Select to expand quotefishmonkey said..
what is the point in shooting the messenger?
It makes little sheeple feel that they are in fact virtuous. 
Select to expand quoteRamona said..cisco said..
Hmmmm.
Time magazine has a history of putting some weird people on their covers.
Like Hitler,
Idi Amin
Not a good look for a magazine cover
Select to expand quoteConcepcion said..
LOL - Tactic 101 - discredit the messenger and avoid any scrutiny of the evidence or the message.
Again, why are people (Hey Boomers) so threatened by a 16 year old girl? Yes, she has cut through, now time to cut her down!
It is not about her. She is being used as a shield by her manipulators to ward off attacks just like ISIS do with women and children during war. Believe it, this a war between inalienable human rights and personal freedoms against the far left/green goal of unquestionable totalitarian government of the world.
Avoiding scrutiny of the evidence is exactly what her manipulators are doing by using scripts with emotional content without which greta is lost for words.
Why would anybody feel threatened by a less than half educated teenager with serious mental issues.
"HOW DARE YOU" attack a poor innocent young girl who should be at SCHOOL on the other side of the OCEAN and be at home with my SISTER and my DOG.
How about we forget about her and get back to the science??
So in the absence of a clear decision about the reality of global warming, it's logical to look further afield for evidence that supports either side's position in the modern generations track record in managing our environment.
Which led me to this....
Henderson Island was one of the most remote and pristine places on earth, some 3000km from population centres. It is also ironically, and embarrassingly the most heavily polluted.
When in doubt, I look for clinical factual evidence. Henderson has that, in spades;
--An estimated 37.7 million debris items weighing a total of 17.6 tons are currently present on Henderson, with up to 26.8 new items/m accumulating daily.
--The density of debris was the highest reported anywhere in the world, up to 671.6 items/m2 (mean ? SD: 239.4 ? 347.3 items/m2) on the surface of the beaches
--The density of buried micro- and macrodebris items within quadrats on Henderson Island ranged from 53.1 pieces/m2 (North Beach, 10-cm depth) to 4,496.9 pieces/m2
This is near 100% the fault of our generation.
I still remember my father going to work with his lunch in a paper bag...........
Select to expand quoteplev said..
This has been on the tube for a long time:-
Thanks for posting this plev.
I recommend EVERYONE, irrespective of their point of view with respect to Climate Change, watch this video before posting ANYTHING further on this topic.
For myself, I will no longer comment on this topic.
regards to all,
Allan
Select to expand quoteUncleBob said..
It makes little sheeple feel that they are in fact virtuous.
and why would you feel the need to make this comment , I bet your the type that complain social media is full of wankers .
Select to expand quoteConcepcion said..cisco said..
Hmmmm.
LOL - Tactic 101 - discredit the messenger and avoid any scrutiny of the evidence or the message.
Again, why are people (Hey Boomers) so threatened by a 16 year old girl? Yes, she has cut through, now time to cut her down!
It is a fair point though , and exactly the reason I wouldn t want my children thrust into the limelight, Greta will now have to be extremely care full how she lives her life , rightly or wrongly she will have to live the values she has aligned herself with
Select to expand quoteBushdog said..shane450 said..
My opinion on La vagabond giving Greta a ride , it was a master stroke for their business , I am glad they made it safely , I look forward to the episodes , they have been a little boring since the little one came along/ they switched to a Cat IMO so I have not been watching them
Not just a good business move. They accepted another experienced sailor into the crew, used weather info well and correctly plotted their way round some heavy weather for a good voyage. Climate Change is happening and to say that nothing we do will change it is wrong. We can make our homes and Australia more climate resistant. Plant shade trees in suburbs to reduce temperature and power use peaks. Drip feed gardens rather than spray. Cover irrigation channels to reduce evaporation loss. Change local government planning guidelines to limit foreshore development and ensure the public aren't paying out future litigation as increased rates. Solar power and heating. The list goes on. We're here because we are sailors. I don't mind that we have differing religious and social views, or that these do impact on opinions on wider issues. Keep it friendly, and try and spend as much time on your boat as possible:)
No it was just a business move , executed extremely professionally
I don't think there is anyone who denies climate change. There has always been climate change and we have natures wonders like The Norway and New Zealand Fjords which are the direct result of climate change. Plenty of other famous examples as well. What gets peoples backs up is the continuous name changes as the media, in particular, beat us up with things like climate emergency when they are just natural causes. The recent BOM youtube video does a good job and explaining our recent slight crisis.
