Has Climate Change "reporting" reached "End Game'?

[RooFlyer]

Juddles, I think this is what you are talking about, right? (from The Age and ABC), screen shots, although I didn't actually click on links (nor do I want to promulgate by sharing the links).

Yeah. That 'study' was "sponsored by the Australian Conservation Foundation". Go figure . If a study promoting the use of cars was sponsored by General Motors, the ABC would go into apoplexy. But this is OK, of course. Your taxes at work.

Personally I don't mind that sort of stuff, as I think it will go red on the BS meter for the 'average mum and dad' and just discredit the whole Global Warming catastophist scare thing.

 

[Pushka]

I think the comment today about having to change the Boxing Day Test match made the discussion seem totally outlandish. And no thought that even if it had a shred of credibility, why only the Boxing Day Test? And the commentator then said that the recent Big Bash match in Canberra had to be cancelled because of smoke was given as a good example of climate change impacting cricket. Yet an example of the heat waves of the 1880s are completely dismissed as being relevant. Want the cake and eat it too it seems.
if the activists want people to take the impact of climate change more seriously then for people like me there has to be relevant discussion because these outlandish predictions are just making me more likely to dismiss it when I know we can’t.

 

[get me outta here]

A bit of an exaggeration to say someone is deliberately cruel and violent because they say ‘denier’. May be a bit of over egging when you call them “vicious”. It’s just silly. Why can’t we all just have a view and accept others may have a different view. Just let it go else people may think there is an element of obsession.

Your piece is well argued, but flawed I think in the quote. For many of us, it’s not that the climate isn’t changing ( which should rob those who throw the vicious insult of ‘deniers’ ) but that it’s always changing, at various rates and to various extremes. The paucity of data for past extreme occurrences ( other than they existed, such as recent ice ages) to me makes it hard to sustain the argument that is currently all man’s fault and we have to nigh-on destroy our economy to ‘fix’ it.

Most of the quoted ’science’ is on a tiny fraction of the earth’s history, measured to hundredths of degrees. yet for events in the very recent past, they can’t agree on the timing of multi-degree variations, except that somehow they occurred.

The fact that we were first attempted to be bullied into believing that the ‘science is settled’ ( when it was demonstrably not, and rarely ever is) also led me to believe that many of the more strident in the global warming camp are merely charlatans.

 

[RooFlyer]

A bit of an exaggeration to say someone is deliberately cruel and violent because they say ‘denier’. May be a bit of over egging when you call them “vicious”. It’s just silly. Why can’t we all just have a view and accept others may have a different view. Just let it go else people may think there is an element of obsession.

I said nothing about anyone being 'cruel and violent'. Can you please explain why you introduced that? Thanks.

I expressed an opinion about being called a 'climate denier' as being a 'vicious insult'. I hope that's OK. The term 'climate denier' was coined to portray those the subject of the insult (usually people who criticise/find fault with the climate catastrophist mantra) as equivalent to those who deny the holocaust happened. That is 'you are a dreadful, awful person, devoid of human decency ...'.

What do YOU think of people who deny the holocaust happened? There are some of on this forum who think I am of the same ilk. Do you criticise them as much as you seem to find fault with my post?

I totally agree that we should be able to "accept others may have a different view". I'm sorry that anyone who objects to being equated to a holocaust denier is seen to have a an 'element of obsession'. Maybe I'm just sensitive I hope you don't mind.

Let us know where 'cruel and violent' came from and we'll all be better informed.

 

[get me outta here]

“.... it’s not that the climate isn’t changing ( which should rob those who throw the vicious insult of ‘deniers’ )....”

The definition of vicious is as stated, it means cruel and violent deliberately. It’s just unnecessary language.

I said nothing about anyone being 'cruel and violent'. Can you please explain why you introduced that? Thanks.

I expressed an opinion about being called a 'climate denier' as being a 'vicious insult'. I hope that's OK. The term 'climate denier' was coined to portray those the subject of the insult (usually people who criticise/find fault with the climate catastrophist mantra) as equivalent to those who deny the holocaust happened. That is 'you are a dreadful, awful person, devoid of human decency ...'.

What do YOU think of people who deny the holocaust happened? There are some of on this forum who think I am of the same ilk. Do you criticise them as much as you seem to find fault with my post?

I totally agree that we should be able to "accept others may have a different view". I'm sorry that anyone who objects to being equated to a holocaust denier is seen to have a an 'element of obsession'. Maybe I'm just sensitive I hope you don't mind.

Let us know where 'cruel and violent' came from and we'll all be better informed.

