Author Topic: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading  (Read 106827 times)

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #210 on: October 02, 2014, 07:20:19 AM »
Tony business adviser sounds like a  Non violent conspiracy theorist to me - in the words of David Cameron  Tony = Isis?  To say the bom is changing the numbers = waankers

Climate change denialism conspiracy theories - seems to also be a faith of sorts too Tony, Morrison and fellow wankers   Italy has scientists non jail for failing to predict earthquakes.   Looking forward to Australia putting some nerds behind bars too.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2014, 11:51:56 AM by Judge Roughneck »

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #211 on: October 02, 2014, 07:37:13 AM »
Quote
"Having put all our eggs in one basket and having made science a religion, it bravely persists with its global warming narrative, ignoring at its peril and ours, the clear warnings being given by Mother Nature.”

Lol. Science is a method. It is asking a question or creating a hypothesis. Then it is usings methods to produce tangible results time again. Scientific method is never wrong,  neither are the outcomes.

Religion is faith. Faith is the irrational belief in something with total disregard to evidence. Those of faith are also incapable of reason and rational debate which is why those sorts should be just ignored and prohibited from positions of  influence such as politics and public education.

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #212 on: October 02, 2014, 09:30:57 AM »

Lol. Science is a method. It is asking a question or creating a hypothesis. Then it is usings methods to produce tangible results time again. Scientific method is never wrong,  neither are the outcomes.
Religion is faith. Faith is the irrational belief in something with total disregard to evidence. Those of faith are also incapable of reason and rational debate which is why those sorts should be just ignored and prohibited from positions of  influence such as politics and public education.

LMAO

 :lol
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #213 on: October 02, 2014, 10:10:26 AM »
How can science be wrong? Knuckle dragger  :cheers

If the hypothesis you started out with proves to be incorrect,  like '65 has an opinion that isn't copy and pasted from the Age, then the science wasn't wrong. It just proves with tangible evidence that it is factually untrue.

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #214 on: October 02, 2014, 11:39:32 AM »
How can science be wrong? Knuckle dragger  :cheers

If the hypothesis you started out with proves to be incorrect,  like '65 has an opinion that isn't copy and pasted from the Age, then the science wasn't wrong. It just proves with tangible evidence that it is factually untrue.

FFS How many examples do you want?

How about the earth being flat?

or the solar system revolving around the earth.

or the countless theories on black holes.

or the idea that ulcers were caused by stress

cheers
65
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #215 on: October 02, 2014, 11:43:19 AM »
are you feeling ok man ?

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #216 on: October 02, 2014, 12:23:56 PM »
The Earth being flat was an observation. I can put a spirit level on the ground and it will show it is flat. That is a test of something tangible and it is scientific. But is it wrong? No. Go look up Eratosthenes. He used scientific method to show the Earth was curved before it could be observed.

The Earth in the center of the universe also made sense, bith through observation and mathematically, the time using circular motion.

All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new. But that's ok, I can sympathise with light weights in this area. Now go climb a tree with the other simians. U got rekt :cheers

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #217 on: October 02, 2014, 01:32:27 PM »

All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.

So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then, as the vested interest groups would have us believe?

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #218 on: October 02, 2014, 01:45:07 PM »

All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.

So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then,


99.999% - according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

linked about ten posts up

Quote
as the vested interest groups would have us believe?

what vested groups are you referring to?

the oil companies or the greens have more power you reckon

dwaino

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #219 on: October 02, 2014, 05:09:57 PM »

All you are doing is proving that science is a process of discovering and understanding, to prove a previous model incorrect is as much a new discovery as finding something completely new.

So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then, as the vested interest groups would have us believe?

Global warming is fact. Extensive testing and data shows. The proper argument is lost on many and I'm surprised because it would be a handy weapon in the debate and that is how much is man's contribution.  The current carbon ppm in the atmosphere is around 800ppm. There is evidence in geology that it has been as high as 2000ppm, and as low as 150ppm. We are transitioning from an ice age. It was only about 10 or 12 thousand years ago that the Black sea didn't exist (kind of did but it was much much smaller), but rising ocean levels from the receding caps caused the Mediterranean to bust through what is now the Bosphorous strait, possibly leading to many of the ancient flood stories do to evidence of human settlement under the sea and along the old shore line. Ice samples for example though are showing a correlation between an acceleration in ppm levels and the time since the industrial revolution.

