Powering our future, whether that be caravan tug or homes...

yobarr · Guru

RE: Powering our future, whether that be caravan tug or homes...

dogbox · Guru

if you don't agree with me, you must be wrong, seem to be the flavor of the month.

regardless of where you stand on climate change, anything we do will only prolong the final result where manmade or a natural occurrence, population growth will be the deciding factor, when the world is at capacity it will be full.

Gundog · Guru

Cuppa you have oboviously hitched your wagon to the Climate Change train, and without question you support the science.

That being the case please explain how what we are doing in Australia to limit carbon, and how it will change the worlds total carbon reduction.

Another thing that irks is we have states that rely on other states for their power because their renewables are not providing sufficient power, at approximatly 0915 Qld was providing their excess power to NSW, Vic, SA and Tasmaina who play the Green Power Game, but more than likely that transmitted power is being generated by COAL.

vince56 · Senior Member

We could go on forever on this and we are probably reaching a stall. I and the post by aussie1 point to the continuing volumes of respected people making false statements on CC and being proven wrong, very wrong and scaring the daylights out of the population, schoolgirls crying about being incinerated etc. you've seen it all no doubt. If you put all of this stuff together we would have all been fried, drowned, starved or hit by falling glaciers by now and humans would be extinct.
I don't intend to believe any of it until it is proven, which it hasn't.
I do agree that the discussion has been a worthwhile exchange, we agree to disagree.
Cheers

Cuppa · Guru

vince56 wrote:
FACTS? Well, besides the descriptions of fossil fuels I think it is largely opinions. They say in one of your links, "The evidence is clear: the main cause of climate change is burning fossil fuels such as oil, gas, and coal. When burnt, fossil fuels release carbon dioxide into the air, causing the planet to heat up".
My point is HOW does it cause climate change? The minuscule amount of CO2 in the air is causing catastrophic heating of our planet? As I have posted we produce 3% of the 3% of the 0.1% of the atmosphere is CO2. Nine millionths of the air.
All I want is someone who can explain how this tiny amount, even the tiny increase in the amount, of CO2 in the air is frying us. Is the increase in temp just a result of the earth's natural cycles and we are blaming fossil fuel burning?

How about, instead of persisting with your point, (which in fact is a statement & a request) you do the research & come back to us with the answer?

I think what you are doing is putting forth a statement about the world's chemistry which I suspect is a flawed & simplistic conclusion drawn from a misunderstanding of how things actually work. If you truly think that you are onto something that science has inadvertently missed, then do your own legwork, prove what you are suggesting and do all of us a favour by showing all those scientists that they have been mistaken all along & that we can all breathe easy.

Re. Your disputation of FACTS. Very easy to dismiss anything you choose as 'just being opinion'. The fact is that many facts are in fact a consensus of scientific opinion. Without that we'd still be arguing about whether the earth was flat. (come to think of it I believe some still do). If you want to understand how Co2 is causing climate change, again do your own legwork, & if you find you disagree with the science then prove it wrong. Expecting others here to undertake your legwork for you just so you can then dismiss it as more opinion really is quite unrealistic.

To set you on your way it may be helpful to keep in mind that science, by it's very nature is continually changing it's view, open to new discoveries which change the way we think about things, thus keeping the knowledge base as up to date as possible, & thus THE best source of information. Any scientist will always talk in terms of fact subject to our current level of knowledge, whilst remaining open to that knowledge evolving further.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 15th of March 2023 04:58:22 PM

peter67 · Guru

Gundog wrote:
Sorry Cuppa
Am I correct that you consider your 'web research',and the conclusions you draw from it are something which should be considered superior knowledge to the consensus of world science in regard to climate change?
But the predictions have failed to become fact, the entire world will make zero difference if China and India are not part of the so called solution
Here's a selection of filed predictions
https://cei.org/blog/wrong-again-50-years-of-failed-eco-pocalyptic-predictions/

Nicely worded Gundog, and that's a fact. Without China, India and the US on board NOTHING will change.

Cuppa · Guru

Gundog wrote:
Cuppa you have oboviously hitched your wagon to the Climate Change train, and without question you support the science.
That being the case please explain how what we are doing in Australia to limit carbon, and how it will change the worlds total carbon reduction.

