Deleted

-- Edited by Bicyclecamper on Monday 25th of April 2022 10:40:45 PM

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

Too many young people in my area who are paying extra for holes in their clothes. 

If they simply kept clothes as long as I do with the number of holes I have, you would save a fortune.

---

 Maybe you could sell yours to those people and make a fortune? 

One of my t-shirts.

Everyone picks up the odd bullet hole or two...

copy and pasted from another forum no idea who the credits would go to


For your interest or not.
Climate cowards and apocalypse peddlers
Ben Beattie
Getty Images
Ben Beattie
18 April 2022
Have you ever questioned the links between bushfires and atmospheric CO2?
Discussions about the changing climate and the level of human contribution are only allowed if the discussion follows the approved narrative. Heaven forbid somebody decides to do their own research into how global average temperatures are calculated, how many temperature stations were around in 1850, how climate models compare to observations, how CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas, and how past predictions have borne out.
For those who would label me a denier, I have a label for you coward. Allow me to explain my contempt.
If green-left politics is your bag and you endorse the approved message, please explain your doomsday cultist narrative and how your objectives will send us backward to enjoy the living standards of a third-world country, with negative impacts on the environment.
To those who say that Australia should be a climate leader, I ask you to show evidence of a country both cutting emissions and improving its economy, living standards, and security, while pushing the renewables mantra. The worlds bestexamples of high renewables all have high electricity costs Germany, United Kingdom, California, and Australia.
If you are not swayed by real-life examples of failure, then I urge you to ask yourself, why the experts are pushing us into weather-dependent power sources, when the weather is supposed to become more unpredictable and extreme?
To the renewables lobby, including their sycophant experts, media, and political allies, I ask why, if your product is so good, do you continuously push for subsidies, targets, market intervention, cheap finance, and government spending, all while demonising the fossil fuel industry that has almost single-handedly created our current abundance of wealth and health.
To those who say we need more climate action, I ask you to quantify those actions and the effects of those actions on the climate. Please be specific. You and your ilk have a history of vagueness and being very, very wrong.
To those who rave about the transition, I ask you to define the end of the so-called transition when will this magic outcome occur, and what does it look like? Because to me, this transition looks like a never-ending cycle of building wind/solar/batteries, with their short life-span requiring replacement every 10-20 years.
To anybody who believes emissions reduction is important, I ask if you support nuclear power.
If you think the federal government has any role in the management of bushfires, I ask you to look at the responsibilities and performance of the state environmental and emergency service bureaucracies.
If you think the world is going to end because of sea-level rise, I ask you to put ice cubes in a glass, fill it with water, then wait for the ice to melt and observe the glass not overflowing.
If you think the science is infallible, I ask you to read what Alan Finkel, Peter Ridd and Richard Horton have to say about the credibility crisis in scientific published research. Then give the Climate-Gate emails a once-over. Then ask why the worlds primary atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement laboratory is located beside an active volcano.
If you are swayed by the consensus, I ask you to read Happer, Lomborg, Plimer, Schellenberger, Epstein, Spencer, Curry, Peiser, and Ridley. Then compare those with the writings of Gore, Thunberg, and Obama.
If you find yourself convinced by the weighty opining of experts that all CO2 increase is caused by human activities, I recommend the mission pages of NASAs Orbiting Carbon Observatory and the finding that in one year, the combined emissions from three rainforests increased by five-times Australias annual emissions.
If CO2 emissions are the first thing you think about when you wake in the morning, consider that global emissions reduction reduced by almost 10 per cent in 2020
because of Covid lockdowns, and that it cannot be differentiated from natural variation (according to NOAA).
If the fact that burning coal has led to prosperity and improved health for billions of people hurts your brain, try this:
Burning wood releases the carbon isotopes C12, C13 and C14
Burning coal and gas releases only C12 and C13
Measuring the dilution of C14 in the atmosphere proves the increase of C12 and C13
You cant apportion how much CO2 is entering the atmosphere from burning coal, without knowing how much CO2 of all types is also entering and disappearing from the atmosphere separately
If you think the UN has Australias best interests in mind, I ask you to name another large, unelected bureaucracy that you trust to decide your best interests. Then ask what the UN has done for you lately.
If you think CO2 emissions are the harbinger of doom, then I ask you to lead by example and commit to a single vehicle, composting, no air conditioners or plane travel, using only local seasonal produce, no batteries, no computers, no electricity, no running water, no textiles, nothing made in a factory or transported or harvested by machine, or grown using fertiliser and herbicides.
If you find yourself nodding along with phrases like green hydrogen superpower, I suggest you look up how much energy is consumed in producing green hydrogen, how the energy for green hydrogen is generated, and what that looks like on the environment.
If you quite like your first-world lifestyle, spare a thought for the third-world where people are being offered the joys of solar panels, which doesnt remove them from poverty.
If you are tempted to label me a right-wing nutjob, climate-change denier, racist, a symptom of the colonial white privileged patriarchy, go for it. But please allow me to respond...
If you are part of the media, political, or scientific elite and you disagree with anything Ive said, but you cannot be bothered to look it up yourself, if youve never bothered to look into the so-called other side, if you have no interest in the truth of things, if you cannot bring yourself to challenge your pre-conceived ideas, then you are a climate coward.
Ben Beattie is an electrical engineer in the power and natural gas sectors.