 

[amaroo]

I object to the traffic disruption caused by these unemployed bludgers.

 

[RooFlyer]

“.... it’s not that the climate isn’t changing ( which should rob those who throw the vicious insult of ‘deniers’ )....”

The definition of vicious is as stated, it means cruel and violent deliberately. It’s just unnecessary language.

Yeah. Complete cop out.

This is personal - not abstract. Its a deliberate, vicious insult, aimed to wound and denigrate. Frankly, too bad if anyone don't like that characterisation. It would be nice if the insults were nay-sayed here as well as the objection to them.

 

[get me outta here]

Ok, forget civility, back to vacuous accusations, extreme language and obfuscations. What a good idea, very productive in getting understanding.

Yeah. Complete cop out.

This is personal - not abstract. Its a deliberate, vicious insult, aimed to wound and denigrate. Frankly, too bad if anyone don't like that characterisation. It would be nice if the insults were nay-sayed here as well as the objection to them.

 

[RooFlyer]

Ok, forget civility, back to vacuous accusations, extreme language and obfuscations. What a good idea, very productive in getting understanding.

As I said ...

It would be nice if the insults were nay-sayed here as well as the objection to them.

As some-one once said "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

 

[get me outta here]

I don’t condone the language at all so don’t accuse me of walking past something.

As I said ...



As some-one once said "The standard you walk past is the standard you accept."

 

[OATEK]

A bit of an exaggeration to say someone is deliberately cruel and violent because they say ‘denier’. May be a bit of over egging when you call them “vicious”. It’s just silly. Why can’t we all just have a view and accept others may have a different view. Just let it go else people may think there is an element of obsession.

MrsOatek had distant relatives murdered in the holocaust - for us "denier" has a very specific meaning. To use it in a frivolous way because people who acknowledge climate change wish to argue causes, effects and action, is deeply hurtful. It is funny how people will refuse to use happy "Christmas" and substitute it with "holidays" because they want to be inclusive are happy for "denier" to be thrown around willy nilly.

 

[juddles]

I think the first step that needs to be taken is for all and sundry to admit that their views have become a quasi-religion.

Is that likely to occur? Of course not...

I suspect that for many involved in this (temporary) debate, it often comes down to a different thing. It is not, IMHO in many cases, a simple thing of believer versus denier. One half believe that burning carbon is doing bad things. So they espouse that we should stop instantly burning carbon. The other half see the impact on societies and general human well being that suddenly stopping burning carbon will cause.

As I have said many times from my own view, my problem with the clash of ideas is not about disputing facts. My focus is on the underlying science, which in my personal belief became very very bad "science" many years ago. People are just people, and even scientists are such. They know where the butter for their bread comes from lately....

And regarding terms such as "denier", this to me just shows how deeply embedded is this new quasi-religion. I am in complete agreement with some other posters that the labels used by the proponents of the Climate Change religion are being obscene.

It is a perfect storm. An era of youth that love the anti-establishment "fight". Kids who have the benefit of not being poor or having to work. Adults who have lacked an outlet for their religious fervor. Something to be really passionate about. And a "science" industry that beggars belief in the amount of coin it attracts, if carefully aligned with media needs to sell emotion....

Some simple questions or data that are involved in this debate are things like "how much will the temperature rise". "Is an end goal of stopping any climate change actually desirable or needed", "how much will the ocean actually rise", "will a sudden curtailing in the use of energy save X people but harm Y people" etc etc.

I have never ever met a person who "fights" for the Climate Change religion to have even a near clue as to any of these.

Dear old (young) Greta Thunberg is the current messiah. I think she is a unique and admirable person in many ways, but I fear (as any parent would) for her personal wellbeing in such limelight. The last Messiah was nailed to a tree...

But perhaps those who so so unquestioningly have become devout Climate Change warriors, perhaps I would like to see them follow that new leader. Next time you want to go to Bali or New York, do it on a boat.

I suddenly see the room clearing......

 

[drron]

Juddles this article puts a few things into perspective.

"For example, the British nature-documentary presenter and environmental campaigner David Attenborough was once asked what he as an individual would do to fight climate change. He promised to unplug his phone charger when it was not in use.Attenborough’s heart is no doubt in the right place. But even if he consistently unplugs his charger for a year, the resulting reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions will be equivalent to less than one-half of one-thousandth of the average person’s annual CO2 emissions in the United Kingdom. Moreover, charging accounts for less than 1% of a phone’s energy needs; the other 99% is required to manufacture the handset and operate data centers and cell towers. Almost everywhere, these processes are heavily reliant on fossil fuels. "

Empty Gestures on Climate Change | by Bjørn Lomborg - Project Syndicate

Bjørn Lomborg says environmental activists who urge people to change their daily behavior trivialize the challenge of global warming.

www.project-syndicate.org

Now Lomborg I know is on the nose with many climate warriors even though he fully agrees with the warming theories.His point of difference is the economic results of methods of reducing carbon emissions.100% renewables is not the way to go.

