Aussies Living Simply

"Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Home Forums SUSTAINABLE COMMUNITIES Global warming and climate change "Climate Change/ Global Warming (under human influence) is a Hoax."

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #526675
    Anonymous
    Guest

    decimation of habitat is the cause of our local climate changes, far few cloud forest left now and too few trees to use the CO2 they need to thrive.

    need to be cautious targeting the poor classes any compensation pensioners got is small and will over time will disappear, the money makers as always the gov’ and their odd bedfellows, because once the cost gets added to all products to cover this CO2 debacle then GST will be added onto that, when fuel rises excise increases so then does GST on the excise increase nice little con’ job hey?

    but anyway greed is trying to gag any opposition to this terrible pandora’s box that has been opened. it is and always will be theory with no physical hard evidence.

    pity help us all

    len

    #526676
    BobbeeBobbee
    Member

    Oh well, I’ve resisted the impulse to contribute to this thread for a wee bit, I don’t want to be controversial (sp ?) but what I say may be considered so. :shrug:

    I believe in Climate Change so I’ll state that first. I cannot believe that every scientist on the planet is being paid to ‘toe the line’ so to speak. That is just too far over the top for me, but those who believe that have the right to believe it and to say they believe it. And in my opinion we should be allowed to state our beliefs with out the necessity for scientific proof for those beliefs.

    I have seen on tv and read in books and read on the internet a great deal of the cc info available to any who wish to seek it out. I also am no fool, imo, and as a reasonably intelligent person I feel capable of making up my mind re what I have noticed in my years of life on this planet. The changes that I have lived through and am constantly observing, confirm for me that the scientists are correct and climate change is a reality.

    I differ with some cc believers, in that I see cc as an ongoing planetary cycle that has been greatly exacerbated by human activity, that is, I believe cc is a cyclic planetary event that has been made worse in whatever way, by human activity. That means that I do not believe that climate change has been caused by humans.

    Now I dig my heels in at being told to ‘prove’ my beliefs.

    My beliefs, and anyone elses beliefs, in my opinion, are valid for us at this time. My beliefs are my ‘truths’ if you like. And woe betide anyone who demands that I prove those beliefs.

    I do believe that stating ones beliefs once in a thread is quite enough. No one wants to read the same old same old, over and over again.

    I also find it a drag to have the same old same old ‘proofs’ posted again and again. Maybe shove some links in at the beginning of a thread and leave it at that. Just my opinion for what it’s worth!

    TOTALLY OFF TOPIC but I’ll take the opportunity whilst on site: If the task would not be too onerous perhaps controversial posts could be simply deleted by mods/admin and the thread left to survive. Folk would surely take the hint after a few posts were removed.

    :shrug:

    I have been womanfully resisting the urge to say if this post is deleted for not having proofs then TT to the remover, but alas the flesh is weak!

    #526677
    Anonymous
    Guest

    bobbee, was saying:

    “TOTALLY OFF TOPIC but I’ll take the opportunity whilst on site: If the task would not be too onerous perhaps controversial posts could be simply deleted by mods/admin and the thread left to survive. Folk would surely take the hint after a few posts were removed.”

    that brings in peer selective post which is what already occurs, why would one post their opinion (science is only an opinion) if that one poster was going to cop a responsive post then the thread gets locked.

    i don’t reckon the forum will last long under those rules, take a look at how many members and out of that how many post regular there are lots of lurkers watching, who won’t give their opinion, surely that is a jerry mander? only responding to bobbee.

    anyhow back on topic, those who promote CO2 CC are the ones who have to sell the product and so far they are failing, not talking about natural global climate change.

    len

    #526678
    SnagsSnags
    Member

    Simple theme here is all the deniers are adamant and yet they have no evidence just gut feeling and emotional responses.

    Interesting article in the Age today of a converted Sceptical Scientist,he just had to accept the evidence before him.

    THE Earth’s land has warmed by 1.5 degrees Celsius in the past 250 years and ”humans are almost entirely the cause”, according to a scientific study set up to address climate sceptic concerns about whether human-induced global warming is occurring.