-- Edited by dogbox on Wednesday 27th of April 2022 08:18:21 PM

so according to you, someone else who may not agree with you is wrong . this person ben beattie (i have no idea who he is or what his qualifications are and i have no idea who you are, or what qualification you have .) has made a statement that you don't agree with and as far as your concerned i have wasted my time reading anything other than what you post .

I did just this as curiosity always kills this cat:

"If you think the world is going to end because of sea-level rise, I ask you to put ice cubes in a glass, fill it with water, then wait for the ice to melt and observe the glass not overflowing."

I did two experiments.  Experiment 1 assumes that the ice in Antarctica floats in the ocean.  Experiment 2 assumes that the ice in Antarctica sits on a hard bedrock base, all above sea level.  The outcome is that if like Experiment 1, global warning won't raise sea levels but if like Experiment 2, global warning will raise sea levels. 

Experiment 1 steps:

1. Added water to a glass

2. Added ice cubes to just cover the area of the water

3. Took a photo of the water line

4. Let ice melt

5. Took a photo of the water line

6. Water line height was the same before and after

7. Did same experiment with a glass jug which had bigger diameter repeating steps 1 - 6

Experiment 2 steps:

1. Added water to a glass

2. Took a photo of the water line

3. Added ice cubes to just cover the area of the water

4. Took a photo of the water line - Water line increased (which is obvious)

5. Let ice melt

6. Took a photo of the water line

7. Water line height was the same in step 4 and step 6

8. Did same experiment with a glass jug which had bigger diameter repeating steps 1 - 7

 

 

 

dabbler wrote:

---

Wasn't this thread started by Buzz ? Anyone the claims something's being rammed down their throat needs to think about the two arms shoving it down. If you've replied to another person's thread, it's not their arms but your own.

---

 I'm not sure what you are saying.

First of all I'll get rid of the emotional stuff from Dogbox's post that just causes angst:

dogbox wrote:

---

copy and pasted from another forum no idea who the credits would go to


For your interest or not.
Climate cowards and apocalypse peddlers
Ben Beattie
Getty Images
Ben Beattie
18 April 2022
Have you ever questioned the links between bushfires and atmospheric CO2?

 

Yes. More severe weather, caused by climate change, can make bushfires worse. As we've seen in the 2019/20 Australian bushfires. What is Ben Beattie suggesting here?

 

Discussions about the changing climate and the level of human contribution are only allowed if the discussion follows the approved narrative.

Ben then makes some statements about what to research. That's fair enough but there appears to be no suggestions on where to find information. It's just too provoke ideas. So here are a few answers to some of those thoughts:

... somebody decides to do their own research into how global average temperatures are calculated, how many temperature stations were around in 1850,

I don't know and there were probably less than today but they did have thermometers then and I assume someone could read them. Ice cores have given us records for thousands of years.

 

how climate models compare to observations,

Very well and they are getting better as more information is fed into the models.

how CO2 functions as a greenhouse gas,

It's been know, due to experiments, since the 1850's that CO2 is a green house gas.

and how past predictions have borne out.

