Funny you should ask. Science recently ran a special on the impacts. Attached is the editorial and some of the articles. I'd say that the impacts are likely to be complex.
Climate Change
- Thread starter Bigblu
- Start date
Funny you should ask. Science recently ran a special on the impacts. Attached is the editorial and some of the articles. I'd say that the impacts are likely to be complex.
Who me?
You mustn't have read any of my rants.
I'm furious that we are even thinking about all that shoit.
I'm furious that the Gubb wants to waste billions on something that will not change the world's temp one iota.
Attached is an article summarizing the evidence for a link between human activities and climate change impacts. There are several others in the references.
As long as you are furious with both parties it's all good.
What is ridiculous is those that don't believe in climate change complaining about the Carbon Tax but thinking that the coalition policy, which will end up costing a similar amount, is fine and dandy.
I don't ever think the Coalition is fine and dandy per se.
And, I don't think the Coalition's policies on "Climate Change" or whatever BS they dream up about that or GW is any good.
I'd love to see TA say; "Look; the whole CC and GW idea is a load of BS and we will not ever be part of anything about it. Our goal is to make the Country economy the best in the world, and cull all the bludgers while we're at it".
Wouldn't win votes.
In my book; all pollies are basically not too useful, rort the public, lie, cheat, never answer questions honestly and forthrightly, are egomaniacs in many cases, never have done a serious days' work in their lives after school and Uni, and do whatever it takes to stay in power.
Present company excluded, Dazz.
But, we have to pick a side.
For me - as a capitalist pig who wants to reward effort and being self sufficient in the community, the best of the worst options is Libs.
Summarise Climate Change for me in two sentences.
I'd love to see how the pattern is decided that there is any, and that we caused it.
Keep in mind, I've been on the planet for many summers and winters, and have seen the lot.
No snow/too much snow/too little rain/too much rain/too cold/too hot/no wind/too windy/too many typhoons/none/stop me.
Even Julie Bishop - wouldn't trust her, and not keen on her one bit.
God help us if she becomes the next Julia.
It doesnt exist, therefore carbon tax is pointless.
What doesn't exist? The coalition policy?
The coalition has a policy on climate change which does not include the carbon tax.
But people here seem to be ignoring this. Do they know something we don't?
So the coalition policy on direct action on climate change is pointless as well?
My statement was made after talking with people who are back from trips and extended working holidays etc.
Those on holidays said they rarely saw anything on TV about it, which may be fair as political statements are going to get more airtime than dry old scientific facts.
People who are expats visiting home or returning from extended stays OS have commented that they were surprised at the amount of air time on the news about CC here in OZ.
This was when Labor was in power with their policy of being on the nightly news every day in force, that may change now.
In a word...Yes.
Why the arbitrary word limit? Do you have a short attention span?
I'm not too sure what the motivation of your question is. Do you want me to summarize the evidence contained within the ~120000 peer-reviewed papers on Science Direct that come up for climate change? There's plenty of evidence that has been summarized numerous times before. Is climate change the only scientific theory that you have a problem with?
Is it that you don't understand the science and therefore you are unable to accept it? Is that usually how you approach complex information? Or having seen a few summers and winters you think you understand global weather patterns better than the entire effort of climate science? That?s pretty arrogant.
"One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we"ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back."
― Carl Sagan
Last edited:
I have no doubt it exists.
It's just a case of it being a naturally occurring phenomenon that has occurred for eons and all mankind is doing is speeding up the next warming/cooling cycle.
We can't stop it.
Mankind will adapt. That's why we've been around for a long time.
All the evidence suggest the changes to the climate are not natural. We can't reconcile the changes in temperature to sun spots, volcanic activity and other natural phenomena etc. The mathematics just don't add up.
The climate has changed in the past. Those changes operated in different climate systems. What we are concerned about is how those changes will impact the current system. Some of those articles from Science I posted earlier speculate on some of those impacts (food security, conflict, infectious diseases etc). Sure we will survive it. I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I suspect that the next 100 years will probably be as interesting as the last (depression, WW1, WW2 cold war etc). But why not try to avoid some of it?
So,,,?? You've sold the car, stopped eating meat, stopped going overseas, downsized the house, had a vasectomy? What's someone do to save the planet? I'm truly interested.
[I've done the last one by the way. Just doing my bit].
See ya's.
Reductio ad absurdum (Latin: "reduction to absurdity"), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin: argument to absurdity), is a common form of argument which seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its denial,[1] or in turn to demonstrate that a statement is false by showing that a false, untenable, or absurd result follows from its acceptance.
Not appreciated.
