Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
From Wikipedia. Who the fark writes this unadulterated BS?
Windsurfers will soon be sailing all the way up to Canning Highyway if this rubbish is to be believed.
A two to three foot rise every 100 years - talk about taking the P
Some think a 2-3 feet rise in sea levels means the water encroaches that distance up the beach 
"Sea Level rise will not be uniform" - do a experiment with water and that 'fact' will be impossible to replicate.
Please read and at least question the plausibility or likelihood of such a extreme scenario.
Since at least the start of the 20th century, the average global sea level has been rising. Between 1900 and 2016, the sea level rose by 16-21 cm (6.3-8.3 in).[2] More precise data gathered from satellite radar measurements reveal an accelerating rise of 7.5 cm (3.0 in) from 1993 to 2017,[3]:1554 which is a trend of roughly 30 cm (12 in) per century. This acceleration is due mostly to human-caused global warming, which is driving thermal expansion of seawater and the melting of land-based ice sheets and glaciers.[4] Between 1993 and 2018, thermal expansion of the oceans contributed 42% to sea level rise; the melting of temperate glaciers, 21%; Greenland, 15%; and Antarctica, 8%. Climate scientists expect the rate to further accelerate during the 21st century.[5]:62
Projecting future sea level is challenging, due to the complexity of many aspects of the climate system. As climate research into past and present sea levels leads to improved computer models, projections have consistently increased. For example, in 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) projected a high end estimate of 60 cm (2 ft) through 2099,[6] but their 2014 report raised the high-end estimate to about 90 cm (3 ft).[7] A number of later studies have concluded that a global sea level rise of 200 to 270 cm (6.6 to 8.9 ft) this century is "physically plausible".
[3][9] A conservative estimate of the long-term projections is that each Celsius degree of temperature rise triggers a sea level rise of approximately 2.3 meters (4.2 ft/degree Fahrenheit) over a period of two millennia: an example of climate inertia.[2]
The sea level will not rise uniformly everywhere on Earth, and it will even drop in some locations.[10] Local factors include tectonic effects and subsidence of the land, tides, currents and storms. Sea level rises can influence human populations considerably in coastal and island regions.[11] Further effects are higher storm-surges and more dangerous tsunamis, displacement of populations, loss and degradation of agricultural land and damage in cities.[12][13][14] Natural environments like marine ecosystems are also affected, with fish, birds and plants losing parts of their habitat.[15]
Climate scientists write it - you know those people who've spent their lives studying climate and actually know what they're talking about.
What evidence/data are you looking at and which climate models are you running to conclude that it's BS?
Select to expand quoteazymuth said.. >>>>>> What evidence/data are you looking at and which climate models are you running to conclude that it's BS?
I think it's all in his head.
Select to expand quoteTamble said..decrepit said..
"Which is more important, saving the planet or saving democracy?"
You can see why they worry.
I've stayed out of this after regretting an initial comment. I know I'm not usually dealing in these discussions with people who have any sense of interactive discussion or proportion. But a line's been crossed.
You've hit the nail on the head of what the anti alarmist are really worried about.
This is classical extreme left talk and strategy. Create a crisis and exploit it to take control. And as soon as you link it with the Brexit vote and tar it as a failure of democracy you've nailed your colours to the mast (whether Brexit is a good idea or not). Extreme left. Dangerous left. Murderous left. A left where a desire to silence dissent eventually leads to genocidal actions all in the name of the common good.
Here's a more nuanced discussion; www.lomborg.com/news/climate-alarmism-isnt-rational
But there's actually a lot of other facts and figures (even in the IPCC report itself) that makes it clear the alarmists are cherry picking the most extreme ideas and selective figures and presenting them as fact and proof. They are neither.
Tell that to the Glaciers is Greenland, and the Amazon, they're obviously cultural Marxist
Select to expand quotedecrepit said. .I think it's all in his head.
Or insights from YouTube dullards 
Their grave predictions many years back have been unfounded so I see no reason to accept them now.
The other scientists who are not in agreement with the cultists....
Continue to just believe their data for all you like.