________________________________________________

Yes & no Gundog.

I do accept the science. I am not a scientist. Do your own research if you are interested in finding out the answer & let us all know if you can translate the politics & scientific basis for them into a form we can all understand.

If you consider my inability to do myself what I am suggesting you try is reason not to accept the conclusions of the scientific consensus on climate change you would I think be wrong.

It seems to me that an increasingly common strategy of climate change deniers is to ask those who accept the science to re-do the science, with a reasonable expectation that most people would be unable to do so, & then assuming that their inability shows them as either mistaken or as fools. It is a strategy of trying to set traps. Instead if you believe the collective science to be wrong you should either prove it by doing the science yourself (unlikely) or by finding good science (ie peer reviewed science which has been shown to stand up to scrutiny within the scientific community) which brings current knowledge into question. Also I suggest - unlikely.

So we live instead mainly with traps & mudslinging from the climate change denial side of the fence. One would think that given the persistence of those who choose that side of the fence that they might be able to fund scientific endeavour in the hope of fighting science with science, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Far more common is the approach as per Yobarr's post above. I consider that sort of nonsense to be very much head in the sand, & I say that from a scientific consensus which supports that view, as opposed to some nonsensical twisting of facts to fit neatly into some conspiracy theory. It makes me laugh when folk who accept that sort of nonsense claim the high ground by calling everyone else things like sheeple when in fact it is they who are sheep-like followers of what are at best flimsy conclusions, and often quite deranged & paranoid ideation.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 15th of March 2023 05:19:37 PM

Cuppa · Guru

vince56 wrote:
We could go on forever on this and we are probably reaching a stall. I and the post by aussie1 point to the continuing volumes of respected people making false statements on CC and being proven wrong, very wrong and scaring the daylights out of the population, schoolgirls crying about being incinerated etc. you've seen it all no doubt. If you put all of this stuff together we would have all been fried, drowned, starved or hit by falling glaciers by now and humans would be extinct.
I don't intend to believe any of it until it is proven, which it hasn't.
I do agree that the discussion has been a worthwhile exchange, we agree to disagree.
Cheers

Incorrect. I challenge you to find a single false statement, (known at the time to be false). Different to predictions which do not eventuate when they are predicted to.

Prediction can be defined as an outcome that is expected if the hypothesis is true. Hypotheses by their nature are open to variations. Timing being one of them. If a prediction fails to eventuate when the hypotheses suggests, it doesn't make the entire hypothesis wrong (or false - which implies in negative intent). It just means they got the timing wrong. But you are correct that we are probably reaching a stall, which is bound to happen when folk refuse to listen & respond on the basis of simply trying to prevail.

If anyone is able to post up any good solid information refuting the science it will be worth continuing debate, but in the absence of anything like that in the thread to date, & just more pokes at the 'others' then we will indeed just go around & around in circles.

"I don't intend to believe any of it until it is proven, which it hasn't" just about sums up much of what has filled these pages, from folk who appear desperate not to find proof, whilst asking for it. The proof is out there in the form of myriads of scientific papers from which the scientific community has drawn it's conclusions.

I think I have put enough of my time & energy into this thread. It has been obvious from the outset that those who bother to contribute were not going to listen, but just try to dismiss & pick to suit the position they choose. My hope is that others reading this interchange might at least try a little harder to evaluate the contributions a little more rather than simply looking for 'points' to support entrenched views. Perhaps that is asking a lot of folk in our age demographic, but I choose to think that to believe that sterotypes older folk, & I know that there are exceptions, people who still embrace difference & change. I don't for a moment think I am alone.

I hope this thread may have been helpful in at least provoking thought - wherever that thought may lead.

-- Edited by Cuppa on Wednesday 15th of March 2023 04:54:44 PM

RickJ · Senior Member

Mmmm!

*Claims without recognition*
or
The other side of the story based on history and fact to maintain balance.

Those hitched to the *save the climate wagon* at times ask for facts, and are generally given information that is based around previous climate history.

