Politics Climate Change Paradox (cont in part 2)

[Snake_Baker]

I'm just saying you can't call bullshit on the politicalisation of the issue when you constantly post clearly politicised statements from politicians and thinly-disguised political organisations (sky news is essentially the propaganda arm of the IPA). You're becoming the very thing you rail against.

Yes I can, if the comment is balanced.

The fact that certain origins are political is designed to provide a counterpoint to politically driven hysteria. If you want to claim that I am an across the board supporter of these examples then you would be 100% incorrect. This is only with regard to the climate nuttiness, and I am personally grateful that's there's public officials out there that aren't children, or attempt to treat the electorate as children.

 

[Clems Knee]

Blame decades of fossil fuel money for that.

Problem I have is that people here are treating this as a political debate.

It’s not a political debate. It is an event that is happening that can be understood using observable data and tested models. It happens whether you believe it or not, whether you want to be alarmed or not, whether it affects your business model or not.

Science is the best process to understand climate change and to promote solutions. Not dialectics, politics or faith. Science needs a healthy dose of skepticism, but also needs people with the ability to accept the data that are staring them in the face.

On here you get deniers dragged kicking and screaming to reach any conclusion that human activity is changing our planet on an unprecedented scale. They use ad hominem attacks, obfuscation, strawmen arguments, whataboutism and red herrings in their arguments when in all likelihood they are approaching this like a footy supporter: they’ve chosen their side and will continue to support that side no matter what. The science is clear.

 

[Father Jack]

Yes I can, if the comment is balanced.

The fact that certain origins are political is designed to provide a counterpoint to politically driven hysteria. If you want to claim that I am an across the board sup[porter of these examples then you would be 100% incorrect. This is only with regard to the climate nuttiness.

Well, whether or not the comments are balanced is very much up for debate. The source, however, explicitly makes them political and means you have nailed your colours to an ideological mast, regardless of you protestations. It's not like your sources have any basis for scientific credibility.

 

[Clems Knee]

NASA claims that humans trigger most wildfires in the U.S., whilst here on the other side of the planet it's that pesky CO2 (despite the fact that they annually emit 6 trillion tonnes more than us )

People Cause Most U.S. Wildfires

Researchers also found that human-ignited fires tripled the length of the wildfire season.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

The article you are quoting states that human light fires more than lightning does. It’s not comparing human activity to carbon dioxide emissions as a cause.

Your conclusion shows that you are either being ingenuous or you can’t read.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Well, whether or not the comments are balanced is very much up for debate. The source, however, explicitly makes them political and means you have nailed your colours to an ideological mast, regardless of you protestations. It's not like your sources have any basis for scientific credibility.

Look, view it however you need in order to fit in with your model of the world. Assign me with whatever you require, just don't expect me to play along.

 

[romeohwho]

I hate to break it to you but this is all a pointless exercise in feeling good about yourself.

Tell the lads how much global CO2 has reduced as a result of your lifestyle changes. If it's a climate emergency why are you not being 'Mother Theresa' about it?

Wow, talk about mean-spirited. Of course these lifestyle changes make a difference and if lots of people do these things it does add up. It’s pretty basic stuff that everyone should be doing as a matter of course, by the way. I‘d rather be contributing to being part of the solution than taking the cop out option of ‘but pointless’, ‘but natural disasters’, or ‘but China’ ( who incidentally are making improvements). According to your argument, then why vote? Why pay taxes? It’s spurious thinking. The climate deniers enjoy taking this stance but that doesn’t excuse their failure to take action. And yep, they should feel bad about themselves. ( and go figure-that’s an emotion most of us would prefer to avoid).
You can just get your popcorn and put your feet up and watch.

 

[Snake_Baker]

The article you are quoting states that human light fires more than lightning does. It’s not comparing human activity to carbon dioxide emissions as a cause.

Your conclusion shows that you are either being ingenuous or you can’t read.

People cause most wildfires.

My literacy is fine.

 

[Father Jack]

Look, view it however you need in order to fit in with your model of the world. Assign me with whatever you require, just don't expect me to play along.