Select to expand quotepetermac33 said..
Their grave predictions many years back have been unfounded so I see no reason to accept them now.
The other scientists who are not in agreement with the cultists....
Continue to just believe their data for all you like.
You're like a 12 year old who hasn't been to school.
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..>>>>> You're like a 12 year old who hasn't been to school.
A bit harsh, Peter can read and write, he just doesn't get logic. I'm sure some smart 12 year olds that were denied schooling could still have better logic than Peter, even if they couldn't read and right.
Select to expand quotetheDoctor said......the side accepting climate change is real are offering no solutions except implementing taxes
^^ Haha. It's our taxes being wasted on propping up the fossil fuel industries - to the tune of about $1,200/person/annum in Australia! 
Globally, these tax subsidies are worth OVER US$5.2 TRILLION, according to the IMF.
Yet someone's complaining about new taxes!
What about all the old ones being wasted on fossil fuels?
Here's the latest from "The Conversation"
"A few days ago I posted here to say we are going to be more rigorous about moderating comments of climate science deniers. Over the past few days there has been an incredible response, both supportive and hostile. On social media, and in private communication, hundreds of people applauded our approach and expressed their alarm at the media's failure to convey the relatively settled scientific consensus. On the other side, a handful of people have made contact to say they will no longer read The Conversation. A few loud media voices have claimed our approach is totalitarian. In an interview with Senator Eric Abetz on Sky News Chris Kenny did what bullies often do - he tried to intimidate and cause maximum damage by asking the Senator to ensure The Conversation never again receives government funding. In the face of such tactics it's tempting to dig in your heels, but that would be wrong. The truth is that how to handle the views of the small group who are hostile to climate science is a complex media ethics question, and it's one on which reasonable people can differ. Indeed, our decision in Australia to redouble our efforts to weed out misinformation around climate science represents only a minor adjustment to our previous approach. We have always had Community Standards that enable moderators to remove misinformation and discourage trolling. But we had reached a point where we felt we needed to refocus our efforts. Let me explain why. Imagine you discovered you had a serious illness and went to a doctor who recommended an operation. Then you surveyed 10 of your friends about whether they thought you needed an operation. Then, rather than have the operation, you spend the next 10 years, in deteriorating health, every day hearing from your doctor the operation is needed, while a small subset of your mates comment on how the doctor is a nutjob. When we do this to experts of any sort, these uninformed comments undermine their authority. People are less inclined to believe experts when their views are presented alongside hostile opinions. But the two things are not the same; they are entirely different types of information and they don't deserve equal weight. The right approach, if you don't believe your doctor, is to seek a second opinion from another medical expert. And maybe a third or a fourth. And then you make a decision on how to act, based on the evidence. In the case of climate science we don't just have two or three expert opinions, we have thousands. All rigorous and peer reviewed. We also have a range of vested interests who are attempting to discredit that science, following the playbook of big tobacco to profit from casting doubt and delaying action. And we have the passionate citizens who feel their grasp of the science entitles them to a platform, not once but on a daily basis. In my view it is journalistically irresponsible to present settled science alongside comments that undermine and distort it and mislead our readers. That is why we are going to be more careful to police the small and vocal group of climate science contrarians whose passion overwhelms their ability to assess the evidence. This is not about a denial of free speech. Media outlets have always curated the ways in which they feature audience feedback. Think about the big bags of letters newspaper editors used to sift to pick a dozen or so to publish every day. The skill was always about giving a debate a chance to be aired, to allow all sides to be heard, and then to move on. At The Conversation we believe that now is the time to exercise more care around the quality of information we present in the comments stream. And this means less emotive argument that distorts the evidence. The opinion-based sceptics have had ample opportunity to have their say. They will continue to have them, on social media and in many media outlets. As long as they aren't allowed to overwhelm the quiet Australians who understand and respect the science, I don't think that's a bad thing. But at The Conversation we are going to be careful to weed out misinformation and present the evidence accurately. We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet. "
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Here's the latest from "The Conversation"
But at The Conversation we are going to be careful to weed out misinformation and present the evidence accurately. We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet. "
Weeding out misinformation and accurately presenting the evidence is only going to lead to good debate. Carefully selecting the informations and surpassing the opinions (and indeed some considered scientific fact) is in itself not presenting the evidence accurately.