In the past these levels were regulated by simple greenhouse mechanics, and deforestation could be just as much a culprit as the junk we are pumping up into the air. As the CO2 levels rise, then plants will start decreasing the size of and the number of their stomata. This will lead to more ground water and probably de-desertification in some areas, but the plants will transpire less which leads to less rainfall. Human influence has been hugely to blame already for this by mowing down forests on massive scales.

To put my own opinion on it, we've past the point of no return. Learning and scientific advancement was oppressed by the church for nearly 1000 years. Had it not interfered we would have set foot on the moon over 100 years earlier, Mars already terraformed, and we'd have moved on long from burning fossil fuels for energy well before overpopulation and stuffing the planet.

We and life as we know will perish, but the Earth will keep on spinning while a new range of plants of animals that relish the climate will happily live on.

The only real reason to believe (have faith in) climate change is a lie is that some old jewish mythology says that as long as there is man to inhabit the Earth then it will be fine.

Offline Smokey

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 9279
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #220 on: October 02, 2014, 05:18:08 PM »

So the science of climate change is definitely not settled then,


99.999% - according to The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Quote
as the vested interest groups would have us believe?

what vested groups are you referring to?

the oil companies or the greens have more power you reckon

Any group that stands to benefit or profit from their particular stance on climate change.  And you can readily identify many of them as soon as you hear them spruik "the science of climate change is settled".  As Dwaino rightly pointed out, true science is a continual process of discovering and understanding, testing and (dis)proving, and there is nothing in the field of science that has yet been able to prove or disprove anything on the science of climate change of enough scope to consider it as "settled".

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #221 on: October 14, 2014, 05:23:30 AM »
Gotta love one-term Tony.

 :lol

Coal is 'good for humanity', says Tony Abbott at mine opening
 
October 14, 2014 - 2:21AM
James Massola, Peter Ker, Lisa Cox

Prime Minister Tony Abbott says Australia's coal industry has a "big future, as well as a big past" and predicted it will be the world's principal energy source for decades to come.

Mr Abbott also heaped praise on Japan in comments that come just days after China slapped harsh new tariffs on coal imports and will be noted in Beijing as negotiations on a China-Australia Free Trade Agreement move towards conclusion.

Industry has estimated the new tariffs could cost Australia's economy hundreds of millions of dollars annually, though it will be some time before exact estimates can be made.
 
"Let's have no demonisation of coal," Mr Abbott said on Monday.

"Coal is good for humanity, coal is good for prosperity, coal is an essential part of our economic future, here in Australia, and right around the world."


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/coal-is-good-for-humanity-says-tony-abbott-at-mine-opening-20141013-115bgs.html#ixzz3G3C23fkG
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....

Offline Judge Roughneck

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 11132
  • Sir
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #222 on: October 14, 2014, 12:06:45 PM »
About sums it up.

Offline 1965

  • RFC Hall of Fame
  • *****
  • Posts: 5646
  • Don't water the rocks
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #223 on: October 14, 2014, 05:30:03 PM »

Now it's Joe Hockey's turn to be a idiot.



Joe Hockey ridicules suggestion Australia is among top emitters

Lenore Taylor   
 
Joe Hockey has ridiculed a suggestion that Australia is one of highest emitters of greenhouse gases in the OECD, despite the fact that it does top the OECD rankings of greenhouse gases per capita.

“The comment you just made is absolutely ridiculous,” the treasurer said in an interview with the BBC when it was suggested to him that Australia was among “the dirtiest, most greenhouse gas-emitting countries in the OECD group of developed countries”.

“We’ve got a small population and very large land mass and we are an exporter of energy, so that measurement is a falsehood in a sense because it does not properly reflect exactly what our economy is,” Hockey said.

“Australia is a significant exporter of energy and, in fact, when it comes to coal we produce some of the cleanest coal, if that term can be used, the cleanest coal in the world.”

The latest OECD greenhouse gas emissions index, released in January, ranks Australia as the highest emitter per capita, with Luxembourg second, followed by the US and Canada.


http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/14/joe-hockey-idea-that-australia-tops-greenhouse-gas-emission-list-ridiculous
Yeah we're already going to vote for him mate, you don't need to keep selling it.....

tony_montana

  • Guest
Re: Contoversial Topic #1 - Global Warming & Carbon Emissions Trading
« Reply #224 on: October 14, 2014, 09:08:53 PM »
You missed the fine print as per usual