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
I don't think there is anyone who denies climate change. There has always been climate change and we have natures wonders like The Norway and New Zealand Fjords which are the direct result of climate change. Plenty of other famous examples as well. What gets peoples backs up is the continuous name changes as the media, in particular, beat us up with things like climate emergency when they are just natural causes. The recent BOM youtube video does a good job and explaining our recent slight crisis.
I don t think any scientist actually denies Human affected climate change , from everything I have looked at its all about the outcome which range from mild to end of days
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?
The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.
So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.
I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.
In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.
My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.
As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.
Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.
Select to expand quotecisco said..Datawiz said..
With respect Cisco, perhaps you could offer an example of "manipulated' data.
To be fair, since the reference material used to support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is contained in the 2019 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) "Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5?C", it is only right that you choose examples from that report to demonstrate that the data has been manipulated.
Here's a link to that document
www.ipcc.ch/sr15/download/
regards,
Allan
Also with respect, I am sceptical about just about all mainstream media. For that you can call me whatever you like. I don't care what other people think about me. It is none of my business.
You said:- To be fair, since the reference material used to support the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change is contained in the 2019 .....dah de dah de dah......
So it is still theory, not proven fact. Do I believe human activity has no effect on climate? NO!!! How can it not??
However I absolutely do not believe it is dire like the climate change shriekers say it is. Their agenda is political and about political power.
Re:- "manipulated data". I think you will find proof of it in these vids.
For one, those vids are created by people funded by the Koch brothers etc - billionaires who made their vast fortunes in the fossil fuel industry. There is no logical way they can be called unbiased.
On the one hand, we're expected to swallow vids paid for by the fossil fuel industry. On the other hand, we're expected to believe that climate scientists are untrustworthy because they allegedly get paid from allegedly biased sources and that allegedly causes them to bend their science. As dralyagmas says, the same scientists could normally make far more money for far longer if they just worked FOR the fossil fuel industry, but that gets ignored.
My wife is a scientist, although in another area and therefore with no reason to be biased in this discussion. Her career is fairly typical. First, she was outstanding at school, and did another degree and had another career. Then, when she moved into science, she was second or first in every subject in her undergrad degree. Then, she scored the top honours mark in the entire science/technology stream of a large university. Then she spent three years at Sydney Uni doing her PhD. Only then, after seven years of uni and four years after finishing her undergrad degree, did she start earning. It then took her several years to earn as much as an experienced school teacher.
Academic scientists are just about the best trained people in the world, and arguably among the worst paid given the outstanding results they have had to earn at uni and the extra four years minimum they have spent studying since their undergrad days. The day the climate scientists get their first tenous postdoc position, they are probably $500,000 or more behind those who just took an inferior mark and went straight into working for the fossil fuel industry. Most scientists would probably never earn as much as a petroleum industry scientist - they don't normally earn as much as a mining mechanic.
Oh, and much (all of it, in my experience) of the research money scientists receive doesn't go to them - it goes to pay research assistants, buy equipment or fund research in other ways. The scientists themselves don't get the bucks.
It is just illogical to claim that the people who have shown that they are NOT motivated by money are willing to throw away their careers to earn a fraction of what they could have earned if they just took the fossil fuel jobs, and then to falsify data to earn grants to employ someone else. So if we follow the money we see that the main incentive lies with those who deny AGW, not with those who are saying it exists.
Select to expand quoteRamona said..
I don't think there is anyone who denies climate change. There has always been climate change and we have natures wonders like The Norway and New Zealand Fjords which are the direct result of climate change. Plenty of other famous examples as well. What gets peoples backs up is the continuous name changes as the media, in particular, beat us up with things like climate emergency when they are just natural causes. The recent BOM youtube video does a good job and explaining our recent slight crisis.
The BOM, the same source you used, says that bushfires are made worse by human-induced climate change;
"Climate change and bushfire risk in Australia
Climate change is influencing the frequency and severity of dangerous bushfire conditions in Australia and other regions of the world, including through influencing temperature, environmental moisture, weather patterns and fuel conditions. There have been significant changes observed in recent decades towards more dangerous bushfire weather conditions for various regions of Australia.In particular, observed changes in southern and eastern Australia include more extreme conditions during summer, as well as an earlier start to the bushfire season with dangerous weather conditions occurring significantly earlier in spring than they used to. These trends towards more dangerous bushfire conditions are at least partly attributable to human-caused climate change, including through increased temperatures. Northern Australia, which sees significant fire activity during the dry season, has experienced increases in monsoonal rainfall that have increased fuel growth in recent decades, as a key factor influencing fire danger in that region.In relation to fire ignition, there is some indication that climate change could influence the risk of ignitions from dry-lightning (i.e., lightning that occurs without significant rainfall) while noting relatively large uncertainties in currently available model representations of this phenomenon. Additionally, there has recently been a number of devastating fire events in Australia associated with extreme pyroconvection (including thunderstorm development in a fire plume), with recent research indicating a long-term trend towards increased risk factors associated with pyroconvection in southeast Australia. Bushfire weather conditions in future years are projected to increase in severity for many regions of Australasia, including due to more extreme heat events, with the rate and magnitude of change increasing with greenhouse gas concentrations (and emissions)."