That whole post reads as if the Conversation, has selected an expert panel for the witness stand, and the Conversation is the Judge, Jury and Executioner.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
Here's the latest from "The Conversation"
"A few days ago I posted here to say we are going to be more rigorous about moderating comments of climate science deniers. Over the past few days there has been an incredible response, both supportive and hostile. On social media, and in private communication, hundreds of people applauded our approach and expressed their alarm at the media's failure to convey the relatively settled scientific consensus. On the other side, a handful of people have made contact to say they will no longer read The Conversation. A few loud media voices have claimed our approach is totalitarian. In an interview with Senator Eric Abetz on Sky News Chris Kenny did what bullies often do - he tried to intimidate and cause maximum damage by asking the Senator to ensure The Conversation never again receives government funding. In the face of such tactics it's tempting to dig in your heels, but that would be wrong. The truth is that how to handle the views of the small group who are hostile to climate science is a complex media ethics question, and it's one on which reasonable people can differ. Indeed, our decision in Australia to redouble our efforts to weed out misinformation around climate science represents only a minor adjustment to our previous approach. We have always had Community Standards that enable moderators to remove misinformation and discourage trolling. But we had reached a point where we felt we needed to refocus our efforts. Let me explain why. Imagine you discovered you had a serious illness and went to a doctor who recommended an operation. Then you surveyed 10 of your friends about whether they thought you needed an operation. Then, rather than have the operation, you spend the next 10 years, in deteriorating health, every day hearing from your doctor the operation is needed, while a small subset of your mates comment on how the doctor is a nutjob. When we do this to experts of any sort, these uninformed comments undermine their authority. People are less inclined to believe experts when their views are presented alongside hostile opinions. But the two things are not the same; they are entirely different types of information and they don't deserve equal weight. The right approach, if you don't believe your doctor, is to seek a second opinion from another medical expert. And maybe a third or a fourth. And then you make a decision on how to act, based on the evidence. In the case of climate science we don't just have two or three expert opinions, we have thousands. All rigorous and peer reviewed. We also have a range of vested interests who are attempting to discredit that science, following the playbook of big tobacco to profit from casting doubt and delaying action. And we have the passionate citizens who feel their grasp of the science entitles them to a platform, not once but on a daily basis. In my view it is journalistically irresponsible to present settled science alongside comments that undermine and distort it and mislead our readers. That is why we are going to be more careful to police the small and vocal group of climate science contrarians whose passion overwhelms their ability to assess the evidence. This is not about a denial of free speech. Media outlets have always curated the ways in which they feature audience feedback. Think about the big bags of letters newspaper editors used to sift to pick a dozen or so to publish every day. The skill was always about giving a debate a chance to be aired, to allow all sides to be heard, and then to move on. At The Conversation we believe that now is the time to exercise more care around the quality of information we present in the comments stream. And this means less emotive argument that distorts the evidence. The opinion-based sceptics have had ample opportunity to have their say. They will continue to have them, on social media and in many media outlets. As long as they aren't allowed to overwhelm the quiet Australians who understand and respect the science, I don't think that's a bad thing. But at The Conversation we are going to be careful to weed out misinformation and present the evidence accurately. We owe it to the academics we publish, to our readers, and to the planet. "
Good logic - excellent medical analogy.
I reckon it's easy - listen to climate scientists and ignore opinions from non-scientists 
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..
But it's 2019, and now we know better. Climate change deniers, and those shamelessly peddling pseudoscience and misinformation, are perpetuating ideas that will ultimately destroy the planet. As a publisher, giving them a voice on our site contributes to a stalled public discourse. That's why we're implementing a zero-tolerance approach to moderating climate change deniers, and sceptics. Not only will we be removing their comments, we'll be locking their accounts. We believe conversations are integral to sharing knowledge, but those who are fixated on dodgy ideas in the face of decades of peer-reviewed science are nothing but dangerous. It is counter productive to present the evidence and then immediately undermine it by giving space to trolls. The hopeless debates between those with evidence and those who fabricate simply stalls action. As a reader, author or commenter, we need your help. If you see something that is misinformation, please don't engage, simply report it. Do this by clicking the report button below a comment.