Most predictions have been conservative and understated what's happened.

 

(insults removed)

 

please explain how your objectives will send us backward to enjoy the living standards of a third-world country, with negative impacts on the environment.

If we don't do something then the earth won't be livable by humans.

To those who say that Australia should be a climate leader, I ask you to show evidence of a country both cutting emissions and improving its economy, living standards, and security, while pushing the renewables mantra.

More than a country, Europe.

The worlds bestexamples of high renewables all have high electricity costs Germany, United Kingdom, California, and Australia.

Don't know about that but my electricity bill has come down.

If you are not swayed by real-life examples of failure, then I urge you to ask yourself, why the experts are pushing us into weather-dependent power sources, when the weather is supposed to become more unpredictable and extreme?

 

Because the climate change will make the severe weather events even worse.
To the renewables lobby, including their (insult removed) experts, media, and political allies, I ask why, if your product is so good, do you continuously push for subsidies, targets, market intervention, cheap finance, and government spending,

To fix the issue that has been ignored since the 70's. If it was addressed when the issue was identified to the governments then there would not be the urgency to get it fixed now. A stitch in time saves nine.

all while demonising the fossil fuel industry

Because fossil fuels are the major contributor to climate change.

that has almost single-handedly created our current abundance of wealth and health.

And future generations will suffer if we keep riding that bandwagon. We've addressed lots of things that were identified as being bad for people such as, leaded petrol, hydroflurocarbons, air pollution, so we're can also address fossil fuel emissions.

To those who say we need more climate action, I ask you to quantify those actions and the effects of those actions on the climate. Please be specific.

Until the CO2 parts per million are back to pre industrial levels.

You and your ilk have a history of vagueness and being very, very wrong.

These proposals are even more vague.

To those who rave about the transition, I ask you to define the end of the so-called transition when will this magic outcome occur, and what does it look like?

Bring down CO2 ppm to order industrial levels.

Because to me, this transition looks like a never-ending cycle of building wind/solar/batteries, with their short life-span requiring replacement every 10-20 years.

We have thankfully adopted technology to improve our lives so that will possibly still haven't unless there's political interference.

To anybody who believes emissions reduction is important, I ask if you support nuclear power.

There are cheaper and less polluting solutions.

If you think the federal government has any role in the management of bushfires, I ask you to look at the responsibilities and performance of the state environmental and emergency service bureaucracies.

It airways that some states are addressing climate change and the federal government have only just started, maybe because there's an election looming?

If you think the world is going to end because of sea-level rise,

The world will not end, it will just be unbearable to love on for humans and the majority of biomass will be gone.

I ask you to put ice cubes in a glass, fill it with water, then wait for the ice to melt and observe the glass not overflowing.

The majority of sea level rise is due to the expansion of the oceans. Things expand when heated. Melting sea ice is a minute contribution to sea level rise. The melting of ice on the land will be the big contribution to sea level rise from ice melt.

 

If you think the science is infallible,

No, not infallible but the best we have for predicting what will happen.

I ask you to read what Alan Finkel, Peter Ridd and Richard Horton have to say about the credibility crisis in scientific published research.

Are these people climate scientists?

 

Then give the Climate-Gate emails a once-over.

The climate gate emails have been explained. They were taken out of context.

 

Then ask why the worlds primary atmospheric carbon dioxide measurement laboratory is located beside an active volcano.

Breviary it's in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, it's 3.4 kilometres high and therefore has a good representation of the world's atmosphere. Ben seems to be suggesting that the volcano will affect the results. The volcano has erupted 33 times since 1843 and last erupted in 1984.

The results are also compared to other monitoring stations around the world.

If you are swayed by the consensus, I ask you to read Happer, Lomborg, Plimer, Schellenberger, Epstein, Spencer, Curry, Peiser, and Ridley.

Are these people climate scientists? We've already seen that Pilmer had been debunked.

 

Then compare those with the writings of Gore, Thunberg, and Obama.

These people are not climate scientists. It's best to rely on the IPCC which summaries thousands of climate scientists reports.

