaganda is ridiculous.
Sure thing....how about fraudulent propaganda on natural gas?
theintercept.com/2019/04/03/branded-content-fossil-fuel-companies/
Or more straight out propaganda?
www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/10/how-fossil-fuel-industry-got-media-think-climate-change-was-debatable/
www.climaterealityproject.org/blog/climate-denial-machine-how-fossil-fuel-industry-blocks-climate-action
www.ucsusa.org/resources/holding-major-fossil-fuel-companies-accountable
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/
Or how about those retired tobacco company spin doctors now working for fossil fuel companies? LOL
www.scientificamerican.com/article/tobacco-and-oil-industries-used-same-researchers-to-sway-public1/
Can we agree that fossil fuel marketeers are as bad as climate change alarmists?
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Can we agree that fossil fuel companies are as bad as climate change alarmists?
Well sure if it helps your narrative but that doesn't prove AGW is a grandiose left wing conspiracy does it Tony?
It demonstrates that you agree that the fossil fuel companies and their pet politicians, who drive the above narrative and propaganda are full of sheeet.
Great, so we agree that alarmists are full of it.
You do not have to believe me that the left want a one world government, but you should believe the left wing when they say they want one. If you do not want a one world government, maybe then you a not left wing enough.
The one world government is just one motivating factor driving some alarmist, probably only a minority of them, but it is there. It is not a conspiracy, it is what they say they want to solve the climate emergency.
What other reasons can you think of that would motivate someone to exaggerate the global warming?
Turnball and son stood to make $160 million if their labor/green climate policy got up, that motivated them. Others are making heaps of money too. Like big oil, money is a good motivator
What else?
As a scientist, one needs to keep their job, the Peter Ridd case shows what happens if you highlight alarmist lies.
What else?
As sense of belonging to cause greater than ones self. Virtue signal ones superior wokeness
Brainwashing by teachers, parents, left wing media
Fun of protesting, fight police, punching police horses in the face.
What else?
I am not sure if everyone here is sure of my position on global warming.
Some seem to think that if one does not fully accept the extreme position of the most extreme extremist on climate change alarmism, then they must be on the complete opposite end of the belief spectrum and sponsored by big oil.
What would the opposite be, not 100% sure, but mabye that the climate is not changing at all and it never has. World is flat. PM33 does not do those of us that have a sceptical view of climate change alarmist dogma any favours. He does not represent my views any more then he represents your views.
What is the opposite view of a climate extremist?
What is it that you think I believe?
what has your conspiracy theory of a one world left wing government got to do with rigorous scientific facts?
It is just to shift debate from the real issues using smoke and mirrors. Just like your oil and tobacco overlords have requested.
I am not sure it can be called a conspiracy. I am only repeating what they themselves are saying. If this idea is new to you, read the following article, it is quite compelling. If we really were in a climate emergency, a one world government makes sense.
www.democracywithoutborders.org/7085/on-the-need-of-a-democratic-global-government/
It is not a secret, it is not a new idea. Marxists and the far left are quite open about it. The climate is just another vehicle to push for it with.
I don't bring it much. It is just one of many things that is driving alarmism. Others like to bring it up so as way to not address the evidence I post.
I could continually rant on about big oil boogeyman overlords conspiracies, but I don't. I rather discuss the science. I try to stay on topic.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Don't be to harsh Mickey mouse signed it.
Dumbledore signed it too
I guess one has to be pretty smart to be a headmaster of Hogwarts
Was that paper just a hoax to fool the fools? The left wing media nuts over it
The proposal from the dog whispering authors was to end capitalism.
Yes they are experts in wild dogs.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
The proposal from the dog whispering authors was to end capitalism.
Yes they are experts in wild dogs.
We really should be alarmed
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..I rather discuss the science.
If that was true, you would provide a rational, scientifically rigorous cause for the global warming we're currently experiencing that isn't the increasing greenhouse gas emissions from human activity.
But you can't because no such alternative and demonstrable cause exists.
