Greta Thunberg speech

Status
Not open for further replies.
And here it is explained just where the extremist view of climate change has come from and why it is terribly wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...-used-to-generate-climate-cough/#5a49adf14af0
 
Of course not. :) But I'm not sure this is much better:

View attachment 190577

In spite of what you heard in New York, the world is not ending.

Oh how droll. But I am a bit confused - are the headless chickens supposed to depict climate scientists or the right-wing commentators who disagree with them?

Yes yes yes - the world isn't about to end anytime soon, and humanity (and coughroaches) will endure the self-inflicted wounds of anthropomorphic climate change. We'll lose a few people along the way but probably not many/any Ozzies so who cares?

I mean we would have survived the increasing hole on the ozone layer, but for some strange reason we collectively decided that a ban on CFC was a better option than millions of premature deaths from melanomas and cataracts. We would have also survived Y2K if we had taken a wait-and-see approach (albeit the chance of major financial meltdowns was quite high), but businesses and governments invested billions rather than take that risk.

So I am perpetually puzzled as to why climate change has turned into a war between the right wing and science. The planet is a very complex machine and modelling is as complex as brain surgery, but how does this becomes a reason to trust the expertise of Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine over the thousands of climate scientists? I mean you would have to be on some kind of special spectrum to make that call.
 
I completely understand the anxiety of some who consider action on climate change a waste of time.
What if it's a hoax?
ECX9rDCUYAAP_VM.jpg
 
Australia's highest-earning Velocity Frequent Flyer credit card: Offer expires: 21 Jan 2025
- Earn 60,000 bonus Velocity Points
- Get unlimited Virgin Australia Lounge access
- Enjoy a complimentary return Virgin Australia domestic flight each year

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

Please read the link in Post 82.It is written by an acknowledged climate scientist using evidence from IPCC Scientific reports.
The doomsday scenario is totally false.
 
And here it is explained just where the extremist view of climate change has come from and why it is terribly wrong.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerp...-used-to-generate-climate-cough/#5a49adf14af0

That is completely untrue.

I quote from the author of and from within the same article you have posted and then referred to:

"I have been on the faculty of the University of Colorado since 2001, where I teach and write on a diverse range of policy and governance issues related to science, innovation, sports. I have degrees in mathematics, public policy and political science."

Roger Pielke has qualifications in mathematics, public policy and political science.
He has no qualifications in climate science or any other actual science (I have an honours degree in "political science" and I know it is not a true "science").
In fact he is about as qualified as an "expert" on climate science as I am with degrees in political science, cultural theory, psychology, linguistics, French and law.
And I am most assuredly not an "acknowledged climate scientist" nor would I claim to be one.

This is a frequently used tactic. Almost all of the scientists who are quoted as disagreeing with the scientific consensus on climate change are in fact not climate scientists but researchers in some other field.
 
So you left out a bit about Roger Pielke's academic history-
From 1971 to 1974 he worked as a research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab (EML), from 1974 to 1981 he was an associate professor at the University of Virginia (UVa), served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University (CSU) from 1981 to 2006, was deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University from 1985 to 1988, from 1999 to 2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003 to 2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October–December 2004. Since 2005, Pielke has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU. After retiring from CSU and he remains a CIRES emeritus researcher.

I think that makes him a climate scientist.
 
In post #87 you wrote:
Please read the link in Post 82.It is written by an acknowledged climate scientist using evidence from IPCC Scientific reports.
The doomsday scenario is totally false.
That was completely untrue.
He is not a climate scientist and he misrepresents the IPCC reports.
I will not be tricked into using his article as a point of departurefor a discussion of the IPCC reports
You have suggest we should read articles by "an acknowledged climate scientist".
So let's start with one of those.

For example the FATHER of the author of that article, Roger Pielke Snr, is a meterologist.
He disagrees with mainstream climate scientists, so it is worth noting that his views are held by a small minority of scientists.
However even he has stated in 2007:
"As I have summarized on the Climate Science weblog, humans activities do significantly alter the heat content of the climate system, although, based on the latest understanding, the radiative effect of CO2 has contributed, at most, only about 28% to the human-caused warming up to the present. The other 72% is still a result of human activities!

So although he might not agree that CO2 emissions have been the main contributor to global warming, he does agree that it is a product of human activities.
 
