NSW fires

His post doesn't make any sense at all because it contradicts very basic expert findings. Some easy fact-checking. I'll defer to Peter Hadfield, a former geologist and science writer to explain why (and all his information is based on peer reviewed scientific papers that he reads).

We know that CO2 makes up 0.3% of the earth's atmosphere. So even if CO2 triples, it won't even make up 1% of atmospheric gasses.

Video 1
Refer to 15:08 into this video for the myth that our contribution is meaningless and why it's so significant over time.


Not claiming to know, just saying that we are miles away from understanding this. And what the media and our politicians choose to take seriously has serious holes in it.

Refer to the Climate Models vs Reality video in my previous post. Look at all the things they got correct (and when climatology wasn't as advanced as it is now). Not Peter Hadfield but still good.

The most telling thing that humans are not causing climate change is that the evidence is that the temperature changes before changes in C02 levels, not after. This is an important point. So it is entirely feasible, that changes in temperature are causing change in CO2, and not the other way around.

Total myth. Refer 10:38 and then the next myth 11:45 into video 1- CO2 always leads/lags temperature.

Which means climate change is caused by something other than humans and definitely not CO2. Probably change in sun intensity, or change in the earth's axis.

Refer 7.35 into video 1- that it might be the sun.

Not claiming to know, just saying that we are miles away from understanding this.

No were are not miles away from understanding it because we already do. We know the 3 main causes are 1) Solar Irradiance 2) CO2 3) Aerosols. I've these 2) is by far the most influential.
Refer 2.00 in video 1.

We also know that the last 15 years of the last century were hotter than the first 15 years of this century. So even if we are zig zagging our way into a very different climate, it is still going to take billions of years.

Hmmmmm! (Graph courtesy of NASA Godard Institute of Space Studies)
Global temperature record - Wikipedia

When the science teams from Japan and Finland released their reports in July 2019 stating that the evidence showed zero contribution of climate change from humans, Twitter banned the re-sharing of these findings.

Sounds very suspect to me. Internet is full of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories and this sounds like one more. I'll leave it up to John to provide us with a link so we can substantiate it considering he's been wrong on everything he's posted here.

And what the media and our politicians choose to take seriously has serious holes in it.
Actually, a little concession, he's right on this one

Note: I still love to read and learn a thing or two from his economic/property posts.

 

Because he is 100% wrong. Making sense does not mean one is right. The facts prove who is right. Try reading scientific journals on the facts and not media reports. Then you will determine there is a right and a wrong and no middle ground. It is not an art or a competition or a debate. It is a peer reviewed scientific fact that was determined by scientists in the 1970s. If anyone really had an alternate point of view they would lodge a paper to be peer reviewed to get the international acclaim that comes with discovering a new scientific fact.

 

Thank you for the response and video @George Smiley - compelling and have to say I’m converted after that video. Into the rabbit hole I go

 

No worries mate! I didn't think we'd 'convert' anybody in this thread so this is a pleasant surprise.

Peter Hadfield is great by the way, he makes scientifically accurate videos accessible and understandable to amateurs like myself.
Here's a few other recommendations if you're interested (just youtube search Potholer54 + the below titles)

Climate Change- Meet the Scientists (this one is on the scientists who oppose climate change)

Science vs. the Feelies (very funny)

Climate Change-The Scientific Debate

Climate Change- the Objections

 

Unfortunately there are no shortage of people that want 100% irrefutable evidence that the planet is warming up and will not settle for anything else.
Its a bit like having an argument with a heavy smoker that wont believe that smoking will kill him.
By the time he has the 100% evidence he was looking for , he has terminal cancer, and this is a disease where we have had millions and millions of dying and dead people to study.
Unfortunately we dont have the same option with where we live.