www.bom.gov.au/weather-services/fire-weather-centre/bushfire-weather/index.shtml
Select to expand quotedralyagmas said..
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?
The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.
So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.
I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.
In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.
My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.
As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.
Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.
Irrelevant of your PoV, that's a great post.
Thanks Dralyagmas.
Select to expand quotedralyagmas said..
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?
The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.
So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.
I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.
In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.
My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.
As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.
Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.
Science is never clear nor not in dispute. The continuing testing and questioning is the raison d'etre of science.
Your post is not about science. It is about religion, the only thought process whose adherents say cannot be questioned.
Calling people deniers is a derogatory attempt to deny them an opinion, a term no real scientist would use.
I am not a scientist. I am a former Navy aviator (with a Grad Dip in Meteorology) who spent his career having to think logically and rationally about my environment and how it affected what I did. I am also a private pilot and have therefore studied the weather and the ocean for the last nearly 50 years.
After a reasonably senior management career in the Navy I did a Masters degree in business and worked as a freelance consultant to various businesses.
I would not like to spend time at sea with people who lack the ability to think rationally and logically about such issues.
I would like to see Seabreeze get back to sailing, this topic is not working well!
This has actually been a really interesting topic line, with some well sourced information included. Given we're not about to see a resolution to the discussion, I wouldn't mind getting away from facts, opinions and everything in between, and having a vote to get a feel for the numbers, out of curiosity, and to head the discussion to a conclusion. Something along the line of three options:
believe that climate change is the result of human activity and needs intervention
not sure or couldn't give a damn
does not believe that change in climate exists or is the result of human activity
i don't have the skills to set up a vote. Perhaps someone else does?
Morning Bird, I have been an airline pilot for over 20 years. I have also been to sea, a few times with the navy even. It is a very long bow to draw to conclude that that gives you expert knowledge on climate change. And to insinuate that dralyagmas is not a real scientist is the most offensive comment made on this topic yet.
This is also only one topic (and a very active one still) in the sailing forum that many are still happy to participate in. Simply stop reading and or participating if it is getting under your skin.
Bushdog, unfortunately this topic as seen over on the General and HW forums has no conclusion. When people get bored of it it will, like everything else of importance in the world, will just simply 'go away'.....
Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..dralyagmas said..
So here are my 2 cents. Yes I am an environmental scientist.
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans. There is no conspiracy to keep environmental scientists employed. That is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. I know many out of work scientists and funding is getting smaller and smaller under this government. When we think who has the vested interest, a scientist who studies for 10 years to get a PhD and then earn maybe 100k if they are lucky. In reality most scientists are not tenured so are going from contract to contract. Then we look at those people who are pushing this un peer reviewed climate denier falsehoods, they are trying to protect a multi billion dollar a year industry that is causing the problem. These "scientists" are likely on million dollar a year contracts paid for by the big oil companies. Who has the vested interest?
The corner stone of science is the peer review process. This is where any work that is to be published in a reputable scientific journal must go through extensive review by experts in that field. This is brutal I can say from experience. Only after methods, interpretation, statistics and conclusions have been pulled apart and interrogated that anything is published. Climate deniers do not use this process. Typically they use websites and climate change denier groups to publicize myths and conspiracy theories.
So quick notes on some of the things posted throughout this thread. Comparisons about sea level rise to one location are not valid. The fact that sea level rise is a combination of water level changing but also with respect to land level changing as well. In many places land is subsiding (sinking) so sea levels will change without climate factors. Climate factor scan then be on top of that. Secondly, land levels can be rising, meaning the effect of sea level increase will be countered. Lastly any comparison needs to be made considering all of these factors from multiple locations as they will react differently. its saying that there is a massive traffic jam in Sydney, then someone else saying that no there isnt because my road is clear in Parramatta. You need to take into account many locations. I agree that there is a lack of good motioning in this space which hinders good observations, but with these governments if we dont monitor the problem we cant say it is a problem.