So you left out a bit about Roger Pielke's academic history-
From 1971 to 1974 he worked as a research scientist at the NOAA Experimental Meteorology Lab (EML), from 1974 to 1981 he was an associate professor at the University of Virginia (UVa), served the primary academic position of his career as a professor at Colorado State University (CSU) from 1981 to 2006, was deputy of Cooperative Institute for Research in the Atmosphere (CIRA) at Colorado State University from 1985 to 1988, from 1999 to 2006 was Colorado State Climatologist, at Duke University was a research professor from 2003 to 2006, and was a visiting professor at the University of Arizona from October–December 2004. Since 2005, Pielke has served as Senior Research Scientist at the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at CU-Boulder and an emeritus professor of the Department of Atmospheric Science at CSU. After retiring from CSU and he remains a CIRES emeritus researcher.

I think that makes him a climate scientist.

No, that is Roger Pielke SENIOR.
He is the FATHER of the author of that article.
 
So I am perpetually puzzled as to why climate change has turned into a war between the right wing and science. The planet is a very complex machine and modelling is as complex as brain surgery, but how does this becomes a reason to trust the expertise of Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Miranda Devine over the thousands of climate scientists? I mean you would have to be on some kind of special spectrum to make that call.

While the debate is portrayed as 'left' Vs 'right' with the perennial boogie men (and women) are trotted out as part of the argument, and name calling persists, I know the climate alarmists have little more than rhetoric to offer.

I, who marched in the 'No Dams' campaign 40 years ago, who developed a renewable energy company about 15 years ago and put tens of thousands of dollars of my own money into it and who, as a working scientist with a couple of science degrees and who HAS studied the earth's recent history and the effects of climate changes over the past 50,000 years, have no doubt that the climate is still changing. :oops: Surprised? But I reckon you would fault me on my extreme view of climate change - that its a natural phenomenon, and has been occurring for as long as we've had a solid, plate tectonic regime (abt 4 billion yrs). Ice ages anyone? Many of them, come and go, come and go, even in very recent times. Is pollution contributing to changes in the climate? Probably. But until they can untangle the natural effects - such as that which created the ice-ages and their decline - and the man-made effects, I won't be signing up to the eco-catastophists solutions.

There, I said it. I'm a climate extremist. And 'right wing' (in your parlance, I guess). :eek: Go figure.
 
Last edited:
I have solar panels but it’s deployment is purely financial. Does this makes me a climate activist?

I don’t think Tim Flannery is a climate scientist either - mainly a geologist, and palaeontologist. Also into mammalian evolution. But climate scientist - nope. As are a lot of the IPCC “scientists”
 
I don’t think Tim Flannery is a climate scientist either - mainly a geologist, and palaeontologist. Also into mammalian evolution. But climate scientist - nope. As are a lot of the IPCC “scientist”

Ha ha. Funny you should mention him. Just the other day, on ABC's 'The Conversation' #, he happily described himself as a 'climate activist'.

This simple fact forces me to look back on my 20 years of climate activism as a colossal failure.

He also has a nice line in water front property - seal level rise be damned!

# The so-called 'Conversation' has, notoriously, just announced that there will be no conversation with those who don't agree with them on 'Climate Change'.
 
It’s taken on the dogma of religion

Oh, it did that long ago. There are the High Priests - Al Gore was an early one, Tim Flannery was a minor local one, Greta has recently been elevated to the High Circle.

But now its taking on the characteristics of a cult. NO dissension allowed (on 'Our ABC'), 'disappearing' of those who do (from Universities), denunciations of non-believers (check up-thread).

But, luckily you can buy 'indulgences' (now called Carbon Offsets), so you can continue to live your life in style while continuing to have a massive carbon footprint. Only the Little People (the Third World) really have to suffer. Enjoy!
 
Sad that you cannot understand the science produced by the IPCC-and I mean the science not the reports after the NGOs have put in their changes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Become an AFF member!

Join Australian Frequent Flyer (AFF) for free and unlock insider tips, exclusive deals, and global meetups with 65,000+ frequent flyers.

AFF members can also access our Frequent Flyer Training courses, and upgrade to Fast-track your way to expert traveller status and unlock even more exclusive discounts!

AFF forum abbreviations

Wondering about Y, J or any of the other abbreviations used on our forum?

Check out our guide to common AFF acronyms & abbreviations.

Recent Posts

Back
Top