So all you've got is "it's those bloody lefties".
We really should be alarmed.
^^^ you're making too much sense HG ............... the standard test for a "hypothesis" is to simply test if the "null hypothesis" is true .................. is anyone NOT experiencing climate change or abnormal weather events?
I have provided plenty of evidence that you are not experiencing abnormal weather. Changes in your lifetime have been so small and so gradual that it is impossible to have noticed that change.
I have no doubt that you honestly believe you have noticed, but it just not possible. The media tells you every climate event is unprecedented, the empirical evidence say no it is not.
My arguement is that most of climate change is from natural causes, the same natural causes that have caused it to continuously change dramatically before humans even existed. Do you really need evidence of natural climate change?
I accept there may be some minor human contributions, only minor. Humans are doing far greater damage to the natural environment through other ways other than increasing co2 from 0.03% to 0.04% of the atmosphere over the last 200 years.
I believe the rate of change is well with the scope of natural variability.
Doomsday prophecies are stupid. If kids really want to make a better environment for the future, go plant a tree, build a bird nesting box, restore some natural wildlife habitat, pick up the rubbish they like to leave everywhere. There are endless things kids could be doing.
There is no evidence to support alarmist theories, it is all based on computer modeling that has never got it right. Ever. And media hyper sensationalism of bad science.
This hyper sensationalism was evident after a doomsday report was just released by 11,000 scientist. Scientists such as dumbledore and mickey mouse. The alarmist media went nuts over it with out even looking at it, then went all quiet after other people noticed how dodgy it was. I wish I had a link the the Projects story on that report, it was some of the most insane alarmism I have seen
Media hyper sensationalism is unfortunately true of some things now, an example is the storm that makes the news never seems to be just a "thunderstorm" anymore ........... it is marketed as a "super cell"
Anyhow, I still haven't seen an adequate proof that the naturally occurring weather/climate cycle is NOT being influenced by man made factors that are within our power to change ............... so for now I'm happy to be one of the sheep that is comfortable with the hypothesis. I'm not a doomsday believer either, humans have adapted to all sorts of krap over many years and we will simply adapt
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..My arguement is that most of climate change is from natural causes,
Well that's just your problem, it's only an argument without any evidentiary foundation.
Contrary to your evidence free argument, it's well documented that the vast majority of forcing factors for the warming we measure is not "natural" but due directly to industrial greenhouse gas emissions and other secondary effects such as permafrost melting leading to methane release.
I could also argue that you are a rotten turnip, and it would have just as much validity using your methodology.
So, I submit via baseless argument that you are nothing but a rotten turnip.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
Media hyper sensationalism is unfortunately true of some things now, an example is the storm that makes the news never seems to be just a "thunderstorm" anymore ........... it is marketed as a "super cell"
Anyhow, I still haven't seen an adequate proof that the naturally occurring weather/climate cycle is NOT being influenced by man made factors that are within our power to change ............... so for now I'm happy to be one of the sheep that is comfortable with the hypothesis. I'm not a doomsday believer either, humans have adapted to all sorts of krap over many years and we will simply adapt
That is a completely sensible view to have. Unlike the irrational views of alarmists.
The debating points from your post could be:
How much influence are we having?
How quickly should we change?
I believe our influence is minor.
Change to renewables needs to be gradual, 50+ years or even a 100+ years. I do not think we will be absolutely 100% renewable though.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..My arguement is that most of climate change is from natural causes,
Well that's just your problem, it's only an argument without any evidentiary foundation.
Contrary to your evidence free argument, it's well documented that the vast majority of forcing factors for the warming we measure is not "natural" but due directly to industrial greenhouse gas emissions and other secondary effects such as permafrost melting leading to methane release.
I could also argue that you are a rotten turnip, and it would have just as much validity using your methodology.
So, I submit via baseless argument that you are nothing but a rotten turnip.
The evidentiary foundation is that natural climate change has been happening for billions of years, do you need evidence of this?
Evidence that I am making good points is that you personally attack me.