I also agree that plastic is a massive problem, however in my opinion climate change is a much bigger issue that will result in billions of dollars needing to be spent to adapt to sea level rise, increase sin storm surges, loss of coastal infrastructure, loss fisheries productivity and so on. Then there are the human health costs with lack of water and food in some areas, We will have masses of refugees from places that will become so inhospitable due to heat, cold or lack of water or rising sea levels. Our friends in the pacific islands are already losing islands and having to move their lives and cultures to new places. This will far exceed the cost of acting on climate change.
In regards to the carbon footprint of an IMOCA 60, i believe that there are some people who are looking into that. The Bar Karate podcast discussed it a while back.
My opinon on Greta, I think she is an angry little unit. But rightly so. You will not get the message across if she was nice and lovely would she. Already she is being called every name under the sun, but she is effective. Yes she will have advisors, which person with so much attention does not, All of our CEO's politicians and people in the media do as well.
As I have posted before, we should all be thinking of climate change deniers, and those who promote inaction of climate change (see Pauline Hanson on TV last night) as the same as flat earthers and chem trail believers. Again, the science is clear and not in dispute.
Finally the video posted by plev should sum it up for everyone. It is spot on.
Science is never clear nor not in dispute. The continuing testing and questioning is the raison d'etre of science.
Your post is not about science. It is about religion, the only thought process whose adherents say cannot be questioned.
Calling people deniers is a derogatory attempt to deny them an opinion, a term no real scientist would use.
I am not a scientist. I am a former Navy aviator (with a Grad Dip in Meteorology) who spent his career having to think logically and rationally about my environment and how it affected what I did. I am also a private pilot and have therefore studied the weather and the ocean for the last nearly 50 years.
After a reasonably senior management career in the Navy I did a Masters degree in business and worked as a freelance consultant to various businesses.
I would not like to spend time at sea with people who lack the ability to think rationally and logically about such issues.
I would like to see Seabreeze get back to sailing, this topic is not working well!
It looks to me like those that have contributed here, really care about this. As an economist, I can add to the Plev video and say action on climate change is highly unlikely to be about Economics or risk management either. so, if inaction on risk is not about the science or really the economics (renewables are actually cheaper; transition options on transport exist and are likely eg: green hydrogen, electric vehicles - with scale to be much cheaper; enteric fermentation can be managed with cheap seaweed based plant supplements; further deforestation can be halted etc) why are we still not committed to change?
i agree mb - it's a type of religion - tribal politics and conviction bias etc. We pick our side, and regardless find it difficult to shift. When confronted by a 16 year old girl, we call her a brat, naive or manipulated by some conspiratorial force.
Rather than a poll on what Sbreezers engaged in this thread believe, I'd like to hear from those that learn something, that perhaps have changed a view. I havent changed my views, but have learnt a bit. Thank you all
Ever read "the boy who cried Wolf."Of course you all have.
Watching the news tonight I was reminded of it.
So we had a storm two days ago (we had 105ml in an hour )and this afternoon another where the GC copped 76ml in 30 odd mins.
You know ,it's the belated beginning of the storm season up here which is giving relief to some of the drought stricken towns, thank goodness.
OH NO not if you believe the news.
Channel Nine four Pm " a one in one hundred year storm" by a breathless outside broadcaster .
News .com " a one in fifty year event"
WHAT ! What a load of crap , hang on there's been worse up here in the last ten years but boy it makes good news.
The climate change hysteria may be justified but won't be believed from all the boys
Select to expand quotedralyagmas said..
The science is clear and not in dispute by anyone with credibility. Climate change is real and the main driver are humans.
I think you have blown your whole argument with those two sentences. There is no proof of either of those propositions.
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..
Ever read "the boy who cried Wolf."Of course you all have.
Watching the news tonight I was reminded of it.
You got it BB. Sensationalism is what sells news and gets air time ratings.
The journalist's creed:- Never let the truth get in the way of a saleable story.
this thread is a steaming potpourri of logical fallacies. despite what some people here seem to think, having a rational, logical discussion about a disputed topic is not at all straightforward, and it is something that requires knowledge and extensive practice. very few careers actually require this kind of thinking and communication, or the continuous back-and-forth with one's peers. furthermore, these are not skills that you necessarily gain with age or experience --- in fact most people tend to become less curious and flexible and more rigid as they get older.