The Spanish Inquisition. In 1478, the Catholic Monarchs began the famous Inquisition to purify Catholicism in all their territories. The Inquisition was established to act as a tribunal to identify heretics and bring them to justice.
Your mindset is no different from an Inquisitor hunting heretics in the 15th Century
Select to expand quotecammd said..The Spanish Inquisition. In 1478, the Catholic Monarchs began the famous Inquisition to purify Catholicism in all their territories. The Inquisition was established to act as a tribunal to identify heretics and bring them to justice.
Your mindset is no different from an Inquisitor hunting heretics in the 15th Century
Completely different - the Catholics had no evidence
Select to expand quoteazymuth said..cammd said..The Spanish Inquisition. In 1478, the Catholic Monarchs began the famous Inquisition to purify Catholicism in all their territories. The Inquisition was established to act as a tribunal to identify heretics and bring them to justice.
Your mindset is no different from an Inquisitor hunting heretics in the 15th Century
Completely different - the Catholics had no evidence
of course they had evidence, they didn't burn witches without evidence
Select to expand quotecammd said.. of course they had evidence, they didn't burn witches without evidence
Yes, great evidence, duck them in a pond, if they drown they're innocent, if they survive, they must be a witch, so burn them.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..cammd said.. of course they had evidence, they didn't burn witches without evidence
Yes, great evidence, duck them in a pond, if they drown they're innocent, if they survive, they must be a witch, so burn them.
I saw on the news some new type of galaxy has been found that challenges our understanding of the early universe.
Science is not settled, humans do not know all there is to know. Don't mistake me for saying man made climate change is not real, it may well be but actively suppressing an opinion that does agree with your BELIEF is not science.
The inquisitors knew they were right, they knew the evidence before them was correct and they knew what they were doing was vital to save the world.
You have the same mindset
Setting aside democratic principles to allow some "benevolent" authority to save the world for us is surely the biggest con job ever. If that is what starts to get touted by the left as the only way to save the world lookout because all it will do is mobilise more and more people to become activist's in opposition to leftist BS and hypocrisy. Where do you think Donald Trump and other right wing figures get there power from, its from the left who stir normally inactive people into action because they are sick of the BS. I have never been to a demonstration in my life but if our government starts telling me democracy has to go because people are to stupid to decide for themselves and I will don the face mask and join the marches as well.
Select to expand quotecammd said..decrepit said..cammd said.. of course they had evidence, they didn't burn witches without evidence
Yes, great evidence, duck them in a pond, if they drown they're innocent, if they survive, they must be a witch, so burn them.
I saw on the news some new type of galaxy has been found that challenges our understanding of the early universe.
Science is not settled, humans do not know all there is to know. Don't mistake me for saying man made climate change is not real, it may well be but actively suppressing an opinion that does agree with your BELIEF is not science.
The inquisitors knew they were right, they knew the evidence before them was correct and they knew what they were doing was vital to save the world.
You have the same mindset
Setting aside democratic principles to allow some "benevolent" authority to save the world for us is surely the biggest con job ever. If that is what starts to get touted by the left as the only way to save the world lookout because all it will do is mobilise more and more people to become activist's in opposition to leftist BS and hypocrisy. Where do you think Donald Trump and other right wing figures get there power from, its from the left who stir normally inactive people into action because they are sick of the BS. I have never been to a demonstration in my life but if our government starts telling me democracy has to go because people are to stupid to decide for themselves and I will don the face mask and join the marches as well.
No , most science is settled and to challenge that settled science you need to put forward a credible alternative. Climate deniers don't put forward anything of value. It's always illinformed junk like volcanoes did it, they put the thermometers next to a desert or it's the sun or more often nothing is happening.
Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?
Select to expand quotelog man said.. >>>>Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?
Well obviously, just look at the above posts.
And it's not me saying It could be democracy or the planet.
I don't have that knowledge, I just copy pasted, scientist's views.
Yes I know science often gets it wrong, but if your floating towards a waterfall, are you going to wait and see if gravity is real? Wouldn't it be better to paddle to a bank, no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.
With any luck the powers that be will wake up in time. And I've no idea how democracy could be put aside for the duration. The world's military would all need to be on side, it's not going to happen.
Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming
grist.org/series/skeptics/?fbclid=IwAR0gWWmmE5OnBuvctJ8e6u_o0DzvkyPcYqIL2Jm2QTouf0w4hsiKm2sMJio
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..log man said.. >>>>Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?
Well obviously, just look at the above posts.
And it's not me saying It could be democracy or the planet.
I don't have that knowledge, I just copy pasted, scientist's views.
Yes I know science often gets it wrong, but if your floating towards a waterfall, are you going to wait and see if gravity is real? Wouldn't it be better to paddle to a bank, no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.
With any luck the powers that be will wake up in time. And I've no idea how democracy could be put aside for the duration. The world's military would all need to be on side, it's not going to happen.
Have you watched the Judith curry
,Micheal Mann,Admiral Titley,Patrick Moore debate.2018
Seems to be the first real scientific one of its kind .The world needs to see more even on mainstream media.
Select to expand quotedecrepit said..log man said.. >>>>Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?
Well obviously, just look at the above posts.
And it's not me saying It could be democracy or the planet.
I don't have that knowledge, I just copy pasted, scientist's views.
Yes I know science often gets it wrong, but if your floating towards a waterfall, are you going to wait and see if gravity is real? Wouldn't it be better to paddle to a bank, no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.
With any luck the powers that be will wake up in time. And I've no idea how democracy could be put aside for the duration. The world's military would all need to be on side, it's not going to happen.
The powers to be don't give a flying Fck about us or the planet. They don't give one fck. The only time they might consider change is if their little energiser minions cannot consume readily anymore.
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..decrepit said..log man said.. >>>>Even more ridiculous are the dumbarse conspiracy theories.......it's a communist plot........ffs can anybody be that retarded?
Well obviously, just look at the above posts.
And it's not me saying It could be democracy or the planet.
I don't have that knowledge, I just copy pasted, scientist's views.
Yes I know science often gets it wrong, but if your floating towards a waterfall, are you going to wait and see if gravity is real? Wouldn't it be better to paddle to a bank, no matter how inhospitable that bank looked.
With any luck the powers that be will wake up in time. And I've no idea how democracy could be put aside for the duration. The world's military would all need to be on side, it's not going to happen.
Have you watched the Judith curry
,Micheal Mann,Admiral Titley,Patrick Moore debate.2018
Seems to be the first real scientific one of its kind .The world needs to see more even on mainstream media.
You do understand the scientific community has been debating this for 30 years. A public debate isn't the place where detailed stuff can get discussed. You seem to think this is some sort of democratic thing where your opinion is the same as a climatologists
Select to expand quoteFoghorn said..
Did you notice M Mann just wanted to sell his book.
And yes politics is dirty.
IT'S.........NOT........POLITICS!!!!!!!
Sigh.... 
I thought this post was about censorship of opinions and debate on forums (which is political), and not about climate change per say.
I guess I was mistaken.
I googled what the Conversation is - a website that pushes science,though 'scientism' or quackery is a more valid definition. It is partly funded by the Govt to likely push their agenda no doubt.
It has numerous anti vax articles and chooses to ignore all testimony of harm from all including researchers and doctors in favour of 'science'.
Just another example of the censorship that is talking place, this time by the Govt and the media also who publish the narrative. You choose to not tow the line - expect to find your career on the scrap heap.
www.sbs.com.au/news/melbourne-anti-vaccination-doctor-network-under-investigation
If you can watch this
theanthropocene.org/film/
Awesome film, beautiful film about horrible things