    Richard Muller, a climate sceptic physicist who founded the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, said he was ”surprised” by the findings. ”We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds.”

    He said he considered himself a ”converted sceptic” and his views had received a ”total turnaround” in a short space of time.

    Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/climate-results-convert-sceptic-let-the-evidence-change-our-minds-20120730-23769.html#ixzz224SVTIM9

    #526679
    PeterDPeterD
    Member

    I always like to take both sides and hash them both around to see how things sort out.

    I get my hand basket message via permaculture and environmental groups.

    I got my first counterpoint from the famous rice video.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BC1l4geSTP8

    I would fix it as a link but I’m attacked by the forum bug cutting off my screen and buttons I can’t see or click on anymore.

    I also have an economics background and I think we do influence local microclimate systems but it’s harder to stretch that logic and conclusion to a macro world level.

    I remeber a lot of erm debates I had with some nice but rather religious people overseas and their figures did not add up when you looked at them they scaled way to large to even fit into the planet.

    #526680
    AndreAndre
    Keymaster

    Andre post=347042 wrote:

    Some of you may have noticed the inevitable locking of the various threads that have been posted from time to time. (who knows, this thread may end up going the way of the dodo too).

    So, let me lay down some ground rules before we begin:

    1 Posts are not to abuse or disparage another person. Abuse will not be tolerated, and those posts will be deleted.

    2 Back up your point of view. (we don’t wan’t another ‘Is so – Is not’ debacle) Any posts that simply refute another’s – without some collaborating evidence, will be deleted.

    3 Stay on topic. While we can use ‘poetic license’ when some posts deviate slightly, those posts that go completely off-track will be deleted.

    Now people, this can be a good, clean forum – or it can (as has been seen previously) fall into a slanging-match. If it gets too bad, I’ll just wipe the whole thread.

    I make no bones about it, I’m on the ‘Climate Change is Real’ and as such, will not be involved with the discussions.

    Be mature. You are adults. Act like it.

    I was VERY tempted to delete some posts. :ohmy: I can’t understand why this is a difficult concept to understand.

    Dear friends, PLEASE try to adhere to the rules/guidelines – to some extent at least!

    It was not requested that there be scientific evidence – feel free to express your opinion, but please, put forward SOME argument other than Is NOT!. If you can’t, then resist the temptation to post …

    I agree, posting the same old links can be tiresome. Bring in new ones I say .. plenty of them I’m sure. It can also be said that the same old ‘Is NOT!’ becomes just as tedious.

    But don’t forget, this thread is for the CC ‘deniers’ to state their case (and why).

    I understand perfectly that there are those that don’t believe. That’s fine, all this forum is for is for YOU to convince US otherwise.

    And yes, some of us crave somethng more tangible than It Is! to be convinced. Enlighten us.

    :whistle:

    #526681
    AndreAndre
    Keymaster

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote:

    TOTALLY OFF TOPIC but I’ll take the opportunity whilst on site: If the task would not be too onerous perhaps controversial posts could be simply deleted by mods/admin and the thread left to survive. Folk would surely take the hint after a few posts were removed.

    Tried that, Bobbee .. and no, they didn’t take the hint. 😉

    #526682
    calliecatcalliecat
    Participant

    again I’m dying to say something :laugh: :laugh:

    but I wont – it’s a tad mmmm mmmm :whistle: :laugh:

    and feel free to delete this Andre 🙂

    #526683
    S.O.PS.O.P
    Member

    Sorry folks, owlbrudder is convincingly winning this debate. I always question folks that come out of nowhere to push agendas (minimal posts – astroturfing is prevalent in online communities).

    No one is denying that climate change exists, be it massive asteroid events that heated and poisoned our whole planet, or what. Are we helping it long? Of course we are.

    Gardenlen is right also, we have deforested our planet too much. He denies one part but acknowledges another. Modern agriculture, or even agriculture in its earliest form is partly responsible for our deserts and dustbowls. The Spanish Armada wasn’t built out of thin air. We have all had our Wood Ages, and we are worse off for it.