 

[tgh]

I suspect Drrons attempts at rational discussion will be drowned in a sea of cast nasturtiums….

 

[Pushka]

It seems also that the debate has centered around carbon. Yet I look around me in lil ole Adelaide where the temperature variation between city and non city is significant regardless of any other weather influencer (altitude etc). Of course we are warming the weather simply because the concrete in the city is acting like a heat pump and the more we concrete the worse it gets. And we now have two different temperature readings because the BOM moved locations a few years ago - from parklands to middle of the city. We can see both and there is a consistent 2-3 degree increase in the one on the city. Guess what, it’s the middle of the city that is now used as the temperature control for Adelaide. Even on this micro level that is enough to ‘confirm’ Adelaide has warmed and it has diddly squat to do with carbon.

It’s unfortunate that if you disagree with the causation of climate change but still acknowledge that weather patterns are shifting that you are called a denier and dismissed. I don’t deny weather is changing, that may result in climate change, but the carbon theory is as you say, the religion. I guess if the activitists make the causes too widespread its too hard for them to get the attention and funding. Complexity is reduced to simplicity. And that’s wrong.

 

[drron]

You are right Pushka.Yet the BOM adds to current raw temperature readings to compensate for this Urban Heat Island effect such as this.
.

So The readings are adjusted higher to compensate for the cooling breeze coming from a jet exhaust.Makes sense doesn't it.

 

[get me outta here]

Interesting observation, looking back over just these three pages there are very few people who have a difference of opinion, I do see some people who perhaps aren’t so sure that they have all the answers. It’s just basically the same people talking to each other as usual. Very few flowers being cast.

I suspect Drrons attempts at rational discussion will be drowned in a sea of cast nasturtiums….

 

[Pushka]

Interesting observation, looking back over just these three pages there are very few people who have a difference of opinion, I do see some people who perhaps aren’t so sure that they have all the answers. It’s just basically the same people talking to each other as usual. Very few flowers being cast.

Not sure the meaning of the last sentence. Oh, ok it’s a reference to nasturtiums. I think they are regarded as a pest in some states? Nevertheless, if there was to be any other answer other than reduce carbon then I’d listen. But that seems to be the only voice that gets heard and in no way does carbon reduction provide any satisfactory cause of weather disruption and subsequent climate change. It is much more complex than that. Seems to be an easy target though.

An interesting observation came to me the other day was that younger members of our family are quite vocal in criticising us, parents and aunties etc, of the waste we produce. And I’d agree and much of that is a result of excessive packaging that I also loathe. The Christmas table they prepared was of vegetation etc and no plastic etc and very little meat, mostly vegetables. And very proud of the low environmental impact. However the same person who created that table flies interstate monthly and overseas up to five times a year without a thought of environmental impact. That is the mixed-message behaviour I struggle with.

 

[get me outta here]

Yes, I agree it is a conundrum. Nobody can just stop their life as they know it. I suppose trying to spread the word to use less plastic is a good start. Pretty much everything starts with a single step or some sort of platitude like that, and that sort of philosophy is the basis for bringing up and teaching children, but that’s a different subject. Anyho, it will be the young ones who will decide changes and embrace different ways of doing things.

Not sure the meaning of the last sentence. Oh, ok it’s a reference to nasturtiums. I think they are regarded as a pest in some states? Nevertheless, if there was to be any other answer other than reduce carbon then I’d listen. But that seems to be the only voice that gets heard and in no way does carbon reduction provide any satisfactory cause of weather disruption and subsequent climate change. It is much more complex than that. Seems to be an easy target though.

An interesting observation came to me the other day was that younger members of our family are quite vocal in criticising us, parents and aunties etc, of the waste we produce. And I’d agree and much of that is a result of excessive packaging that I also loathe. The Christmas table they prepared was of vegetation etc and no plastic etc and very little meat, mostly vegetables. And very proud of the low environmental impact. However the same person who created that table flies interstate monthly and overseas up to five times a year without a thought of environmental impact. That is the mixed-message behaviour I struggle with.

 

[drron]

Though what happens if they reach the age of having power and the world is colder.The last 2 winters in the Northern hemisphere were much colder than average and this one looks on track to be even colder with thousands of cold records having already been broken.