 

Scientists are not in the game of consensus commentary, the study of science is never settled. The 97 percent figure has been proven time after time to be a bogus figure. Scientist Patrick Moore (Co-founder of Greenpeace) does not agree with the climate change narrative and Earth Scientist Ian Plimer doesn't either. There are lots of solar physicists that don't like the theory as well, because long term modelling and accurate data entry is questionable.
The other aspect of the debate that continues to be telling is:
1.CO 2 is a trace element, it comprises less than 1/2 a percent of the whole earths atmosphere.
2. Out of that half a percent, 97 percent is naturally occurring and only 3 percent is human caused
3. Australia only accounts for just over 1 percent of the 3 percent of the 0.5 percent of total CO2
Its interesting to note that we seem to be ignoring the naturally occurring 97 percent, including things such as solar radiation cycles, the sunspots, the tilt, wobble and orbit trajectory of the earth. the cloud cover, the ocean temperatures and tectonic movement of land masses, volcanic activity, the drought/flood cycle. Remember the wet/dry cycle we used to talk but now hide from ( La Nina and El Nina) The Volcano eruption is New Zealand would erupting will produce more CO2 than a Lake Munmorah Power Station.
The difficulty of dealing with this topic is that most of the science is heavily mixed in with politics. For example, lets say if private enterprise decided to offer Australian individuals access to solar and wind power in their homes and everyone took up the offer it still wouldn't satisfy the activists because these people want a systemic global change and action that involves nations giving up their sovereignty to a World Government. If you think this is just a conspiracy theory do a you tube search on "2018 World Government Summit - AI Intelligence", and then, choose your side very carefully.

 

Serveman did you watch this video? i thought you had some good points (I literally know nothing, but I admit it) until I watched the video and realised how silly and uneducated the 97% argument is. - It’s actually one of the simplest parts to explain really, we all understand compound interest? It’s basically what is happening with C02, the climate looks after its own levels of emissions, and we just keep
Adding our % each and every year.

Worth a watch

 

George, there are heaps of scientists within NASA and CSIRO who disagree with the reported statements, but can't come out in fear of the consequences. Climate Scientists and many Solar Physicists disagree with many things. Patrick Moore an expert scientist (Co-founder of green peace) who was never a conservative, left green peace because it evolved into an organisation of extremism and politically motivated agendas, and I believe this is happening now.
I personally do not have a problem with individual businesses promoting renewable energy sources that clean up pollution, that the market place can access, but don't believe in mass economic upheaval that the activists are promoting.

 

I will watch it, cheers.

 

Wow, you didn’t read a single word that anyone said. How do you post in a forum without reading that everyone had already negated the points provided to you by Those wonderful folk at Murdoch and co. I think your post wins the internet. Why bother reading that everyone had already disproved your points when you can just repost the same post again.

well thanks for proving what we have been saying all along.

no amount of hard evidence and fact will convince someone who doesn’t want to learn anything new!

 

No, I have read and watched all sides of the debate here, and perfectly aware of bias that does occur in Murdoch press, but also occurs in the ABC, CNN, Guardian, Herald/Age, and I have also been involved in universities so I know how politically biased that environment is. I have listened to scientists on both sides of the debate as well and I guess we are all entitled to our views. I think its worth looking at what B. Lomborg and even Jordan Peterson also have to say, these guys have great minds. Lomborg agrees with AGW but presents his case with regard to the other side of climate change, that is , how the world acts to correct it, and I do think that this is just as important to consider when you base your thoughts.

 

Is that a Ford Capri in your avatar, looks nice.

 

Your as knowledgeable on cars as everything else.

 

Its hard to tell, from the front it looks like a Cortina or Capri but could also be a Maserati Shamal or Ferrari Longchamp 400

 

There is no debate on climate science. It’s a fact. The debate is why are gullible people conned into believing you can debate facts. Is it worth debating gravity or any other proven science. I have never seen any scientific peer reviewed evidence that contradicts Climate science. Would you like to find some? Should be easy to google you would think? But there isn’t any alternative scientific paper because like maths and gravity the science is in. Plenty of fake news stories, plenty of press releases but no peer reviewed papers.
So it’s science vs bs. It’s very easy to take a side.
The only debatable point is the solution.

 

No such thing as a Ferrari Longchamp,

 

de Tomaso Longchamp is what I meant? Yes

 

I remember watching this one before, thanks for posting it.

 

I don't agree with this. Do a you tube search on the scientist Freemon Dyson. He is 96 years old and hung with Albert Einstein and a genius. I like the common sense approach that he takes. He is not gullible or connected to a political party or movement and he is not afraid to say what he thinks because he is retired so they can't sack him. To suggest that there is no debate to climate science is questionable. He was vilified off course by the mob, but that's the best way to be. It's like successful property investors, a few make it to the top and usually it's the contrarians that make the most because they don't follow the Heard off the cliff.

 

Well it's not quite correct because politics is involved in all facets of life and people can cherry pick what they wish to peer review and accept or reject so, no.