Morning Bird, you are repeatedly using the belief that no science can be believed or trusted to defend your position. massive logical fallacy right there. not to mention the breathtaking contradiction of stating that you are not trained in science and yet at the same time claiming to have the expertise and authority to dismiss all science and the informed conclusions of people that are trained in science out of hand. and having the gall to say who or who isn't a "real scientist".
arguing that we should dismiss climate science because it is not 100% certain is also a logical fallacy. personal attacks on Greta Thunberg are clearly ad hominem attacks (one of the most commonly used logical fallacies). even if we don't like someone, or their advisors, or their behaviour, this does not logically invalidate their ideas.
arguing that Australia needn't bother too much because our direct contribution to greenhouse emissions is small by global standards is also a logical fallacy (which is fine if you are happy to live in a moral and ethical vacuum). and dismissing all news because some of it is sensationalised is another logical fallacy.
there is a good summary of logical fallacies here:
www.logicalfallacies.org
and if you really want to dig in, a master list here:
utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/engl1311/fallacies.htm
I know I said I wouldn't post any more on this topic, but I am particularly interested in the response from those who doubt Climate Change to this:
australiascience.tv/vod/dr-karl-do-you-believe-in-climate-change/?fbclid=IwAR3c1-GL9f9SHa2NbtrhxpKx0XwfaXoLPbBgd_CRMcqPCkWQbUq38iLi6u8
regards,
Allan
Select to expand quoteToph said..
Morning Bird, I have been an airline pilot for over 20 years. I have also been to sea, a few times with the navy even. It is a very long bow to draw to conclude that that gives you expert knowledge on climate change. And to insinuate that dralyagmas is not a real scientist is the most offensive comment made on this topic yet.
This is also only one topic (and a very active one still) in the sailing forum that many are still happy to participate in. Simply stop reading and or participating if it is getting under your skin.
Bushdog, unfortunately this topic as seen over on the General and HW forums has no conclusion. When people get bored of it it will, like everything else of importance in the world, will just simply 'go away'.....
My statement on his science background is not at all because I consider I have any special qualifications nor questioning that he has. It is because science is never settled and anybody who claims otherwise and denounces other interpretations as deniers are not in the science field, irrelevant of degrees held
I am a person who thinks rationally and logically about all I do or experience, my background is relevant to that and is why it comes after my statement on the science question.
Your misquoting me is the most offensive comment on this post.
This subject has nothing to do with sailing.
Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..
It is because science is never settled
this sweeping statement that you keep repeating is nonsensical. as i pointed out earlier, you could use the same fallacious logic to dismiss anything that was ever understood, designed or engineered using scientific knowledge.
we now know that some of the fundamental physics principles developed by Sir Isaac Newtown are false. that doesn't mean that his imperfect understanding of physics wasn't hugely useful. all our scientific models are approximations by necessity. that doesn't negate their practical applicability.
www.abc.net.au/news/science/2019-12-13/time-to-stop-lying-to-our-children-about-physics/11789858Select to expand quoteMorningBird said..
I am a person who thinks rationally and logically about all I do or experience, my background is relevant to that and is why it comes after my statement on the science question.
you have such a black-and-white understanding of rationality and logic, and you keep talking like you believe that your own personal sense of rationality and logic is somehow infallible.
In coming to Mackay, weather is getting horrid, I think the facts are out there, we got 47.8 in feb last year down south and have a 4 day heat wave with temps in 40s to 50s next week.it could be more than fake news.
Select to expand quotedralyagmas said..
The corner stone of science is the peer review process.
I am certainly sceptical about how rock solid the peer review process actually is considering the number of issues found and scientists speaking out about how it's corrupted in some (more than a few isolated) cases. I agree it's the cornerstone of science however the profession has allowed it to be corrupted and there is serious implications with that and certainly in my personal opinion I wouldn't take the fact something is "peer reviewed" as fact anymore especially when there's gigantic economic reward and therefore vested interests on both sides of the coin.
On another note I find the nuclear argument interesting the greens and labour are absolutely against it as they have lobbyists pushing for more anti "black power" legislation to profit from the "green & renewable" economy, Nuclear is basically their worst nightmare as it will make solar, wind and battery storage pointless and there's huge money to be made here especially if you can rally the population to support policies to legislate other forms of energy to extinction. The liberals do the same for "black power" but point is it's not really about the science or what's good or bad it's about who's lobbying and funding/assisting various political interests.
There are knowledgeable people on both sides unfortunately they represent 1% and 99% of people on either side have no idea what they are talking about and are just jumping on the bandwagon because they read about it in news article or scientific journal or some random on a forum where the funding most likely can be traced back to those with massive windfalls to make trying to influence public policy and opinion.
This is no longer about the climate in my view it's about what the global energy market is going to look like over the next 50 years and who's going to have a monopoly over the technology to create it and infrastructure to deliver it.
