Jump to content

NSW Boeing 737 Fire Bomber


red750

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 842
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Please don’t confuse overpopulation and pollution, very real problems, with human induced climate change, which is a political device. Humans will not significantly change the climate, for good or ill, but they can certainly wreck our planet. We need a political solution, but the warmists are distracting us from the problem.

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

can someone explain why the incoming rays don’t also bounce off this same layer?

 

 

 

Turbs here is an explanation of the question you posed. This is not presented by some radical idiot wanting to bring down capitalism and in fact this scientists is not on the hysterical alarmist  end of the spectrum.  It is worth watching  even if only to sharpen your arguments and to enable you pose better questions.   If you posed the above question in a genuine way and are really seeking information then this is a great place to start. If you think it is bollocks then look forward to your detailed scientific critique.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We need a political solution, but the warmists are distracting us from the problem.

 

what are the warmists doing that is so effective? I don't think you can save rural and regional Australia, its a waste of money to try and resist global warming. Even ScoMo and MickMack have accepted that reality.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what are the warmists doing that is so effective? I don't think you can save rural and regional Australia, its a waste of money to try and resist global warming. Even ScoMo and MickMack have accepted that reality.

 

The warmists are running multiple marketing strategies including a below the line campaign which has convinced many people to glue themselves to the streets, believing that not to act is the end of the world. This is on a much bigger scale than the original IPCC scamming scientists.

 

The Darling Downs is failing because we  (consumers) now buy Chinese pork wit 2% Australian content (the packaging)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Octave, your BOM are currently being accused of doctoring their history figures to show it was cooler in the past.

 

 

 

and has been accused in the past and I believe there was an inquiry which I would be happy to find links to tomorrow.  I guess my question would be that whenever there is a question over the quality of data you we need to look for corroboration from other sources. The measurement of increasing temperatures is not only suggested by our Bom but around the world from other meteorological organisations.   Are they all making it up? are we talking grand conspiracy?  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

and has been accused in the past and I believe there was an inquiry which I would be happy to find links to tomorrow.  I guess my question would be that whenever there is a question over the quality of data you we need to look for corroboration from other sources. The measurement of increasing temperatures is not only suggested by our Bom but around the world from other meteorological organisations.   Are they all making it up? are we talking grand conspiracy?  

 

I’m just studying data.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please don’t confuse overpopulation and pollution, very real problems, with human induced climate change, which is a political device. Humans will not significantly change the climate, for good or ill, but they can certainly wreck our planet. We need a political solution, but the warmists are distracting us from the problem.

 

Sooooo we can overpopulate without causing/adding to pollution ??? We can ovepoulate without consuming and the waste from that consumption will have no ill effect ???

 

Our species does not control climate change but it certainly is accelerating the effects beyond the capacity of the natural systems to adjust.

 

The problem we have ultimately comes back to overpopulation - a small population consuming at the modern per head rate would have little impact on the Global  environment BUT we are not a small population, our species is in plague numbers across the Globe.

 

Our insatiable consumption is contributing to Global Warming (not causing it). The contribution is accelerating the effects of Global Warming. This, the destruction of our forests, the acidification of our seas, the DDT, plastic, probable increased background radiation from nuclear activity, pesticide residues, etc etc will almost certainly negatively affect the quality of life for future generations. 

 

Please explain ??

 

 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All well and good to say if you want to live in the bush, cut firebreaks, but we are governed by bureaucrats, who know far better than we do, all about safety.

 

We have to get their permission to do anything, so it doesn’t get done.

 

Yenn

 

in the Territory and other jurisdictions I’m aware of  firebreaks are  a legal requirement... Are  you staying they aren’t in QLD? 

 

Firebreaks are not subject to land clearing regulations, at least not here

 

Alan 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Turbs here is an explanation of the question you posed. This is not presented by some radical idiot wanting to bring down capitalism and in fact this scientists is not on the hysterical alarmist  end of the spectrum.  It is worth watching  even if only to sharpen your arguments and to enable you pose better questions.   If you posed the above question in a genuine way and are really seeking information then this is a great place to start. If you think it is bollocks then look forward to your detailed scientific critique.

 

 

Ah, I see; it was invented by Stephan.

 

Love the part where he says "We really cheated to get this"

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what you can do about overbreeding, Skippy - particularly amongst the 3rd worlders. I'm hazarding a guess that eventually, a plague, or pestilence, or famine, or war, will tend to correct the problem.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Somewhere I have read that educating women, and generally improving incomes, are the most effective way to quickly bring down the birth rate. I think Bjorn Lomberg agrees. His point is that we should spend our limited resources on achieving those goals, not on building windmills. And we should not try to stop developing countries from using fossil fuels to quickly raise their standard of living.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I've learnt something new today, about something I never knew existed - Lunar and Solar Air Tides.