    And let’s bring up the poison and other chemicals we are pumping into everything. Climate change may not kill us, but poisons definitely will.

    It’s all culminative. We have just perfected our damaging ways in the pursuit of money in the last 60 years.

    #526684
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Metu post=347075 wrote: I have a slight quibble here; as a society, we cannot help the political agenda has taken science on climate change, as if it’s fact. We cannot help there are those who link to scientific evidence, backing pro human-induced climate change either. Because we cannot help it, we are expected to join in to be legitimized. Like one cannot have an opinion on whether Climate Change is a hoax without some kind of scientific evidence?

    Metu, I have already said in fora here that people are entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. You are completely justified in holding an opposing view about AGW. All I am doing is trying to sort out who has evidence they can show to support their position. I try to back up my statements with links to credible research, but that does not make me, or the research, infallible. What you get with peer-reviewed research, is the probability that evidence has been correctly assembled and correctly examined, but there is always room for error. All I am asking for is evidence to back up any counter theory. If you choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence, then that is your right, but please at least recognise that that is what you are doing.

    Metu post=347075 wrote: Well let’s evaluate that – what is scientific evidence but human values placed on what the mind observes/records/evaluates? If it’s human values we place on observations, can it never be tampered with? Has history shown us it has ever been tampered with?

    Perfectly true. All we get by reading peer-reviewed research is the probability, not the certainty, that the conclusions arrived at are accurate. The other side of the coin is that claims not backed up by peer-reviewed science have a higher probability of being in error. I am entitled to think the moon is made of green cheese, based on no science whatever, just my own reasoning by looking at the colour of the moon. If I tried to impose this opinion on others, however, I would likely be asked to prove my theory, or recant.

    Metu post=347075 wrote: Watergate? War of the Worlds? April fools? Ciagrettes not causing lung cancer. We have proven it is possible to hoax members of society legitimately before. It is possible to pay multiple scientists for their opinion to back false data, if they have a human interest in profiteering from it. It is possible for members of parliment to deliberately mislead, if they have a human interest of profiteering also.

    Piltdown Man is another example of a great hoax fooling the scientists of the day. It is possible that Climate Change/Global Warming is a hoax, but that requires thousands of competing researchers, over nearly 200 years, to be ‘in on’ the plot, without one ever having broken ranks. You either accept the idea of thousands of corrupted scientists over several generations, or you accept the much simpler idea that the thousands of scientists are telling the truth. As to the idea of incorruptible politicians, I am not qualified to judge, but is that a pig I see flying overhead?

    Metu post=347075 wrote: It would have to be infallible human logic which claims Climate Change is indeed, fact, and not in any way in the realms of human misguidance. How is it that science has come to speak on behalf of human interests, as if we were all infallible at interpreting data?

    Human logic is not infallible, research is not infallible, peer-review is not infallible. The best we can hope for is that the greater the number of people who assess the research, the greater probability there is of the outcomes being accurate.

    Metu post=347075 wrote: While we can swap links on scientific research, in regards to Climate Change, does it prove humans are beyond being lead astray by it’s conclusions? I cannot prove various scientific evidence for Climate Change is a hoax, but it’s evident that humans can lead astray, be led astray, and in a state of denial any of this is going on, whilst ever chasing the facts. 😉

    All I have asked for is links to credible scientific research showing AGW is not real. So far, all I seem to be given is personal opinions not backed up by any evidence at all. Please, if you say we can swap links, then go ahead and swap some. I have given plenty already. Where are your links supporting your opinion? Where is the evidence that would lead people to conclude that AGW is a hoax?

