Climate Change(d)?

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle lacks the capacity for rational debate.

He claims glaciers are not disappearing. It must be a massive conspiracy of universities, media, and government agencies.

Of course, wildfires are mostly human caused, but there have always been wildfires. Lightning strikes. So what is the big deal about California wildfires? Why not just let Nappa burn?

To carry the analogy further. If Ca fires are the result of incompetence and mismanagement, so is rapid climate change the result of mismanagement of pollution.

 

[bilby]

Australia is starting to face up to reality.

The Coalition’s internal struggle over climate change will be on full display on Monday as the House of Representatives prepares to debate Barnaby Joyce’s private bill to dumpAustralia’s net zero target. Over the weekend, the Queensland Liberal National party convention voted to abandon Australia’s net zero targets, adding to the growing list of Liberal state divisions opposed to the emissions reduction policy, including South Australia and Western Australia.

Teh Gruaniad

I just wanted to add, you should have been aware that this is not an article about "Australia", but rather about an internal debate within the (currently rather irrelevant) Coalition, just from the very first sentence you quoted:

"The Coalition’s internal struggle..."

Joyce's oponents in this debate, led by David Littleproud, leader of the Liberal Party, are in the extraordinary position (unique in Liberal Party history) of having a policy I think is right - they want net zero, underpinned by nuclear power. That's the policy Peter Dutton took to the May election, and not only lost in a landslide, but lost his own seat too. No politician is going to want to risk a repeat of that.

The three sided "debate" has Labor and Green in favour of (the physically impossible, but popular) net zero via renewables; Liberal in favour of (the possible, but unelectable) net zero via nuclear; And the Nationals in favour of (the truly stupid) lets emit as much carbon dioxide as we like.

If this were the only issue in Australian politics, I would back the Liberals, who are unpopular, but right.

But I can't, because it's not the only issue, and the rest of their platform is fucking horrible.

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle is now using roll eyes emoji, a case of monkey see monkey do.


He never really counters anything.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Australia is starting to face up to reality.

The Coalition’s internal struggle over climate change will be on full display on Monday as the House of Representatives prepares to debate Barnaby Joyce’s private bill to dumpAustralia’s net zero target. Over the weekend, the Queensland Liberal National party convention voted to abandon Australia’s net zero targets, adding to the growing list of Liberal state divisions opposed to the emissions reduction policy, including South Australia and Western Australia.

Teh Gruaniad

I just wanted to add, you should have been aware that this is not an article about "Australia", but rather about an internal debate within the (curreny rather irrelevant) Coalition, just from the ?
very first sentence you quoted:

"The Coalition’s internal struggle..."

Joyce's oponents in this debate, led by David Littleproud, leader of the Liberal Party, are in the extraordinary position (unique in Liberal Party history) of having a policy I think is right - they want net zero, underpinned by nuclear power. That's the policy Peter Dutton took to the May election, and not only lost in a landslide, but lost his own seat too. No politician is going to want to risk a repeat of that.

The three sided "debate" has Labor and Green in favour of (the physically impossible, but popular) net zero via renewables; Liberal in favour of (the unelectable) net zero via nuclear; And the Nationals in favour of (the truly stupid) lets emit as much carbon dioxide as we like.

If this were the only issue in Australian politics, I would back the Liberals, who are unpopular, but right.

But I can't, because it's not the only issue, and the rest of their platform is fucking horrible.

That’s too many words. Much easier to just pick the couple of words from an article that support one’s position and ignore all the other nuance or context.

 

[Shadowy Man]

TSwizzle is now using roll eyes emoji, a case of monkey see monkey do.


He never really counters anything.

You aren’t just now noticing that??

 

[steve_bank]

TSwizzle lacks the capacity for rational debate.

He claims glaciers are not disappearing. It must be a massive conspiracy of universities, media, and government agencies.

Of course, wildfires are mostly human caused, but there have always been wildfires. Lightning strikes. So what is the big deal about California wildfires? Why not just let Nappa burn?

To carry the analogy further. If Ca fires are the result of incompetence and mismanagement, so is rapid climate change the result of mismanagement of pollution.

Ok TSwizzle I get your roll eyes.

Now explain why the analogy is incorrect....

 

[southernhybrid]

I told my atheist friends at our meetup this morning that we had a climate science denialist on IIDB, who referred to climate change as a rapture like cult. They were shocked and said that denying human influenced climate change sounded more like a rapture like cult to them. Just sayin' Then I told them the guy voted for Trump and they said that explains it.