When questioned in opposition those same people use examples of an ill informed Swedish teenager sponsored with millions from those that stand to gain (FINANCIALLY) from her ever so convincing drama.
This accompanied by every person whos title has been manipulated to read *climate scientist* after their name claiming that Australia will be doomed without immediate action as per THEIR recommendation.
Of course sensible and well informed Australians just look a little further than this and actually FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL which is the basis for them suggesting that we are all doomed.

As is usual with most ill informed campaigns the majority of people are dragged to the level of the lowest common denominator by those within the debate who will gain the most financially.

A result that is so easy to see if one just steps back and removes the generated emotion from their view.

Craig1 · Guru

www.sbs.com.au/news/article/electricity-prices-set-to-rise-by-up-to-30-per-cent-in-some-states-energy-regulator-says/p4y0w2sce

Why have we allowed a once " lucky country " and its inhabitants to be dragged below the poverty line with constant energy cost increases and probable shortages as well.

All in the name of climate change, over which we have 0.00001% control, and that little bit creates mountains of unrecyclabe useless Chinese junk.

Gary and Barb · Senior Member

A lot of bitter, aggressive and angry old men with entrenched views are lurking in this thread.

A Bex and good lie down.

Mike Harding · Guru

Gary and Barb wrote:
A lot of bitter, aggressive and angry old men with entrenched views are lurking in this thread.

If they are lurking... how do you know they are there?

vince56 · Senior Member

The CO2 argument remains the same, still unanswered. I won't be goaded by armchair lawyers.
This is a discussion forum, I posted something that I thought would be interesting for the readers, that was all it was, then, as usual, we get hauled through the quagmire of armchair legalese to prove this and that, back up our thoughts bla bla.
Getting a bit exhausting, I'm off to live my life.....

yobarr · Guru

RickJ wrote:
Mmmm!

*Claims without recognition*
or
The other side of the story based on history and fact to maintain balance.

Those hitched to the *save the climate wagon* at times ask for facts, and are generally given information that is based around previous climate history.

When questioned in opposition those same people use examples of an ill informed Swedish teenager sponsored with millions from those that stand to gain (FINANCIALLY) from her ever so convincing drama.
This accompanied by every person whose title has been manipulated to read *climate scientist* after their name claiming that Australia will be doomed without immediate action as per THEIR recommendation.
Of course sensible and well informed Australians just look a little further than this and actually FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL which is the basis for them suggesting that we are all doomed.

As is usual with most ill informed campaigns the majority of people are dragged to the level of the lowest common denominator by those within the debate who will gain the most financially.

A result that is so easy to see if one just steps back and removes the generated emotion from their view.

Post of the day, in my opinion. Well said Rick. As stated earlier I am amazed at how many otherwise apparently intelligent people have been fooled by this con-job of an unrivalled magnitude. Sad but true. When will they ever learn? Here's hoping. Cheers

Gary and Barb · Senior Member

Troll.

yobarr · Guru

Gary and Barb wrote:
Troll.

On the contrary Gary, I am simply posting my considered opinion. Common sense, logic and a bit of history helped me form this opinion. Cheers

dogbox · Guru

this thread is likely to go the way of many others if the attacks keep getting personal and nasty.

-- Edited by dogbox on Wednesday 15th of March 2023 07:05:30 PM

RickJ · Senior Member

vince56 wrote:
The CO2 argument remains the same, still unanswered. I won't be goaded by armchair lawyers.
This is a discussion forum, I posted something that I thought would be interesting for the readers, that was all it was, then, as usual, we get hauled through the quagmire of armchair legalese to prove this and that, back up our thoughts bla bla.
Getting a bit exhausting, I'm off to live my life.....

Hang in there vince56,

Your posts are as valid as anyone elses.

After all you didnt call anyone a troll.

Your request for verification is quite normal considering that most of us can see the pain and financial hardship which as we type, is becoming very evident to us all and we are not even close to 2035 yet.

Your enquiry as it is based on C02 levels increasing due to Australians not acting quick enough is valid as well.

Maybe it could and should be noted that any active volcano in the world can reduce mans effort to nil as far as C02 goes if it erupts.

Australia cant fix anything wether the problem exists or not. We have endured claims of sea levels rising and wiping out all coastal areas, to bush fires being caused by climate change and the false claims go on and on on a daily basis.
Oh! it is called climate change now because *global warming* was to easily proved to be just another weather event.