    #526685
    AlanEAlanE
    Participant

    Article in the Herald Sun today:

    Global warming due to humans: ex-sceptic

    A PROMINENT US sceptic of the human causes of climate change, Richard Muller, has reversed course, saying he now believes greenhouse gases are responsible for global warming.

    http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/global-warming-due-to-humans-ex-sceptic/story-e6frf7k6-1226439378814

    #526686
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    gardenlen post=347076 wrote: we are not allowed to speak against the science or their theories

    Not true at all, len. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I am just asking you to show why the science is wrong. I think we all understand that you do not believe it, but you have not given us any evidence on which you base your unbelief.

    gardenlen post=347076 wrote: there is no fact in it eg.,. in a killing no bloodied knife whatever as evidence. it is all theory and conjecture all to aid manipulation by our week kneed leaders. of course they can post what they call evidence, mathematical graphs created by seemingly intelligent people, and seemingly intelligent people pound us with this stuff. shots of Greenland wherever showing it has gone the full cycle to what it was when the vikings were about. makes the place look like a good tourism destination.

    they, them the supporters of the science, then gag us, they have not sold their precept to the aussie community of which last stat’ indicated 67% did not believe it let alone worship it. they sue weather events as examples of this heavier than air gas causing issues and they do i have heard it often said by them.

    You are free to hold and express any view you like and you are free to ignore any evidence you like. All I am asking for is the evidence on which you base your belief. So far, you have not presented anything but the repeated mantra “I don’t believe it”. OK – we get that you don’t believe it: WHY don’t you believe it? The percentage of people who believe the evidence does not affect the truth or otherwise of that evidence.

    gardenlen post=347076 wrote: our weather events are just that weather events, if worse then the cause is the removal of habitat forest.

    Thank you for acknowledging that we are causing climate change through deforestation. Is it such a leap, then, to accepting that we are doing even more damage with all the greenhouse gasses we are emitting?

    gardenlen post=347076 wrote: i’ve tried to say it before not for us to prove against it, but for them to sell it to the community and the gov’ is not the community.

    lets get rid of the speculation; the theory; the conjecture; the perceptions, sell it!!

    len

    Nope, there is no requirement for anyone to “sell” their opinion. Ideally, we would just present the evidence and let people make up their own minds. Starting out with the view that all the evidence, collected over 200 years, analysed by thousands of scientists world-wide, is rubbish, will probably set you up to be misled by your own gut reaction to the proposition that humanity has the combined ability to change the chemistry of the Earth’s biosphere. Question for you: would it be prudent for the world to listen to your unsupported opinion, or to the opinions of thousands of people who have been doing the research for nearly two centuries? If a cancer specialist told you you had cancer, would you believe hir, or would you believe the 67% of blokes in the pub who say you have nothing to worry about? I know where I would place my trust.

    #526687
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Ggang post=347079 wrote: I cannot see that the way Humans have interfered with the natural processes of the planet cannot effect it and many ways 👿 the changing climate is just a part of it added to deteriorating quality of the air we breath, the water we drink ……… another endless list denied by paid scientists ………

    That’s where I am coming from too. Just look at the movie “Gaslands” to see how the establishment and big industry uses its muscle to spread disinformation. Scientists employed by natural gas companies have a vested interest in putting a positive spin on bad news. That does not make it right, or desirable, but it would be foolish to think it does not happen. Our protection from industrial harm has always to be the free and unfettered research of a large number of scientists, from a large number of disciplines, not just the few in the pay of industry. We must always be prudent as to whose evidence we believe.

    #526688
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    gardenlen post=347086 wrote: decimation of habitat is the cause of our local climate changes, far few cloud forest left now and too few trees to use the CO2 they need to thrive.

    Spot on, len. Deforestation is one of the contributing factors to climate change. Who is doing the deforestation? Humans. Ergo, humans are causing climate change. You are already half-way to accepting the rest of the evidence.

    gardenlen post=347086 wrote: need to be cautious targeting the poor classes any compensation pensioners got is small and will over time will disappear, the money makers as always the gov’ and their odd bedfellows, because once the cost gets added to all products to cover this CO2 debacle then GST will be added onto that, when fuel rises excise increases so then does GST on the excise increase nice little con’ job hey?