Did I earn an eye roll emoji for that or just some idiotic response? Better yet, maybe the denialist will ignore this post, assuming he has the ability to do that. That would be a first.

Should I be flattered or concerned that you obsess about me?

In any event, why do you seek out attention from me on this thread? That’s all you contribute here, just post something in the hope that it attracts my attention and gets a response.

I don't obsess about you, but you are the only one in this thread who denies the truth and I find that pretty weird, concerning all of the overwhelming evidence there is to support that human activity has rapidly increased the carbon in the atmosphere, which has resulted in a rapid change in the climate. Rapid as in things changing over a hundred or so years instead of thousands of years. Can you understand that?

Other than hard core Trumpers, I've never met anyone in person who denies the human influence of climate change. Why do you even bother posting in this thread, considering your posts consist of eye rolls or calling others members of a rapture cult. When have you ever given us any scientific evidence that increased carbon in the atmosphere doesn't impact the climate. Of course, you have the right to post your nonsense, but one would think you have better things to do with your time then repeat yourself over and over again, while basically adding nothing to the discussion other than trying to insult people.

My bro in law, who is a newly retired dentist, is also a climate change denier. He also voted for Trump. He once told us that he can't accept climate change because he has grandkids. Sure, that's plenty of evidence that the science isn't correct.

TSwizzle lacks the capacity for rational debate.

He claims glaciers are not disappearing. It must be a massive conspiracy of universities, media, and government agencies.

Of course, wildfires are mostly human caused, but there have always been wildfires. Lightning strikes. So what is the big deal about California wildfires? Why not just let Nappa burn?

To carry the analogy further. If Ca fires are the result of incompetence and mismanagement, so is rapid climate change the result of mismanagement of pollution.

Ok TSwizzle I get your roll eyes.

Now explain why the analogy is incorrect....

He can't, but at least you earned another eye roll. Maybe we should have a contest to see who can get the most eye roll emojis from the denialist.

 

[TSwizzle]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

 

[TSwizzle]

I don't obsess about you,

Well you discuss me with your circle of friends, now that is weird.

but you are the only one in this thread who denies the truth

lol, have you any idea how this sounds? It sounds like the clergy of old addressing the heretics.

and I find that pretty weird, concerning all of the overwhelming evidence there is to support that human activity has rapidly increased the carbon in the atmosphere,

I have never said that is not true. Why do you make up things about me?

which has resulted in a rapid change in the climate.

Now this bit I contest. There is zero evidence to support this statement, there has been no rapid change in earth’s climate.

Rapid as in things changing over a hundred or so years instead of thousands of years. Can you understand that?

This is not true.

Other than hard core Trumpers, I've never met anyone in person who denies the human influence of climate change. Why do you even bother posting in this thread, considering your post consist of eye rolls or calling others members of a rapture cult.

Yes, I do this frequently when I see preposterous claims or stupid responses. But other times I state why wild claims are wrong.

When have you ever given us any scientific evidence that increased carbon in the atmosphere doesn't impact the climate.

But I have admitted it does, there has been an imperceptible increase in the global average temperature but overall the climate remains stable. The impact is nowhere near what is claimed.

Of course, you have the right to post your nonsense, but one would think you have better things to do with your time then repeat yourself over and over again.

You too. But you seem to crave my attention by posting sensational climate apocalypse porn just to goad me into a response.

My bro in law, who is a newly retired dentist who is also a climate change denier.

Another dumb statement. I have never once denied climate change. Again, why do you make things up about me?

He also voted for Trump. He once told us that he can't accept climate change because he has grandkids. Sure, that's plenty of evidence that the science isn't correct.

Another article of faith.

 

[Shadowy Man]

which has resulted in a rapid change in the climate.

Now this bit I contest. There is zero evidence to support this statement, there has been no rapid change in earth’s climate.

the only evidence you have presented to support that claim is the weather forecast for Santa Monica, California.

 

[DBT]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

 

[TSwizzle]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

 

[DBT]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

Stating what you happen to believe doesn't falsify the evidence.

 

[TSwizzle]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

Stating what you happen to believe doesn't falsify the evidence.

Male bovine excrement.

 

[steve_bank]

Back to ignore for TSwizzle.

In the Sunday news democrats are losing registered voters by the millions and republicans are gaining by the millions.

Trump wants to shut down climate monitoring satellites. The republicans are coming to more power. Dealing with climate change and pollution is getting lees likely.

Going back to the founding the foreign and domestic economic paradigm has been what is good for business is good for America. Profit.