Haha, I'm not the one pretending to paragon of moderateness, so don't get snippy when your blatant hypocrisy gets pointed out to you.

 

[Clems Knee]

You're not familiar with the "Maunder Minimum"?

Tell me about the Maunder Minimum. Are you linking sunspot activity to a cold snap in England? The minimum that occurred 50 years after the beginning of the Little Ice Age?

People cause most wildfires.

My literacy is fine.

So you are being dishonest. Thanks for clearing that up.
“People cause wildfires” is true whether you are talking about deliberate or accidental lighting of fires or you are talking about human activity increasing carbon dioxide.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Tell me about the Maunder Minimum. Are you linking sunspot activity to a cold snap in England? The minimum that occurred 50 years after the beginning of the Little Ice Age?

Check it out for yourself.

So you are being dishonest.

I don't care what you think..

 

[Snake_Baker]

Haha, I'm not the one pretending to paragon of moderateness, so don't get snippy when your blatant hypocrisy gets pointed out to you.

Got me snugly placed in your convenient little view of the world? Everything should make sense to you now.

Congratulations.

 

[Clems Knee]

By the way, I want another choice in the poll.
How about “It’s too late, we’re all toast”.

Check it out for yourself.




I don't care what you think..

I did. You are throwing out shit arguments that on any inspection turn out to be pathetic distractions.
Did you use to argue about the bombardier beetle when you denied that evolution had occurred as well?

Ah, a thought terminating cliche. There’s another fallacy of argument.

 

[Snake_Baker]

By the way, I want another choice in the poll.
How about “It’s too late, we’re all toast”.


I did. You are throwing out shit arguments that on any inspection turn out to be pathetic distractions.
Did you use to argue about the bombardier beetle when you denied that evolution had occurred as well?

Ah, a thought terminating cliche. There’s another fallacy of argument.

Superiority achieved.

Now leg it.

 

[Bigfootyfan27]

Interesting that Climate change is viewed solely as the province of the SRP board.

I would have thought it would be better discussed on the Science board, rather than be used as a political football by those with entrenched positions.

It is a political topic as there is no science behind climate change! Most of the fires have been lit by arsonists and bush land neglected by criminal council and protesters it’s a political matter

 

[Deliverance]

Try googling Nir Shaviv.

I can't find anything where he suggests were heading in to a cooling phase.

 

[Deliverance]

It is a political topic as there is no science behind climate change! Most of the fires have been lit by arsonists and bush land neglected by criminal council and protesters it’s a political matter

Mate, do some reading. Even butterflies figured out climate change is real. I'm sure you can as well. We need solutions. Not distractions.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I can't find anything where he suggests were heading in to a cooling phase.

Context man. You need context.

 

[Deliverance]

Context man. You need context.

It was in context of the conversation in this thread. Follow it back if interested.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Okay, but you still need context.

Relative to the current trend, then a Maunder minimum could very well be a "cooling" event, but in comparison to a 280ppm CO2 atmosphere/Maunder minimum, then it won't.

 

[Hawk_francais]

It's already 2020.

No kidding! The article from 2006 says our extreme fire risk days could extend by 65% by 2020 and 300% by 2050. So why not listen to this warning and demand that the government reform our energy sector?

 

[Fadge]

No kidding! The article from 2006 says our extreme fire risk days could extend by 65% by 2020 and 300% by 2050. So why not listen to this warning and demand that the government reform our energy sector?

Alarmist, again.

The same article also said it could increase by 5% by 2020 and 10% by 2050.

 

[Snake_Baker]

It almost seems like a century ago when they wheeled out this old chestnut.

You would reckon it never happened.

 

[Deliverance]

What proof of that can you provide?

Plenty of supplementary reading in the references also.

 

[Deliverance]

Haha, Tim Flannerys climate council.,fail.

Didn't get to the research referenced then?

 

[Snake_Baker]

Didn't get to the research referenced then?

Try to stay away from overtly political data. Do your homework on the people that present the data.