If you find yourself convinced by the weighty opining of experts that all CO2 increase is caused by human activities, I recommend the mission pages of NASAs Orbiting Carbon Observatory and the finding that in one year, the combined emissions from three rainforests increased by five-times Australias annual emissions.

Don't know about this but the train forests would have also produced oxygen.

If CO2 emissions are the first thing you think about when you wake in the morning, consider that global emissions reduction reduced by almost 10 per cent in 2020
because of Covid lockdowns,

That's true but they are now increasing.

 

and that it cannot be differentiated from natural variation (according to NOAA).

I don't know what this is.

If the fact that burning coal has led to prosperity and improved health for billions of people hurts your brain, try this:
Burning wood releases the carbon isotopes C12, C13 and C14
Burning coal and gas releases only C12 and C13
Measuring the dilution of C14 in the atmosphere proves the increase of C12 and C13
You cant apportion how much CO2 is entering the atmosphere from burning coal, without knowing how much CO2 of all types is also entering and disappearing from the atmosphere separately

I think that Ben is trying to say that the burning of wood had contributed to CO2 emissions more so that burning coal and gas (and possibly oil). The thing is that wood had been burning for millions of years and fossil fuels for only two hundred years so if course the wood contribution is higher. However, the rate of contribution by fossil fuels in the last two hundred years and especially in the last 50 years is nothing in comparison to wood.

If you think the UN has Australias best interests in mind, I ask you to name another large, unelected bureaucracy that you trust to decide your best interests. Then ask what the UN has done for you lately.

World health, human rights, tracking disease outbreaks, managing conflicts, etcetera.

If you think CO2 emissions are the harbinger of doom, then I ask you to lead by example and commit to a single vehicle, composting, no air conditioners or plane travel, using only local seasonal produce, no batteries, no computers, no electricity, no running water, no textiles, nothing made in a factory or transported or harvested by machine, or grown using fertiliser and herbicides.

Yes. Individuals can contribute but Ben is taking things to far.

If you find yourself nodding along with phrases like green hydrogen superpower, I suggest you look up how much energy is consumed in producing green hydrogen, how the energy for green hydrogen is generated, and what that looks like on the environment.

Green hydrogen is produced by renewable energy.

If you quite like your first-world lifestyle, spare a thought for the third-world where people are being offered the joys of solar panels, which doesnt remove them from poverty.

Solar panels have allowed people to charge their mobile phones which they use to access markets to sell or exchange their products which gives them a better lifestyle. That's just one example of how renewable energy is helping.

 

(Insults removed)

Ben Beattie is an electrical engineer in the power and natural gas sectors.

Ben Beattie is an electrical engineer, had links to has industry and not a climate scientists. He is a contributor to the Spectator magazine. Excerpt from Wikipedia: 'The Spectator is politically conservative.[82][83][84][85] The magazine has historically been liberal in outlook: over the course of its first century it supported the Radical wing of the Whigs, the Liberal Party, and the Liberal Unionists, who eventually merged with the Conservatives. '

-- Edited by dogbox on Wednesday 27th of April 2022 08:18:21 PM

---

 Dogbox,

 

Did you investigate any of the suggestions made by Ben? If so, what did you find? 

 

And to others, people do have the right to their opinion and in my opinion the content of Dogbox's post is rubbish and in this post I've tried to explain why. Do you deny me my opinion?

TheHeaths wrote:

---

Buzz,

On a recently closed thread about a comment the Prime Minister made, in response to a post I made, you commented to the effect of people being allowed to hold views, as long as they didnt ram them down others throats. I had planned to reply but that thread had already been closed.

Perhaps you should consider your comment when you post, especially about your concerns re climate change and waste.

Not everyone is going to agree with you, and your comments re their views being rubbish is no better than your comments about how you feel attacked when your posts are called rubbish.

I suggest treating others how you want them to respond to you.


PS. l certainly dont see Morrison using his Christian beliefs often at all in comments. I would struggle to put it above one or two percent of his appearances.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Thursday 28th of April 2022 01:47:56 PM

---

 As I have started multiple times. One can disagree with the content but one should not insult the person. I beloved that I have not insulted Dogbox I've just have an opinion on the content of Dogbox's post. There's a difference.