 

I wonder if the climate change scientists calculating our future temperatures and climate, took these weather drivers into the equation?

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-the-moon-have-a-tida/

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to look more and more at the resulting end data because that doesn't have to be "modelled" with "theories", 'Constants", "Coefficients' which tend to predict a result roughly equating to the need for next year's Grant.

 

For example, if the data shows the sea is not rising, then the water temperature which causes the water to expand has not increased, and if the temperature has not increased over the ocean......................................................................

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at data from BOM and searched old newspaper reports, concluded as I have stated here and elsewhere. Then I found website and many YouTube videos by Tony Heller, who does this full time and saves me all that work. Even if you discount 30% of what he says then the evidence is overwhelming in favour of no significant anthropogenic climate change. 

 

 

Someone will jump on here and cast aspersions on Heller, as they probably do on me, calling us mad. Well, I go with the data.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I see; it was invented by Stephan.

 

Love the part where he says "We really cheated to get this"

 

The scientist in this video is Michael Merrifeild. When he uses the word cheating he refers to the simplification of the model for the purposes of calculation. He then goes on to say what happens when you insert those more complicated factors.  The point of this video is not about climate change except briefly at the very end.   This video explains the physics of the greenhaouse effect which is not controversial at all and has been understood since the 1800s 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  This video explains the physics of the greenhaouse effect which is not controversial at all and has been understood since the 1800s 

 

There goes the ubiquitous assertion.

 

Octave, if I did a presentation like that, I'd be fired.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I looked at data from BOM and searched old newspaper reports, concluded as I have stated here and elsewhere. Then I found website and many YouTube videos by Tony Heller, who does this full time and saves me all that work. Even if you discount 30% of what he says then the evidence is overwhelming in favour of no significant anthropogenic climate change. 

 

this is how conspiracy theorists work, they get in by telling you to look at the parts of the evidence that supports their theories. If you look at all the evidence, their conspiracy looks stupid. but of course, people once committed to an act of faith refuse to look at evidence.

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There goes the ubiquitous assertion.

 

Octave, if I did a presentation like that, I'd be fired.

 

So to be clear you do not believe in the phenomena called the greenhouse effect? Again the video you are attacking is for the most part not about climate change, it is not even controversial. Perhaps you could put forward your alternate theory on  why the earth is the temeperature it is. Your criticlsm of this video centres on one statement which alerts us to an inittial simplification of the model which is then addressed. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

this is how conspiracy theorists work, they get in by telling you to look at the parts of the evidence that supports their theories. If you look at all the evidence, their conspiracy looks stupid. but of course, people once committed to an act of faith refuse to look at evidence.

 

That tactic is not limited to conspiracy theorists.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its sad, very sad to see older people, people that have led interesting and exciting lives, who have had very sharp minds fall for these conspiracies. people that have never had any exposure to climate science promoting youtube theories. pride + ignorance is a powerful force.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone remember the famous scientists forecast, and associated book - "The Jupiter Effect". No? Well, I do. I was one of the unknowing plebs sucked into the prediction, and who believed the "experts", and who spread the story far and wide.

 

To recap, two "highly respected" astrophysicists, no less, wrote a highly detailed prediction, based on their advanced, superior scientific knowledge and calculations, that a lineup of the planets in 1982 was going to result in massively increased, combined-planetary-gravitational pull, on long-suffering Planet Earth, and the result would be a massively increased number of earthquakes, culminating with a major earthquake on the San Andreas Fault, resulting in massive, life-as-we-know-it-on-Earth, destruction and desecration.

 

I became very alarmed after reading this book - because these two blokes were Cambridge graduates, specialists in every exotic facet of astroscience and quantum physics, and one was the Editor of the prestigious science magazine, Nature.

 

But 1982 came and went and the planets aligned and nothing happened.

 

Then these two "scientific experts" wrote another book, "The Jupiter Effect Reconsidered", explaining that all their calculations were wrong, but not to worry, it was just a few little errors on their behalf.

 

Is it any wonder, then, that today, I have zero faith in "scientists (exotic and far-reaching) calculations"??

 

So many of these people are just plain BS-artists, intent on making a name for themselves by showing us plebs that they're so highly educated, we should treat them as Gods. 

 

As I've stated before, I defy any scientists to produce a climatic calculation, forward-prediction result, that is deadly accurate, due to the mind-boggling amount of calculations needed, and the variables that affect weather and the climate - even more so, when those scientists are saying they can accurately predict 50 years into the future, whether the world temperature will rise 0.8° or 1.2°, or 1.5°.

 

These forward predictions fall into the range of pure speculation, and the climate-change "believers" are caught up in what is basically a climate change cult, that borders on religion.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Jupiter_Effect

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/ten-notable-apocalypses-that-obviously-didnt-happen-9126331/

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...