We see it coming back with Trump, transactional instead of ethical.

From just my overview of history is the old cycle, civilizations rise by a paradigm. When the original paradigm fails there is too much inertia to change. From a show I watched with an anthropologist who studied why civilizations fail.

As problems get more complicated the old ways of doing things no longer works. Leadership changes, but it is from the same cultural pool.

 

[southernhybrid]

I don't obsess about you,

Well you discuss me with your circle of friends, now that is weird.

I didn't discuss you and my friends have no idea who you are. All I said is that a member of this discussion board denies the human influence on the changing climate. All I know about you is that you live in Santa Monica and you like to give eye rolls or criticize other posters without giving any evidence as to why. You do it in the Political forum as well without giving any intelligent reason as to why you disagree with others.

but you are the only one in this thread who denies the truth

lol, have you any idea how this sounds? It sounds like the clergy of old addressing the heretics.

and I find that pretty weird, concerning all of the overwhelming evidence there is to support that human activity has rapidly increased the carbon in the atmosphere,

I have never said that is not true. Why do you make up things about me?

Maybe you need to go back and review some of your posts. You constantly call those of us who supply scientific evidence of how human behavior has influenced climate change as members of a rapture like cult. Are you claiming now that all the increased carbon does influence the climate? If so, that's new to me.

which has resulted in a rapid change in the climate.

Now this bit I contest. There is zero evidence to support this statement, there has been no rapid change in earth’s climate.

Sure, if you say so. /s

Rapid as in things changing over a hundred or so years instead of thousands of years. Can you understand that?

This is not true.

Other than hard core Trumpers, I've never met anyone in person who denies the human influence of climate change. Why do you even bother posting in this thread, considering your post consist of eye rolls or calling others members of a rapture cult.

Yes, I do this frequently when I see preposterous claims or stupid responses. But other times I state why wild claims are wrong.

When have you ever given us any scientific evidence that increased carbon in the atmosphere doesn't impact the climate.

But I have admitted it does, there has been an imperceptible increase in the global average temperature but overall the climate remains stable. The impact is nowhere near what is claimed.

Again, you don't seem to get it or you don't want to accept it. Whatever.

Of course, you have the right to post your nonsense, but one would think you have better things to do with your time then repeat yourself over and over again.

You too. But you seem to crave my attention by posting sensational climate apocalypse porn just to goad me into a response.

No, I don't crave your attention. You just seem to love giving eye rolls and insulting people. Once in awhile I think that something might help enlighten you, but I admit after telling you about the book that's about to come out next week, you are probably hopeless. Why don't you just ignore me? I'd prefer that.

My bro in law, who is a newly retired dentist who is also a climate change denier.

Another dI'dumb statement. I have never once denied climate change. Again, why do you make things up about me?

He also voted for Trump. He once told us that he can't accept climate change because he has grandkids. Sure, that's plenty of evidence that the science isn't correct.

Another article of faith.

Ok. I'm done. I never put anyone on ignore, but I'll do my best to ignore your posts as you simply repeat yourself again and again. What's part of that line from Macbeth...about... a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing....

 

[DBT]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

Stating what you happen to believe doesn't falsify the evidence.

Male bovine excrement.

Mindless denial of the evidence of our role in changing the environment on a planetary scale.

 

[TSwizzle]

I didn't discuss you and my friends have no idea who you are. All I said is that a member of this discussion board denies the human influence on the changing climate.

That is discussing me.

All I know about you is that you live in Santa Monica and you like to give eye rolls or criticize other posters without giving any evidence as to why. You do it in the Political forum as well without giving any intelligent reason as to why you disagree with others.

I do the eye roll when the response is just so dumb as to not even consider. You know how it goes. Just earlier I said something about wildfires in California, someone jumps in and responds “let Napa Valley burn”. There’s no other response for such a dumb statement.

Maybe you need to go back and review some of your posts.

I don’t need to go back to my previous posts. I have been consistent with what I say.

 

[TSwizzle]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

Stating what you happen to believe doesn't falsify the evidence.

Male bovine excrement.

Mindless denial of the evidence of our role in changing the environment on a planetary scale.

Sure, Jan.

 

[Shadowy Man]

How is one supposed to respond to such incoherent nonsense? It’s barely worth an eye roll.

Respond by looking at the evidence with an open mind, a mind that is open to the possibility of being wrong, and willing to learn.

I have stated numerous times about why the “evidence” is not valid.

Sure, Jan.