 

I expect people to have differing opinions and my express those opinions without insults. I beloved I have drive that in the case of Dogbox's post.

 

Whenarewethere wrote:

---

KevinJ wrote:

---

I did just this as curiosity always kills this cat:

"If you think the world is going to end because of sea-level rise, I ask you to put ice cubes in a glass, fill it with water, then wait for the ice to melt and observe the glass not overflowing."

I did two experiments.  Experiment 1 assumes that the ice in Antarctica floats in the ocean.  Experiment 2 assumes that the ice in Antarctica sits on a hard bedrock base, all above sea level.  The outcome is that if like Experiment 1, global warning won't raise sea levels but if like Experiment 2, global warning will raise sea levels. 

Experiment 1 steps:

1. Added water to a glass

2. Added ice cubes to just cover the area of the water

3. Took a photo of the water line

4. Let ice melt

5. Took a photo of the water line

6. Water line height was the same before and after

7. Did same experiment with a glass jug which had bigger diameter repeating steps 1 - 6

Experiment 2 steps:

1. Added water to a glass

2. Took a photo of the water line

3. Added ice cubes to just cover the area of the water

4. Took a photo of the water line - Water line increased (which is obvious)

5. Let ice melt

6. Took a photo of the water line

7. Water line height was the same in step 4 and step 6

8. Did same experiment with a glass jug which had bigger diameter repeating steps 1 - 7

 

 

 

---

 

Sea ice is not the issue. The ice on land above sea level is the problem. 

 

If it all melts, Military Road in Mosman (Sydney) will be under water by 2 metres, RL (relative level) of 68 metres.

 

To stay in our water front property we will need a very tall snorkel.

---

 Yes. That's true. In fact Greenland will rise higher as its ice melts due to less weight on its land.

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

If not, then there's no point in making the effort to provide SCIENTIFIC evidence to contradict his content. 

---

1 - Please provide a definitive definition of "scientific evidence" and why it provides certainty in a given situation?

2 - If "scientific evidence" is later shown to be false was it really "scientific evidence" in the first place?

3 - Please keep in mind that science is not a voting process.

Mike Harding wrote:

---

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

If not, then there's no point in making the effort to provide SCIENTIFIC evidence to contradict his content. 

---

1 - Please provide a definitive definition of "scientific evidence" and why it provides certainty in a given situation?

2 - If "scientific evidence" is later shown to be false was it really "scientific evidence" in the first place?

3 - Please keep in mind that science is not a voting process.

---

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

 

Surely you could have found this yourself Mike?

 

We can only rely on the best science it the time. People didn't believe in the theory of relativity but it has never been proven wrong.

 

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 29th of April 2022 03:09:15 PM

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 29th of April 2022 03:10:17 PM

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Friday 29th of April 2022 03:10:35 PM

dogbox wrote:

---

Buzz Lightbulb wrote:

---

 

Where do you get this rubbish? 

 

 

 

 

 

It takes ages to find the evidence that refutes the rubbish that you have posted. If I were to find that evidence would it change your mind? I would guess that the answer is probably not. So why make that effort?

 

-- Edited by Buzz Lightbulb on Thursday 28th of April 2022 12:04:58 PM

---

 

how would you know what my position on climate change /global warming is you ASSUME that because i cut an pasted a post that has a view that may not fit in with your line of thought ,you know my sediments on the subject . please enlighten me if i have ever said i was a supporter or a denier of climate change /global warming

Okay. Why did you post it?

i did state that some of the things that we may think of as being GREEN now may not be as green as we thought they might be in the future

cane toads are a good example introduced to solve a problem created a bigger one i hope what ever happens to fix the cane toad problem does not cause some other disaster

some countries are choking on their waste. how do the island in the middle of the ocean dispose of their waste or countries that have populations that prevent burying their waste because of the vast amounts and lack of suitable vacant land . we had our local tips most are now gone an the land used for sporting fields ect what toxic gases ect are rising up from them for the next who knows how many years, it was ok once upon a time but as the cities expand it is no longer viable . like the port a loo, if it gets used sooner or later you will have to empty it
if we don't provide a suitable place to empty it or make it to hard, people will just empty theirs in the dead of night any where the can then complain about the person who dumped theirs an left a mess

---