    Now we are moving from the realm of science, into the realm of politics. All science can do is provide information about what we are doing and what the outcomes will likely be. It is not for scientists to come up with answers as to what we should be doing about it. In other words, science can tell us we need to stop pumping CO2 into the atmosphere, but it is for politicians to decide on changes to laws to bring about social behaviour that will acheive the aim of stopping those emissions.

    gardenlen post=347086 wrote: but anyway greed is trying to gag any opposition to this terrible pandora’s box that has been opened. it is and always will be theory with no physical hard evidence.

    pity help us all

    I think you meant to say “No evidence apart from the scientific evidence”. There is a shipload of scientific evidence, but a belief that the scientists are all lying will not help anyone accept that evidence. Indeed, if the plain evidence is ignored, then pity help us all.

    #526689
    owlbrudderowlbrudder
    Member

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote: in my opinion we should be allowed to state our beliefs with out the necessity for scientific proof for those beliefs.

    Belief without evidence is faith and that smacks of religion. You are entitled to your opinion, but I am interested in finding out WHY people deny that humanity is changing the global climate. So far, those who disbelieve the evidence have not come up with a single reason for their disbeliefs, other than a bald “I don’t believe it”. What is so hard about providing evidence to back your position?

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote: I differ with some cc believers, in that I see cc as an ongoing planetary cycle that has been greatly exacerbated by human activity, that is, I believe cc is a cyclic planetary event that has been made worse in whatever way, by human activity. That means that I do not believe that climate change has been caused by humans.

    Earth has cycles of climate change and science has a good idea of what those cycles are. At present, we are in a cooling phase of a Milankovitch cycle. Why, when we are in a cooling phase, are we measuring a global increase in temperature? We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, we know that we are pumping it into the atmosphere at an unprecedented rate, so what you are saying is that a known greenhouse gas is not causing warming, but some as yet unknown cycle is cutting in and doing exactly what the increase of CO2 is predicted to do. Where is your evidence? Why do you believe in this undiscovered planetary cycle?

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote: Now I dig my heels in at being told to ‘prove’ my beliefs.

    My beliefs, and anyone elses beliefs, in my opinion, are valid for us at this time. My beliefs are my ‘truths’ if you like. And woe betide anyone who demands that I prove those beliefs.

    I do believe that stating ones beliefs once in a thread is quite enough. No one wants to read the same old same old, over and over again.

    I also find it a drag to have the same old same old ‘proofs’ posted again and again. Maybe shove some links in at the beginning of a thread and leave it at that. Just my opinion for what it’s worth!

    I am interested that you see your unsupported belief as holding more weight that two centuries of scientific research. You are perfectly free to hold your belief, but I am perfectly free to ask you to back it up with something more concrete that “I don’t believe it”. Feel free to ignore my request for evidence, if you have none. I am not trying to change your mind, but I think it is important that others following this thread are given facts on which to base their own opinions on the material being discussed. The links I post are appropriate as directly referring to claims being made and these claims pop up in the thread, so I post my links to them as and when they appear. If one piece of evidence would suffice, I would gladly post it here as my one and only link; sadly, there is no one magic bullet, so I have to respond as the topics crop up.

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote: TOTALLY OFF TOPIC but I’ll take the opportunity whilst on site: If the task would not be too onerous perhaps controversial posts could be simply deleted by mods/admin and the thread left to survive. Folk would surely take the hint after a few posts were removed.

    I would prefer that the moderators of this forum leave intact posts that are not personal attacks or abuse, because the information being presented in this thread is often in response to debatable posts.

    Bobbee post=347087 wrote: I have been womanfully resisting the urge to say if this post is deleted for not having proofs then TT to the remover, but alas the flesh is weak!

    I have no problem with unsupported claims, as long as you have no problem with me asking you for more evidence than “I don’t believe it”. If “I don’t believe it” is all the evidence you need, that’s fine too, but forgive me if I point that fact out to others following this thread.

Viewing 15 posts - 16 through 30 (of 51 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.