Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Jump to new
Garpal Gumnut

Garpal Gumnut

Ross Island Hotel
Joined
2 January 2006
Posts
15,035
Reactions
13,421
It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.

Those who have profited from it; in a monetary, political or the gaining of career advantage, need to be prosecuted when it is finally debunked.

Billions of dollars, megalitres of petrol and avgas, and huge tracts of trees for documents have been wasted in its propagation.

The gullible I would leave be, they will find some other orthodoxy to follow no doubt once this silliness is over. Fools are fools.

gg
 
The media and politicians alike seem to have gone quiet on the subject...........maybe they're hoping people will forget about the whole farce :cautious:

..........then again it could just be the holiday season, give them another week or so to get over their hangovers and they'll be back in full swing:rolleyes:

cheers
 
It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.
Click to expand...

[citation needed]

Nah, not really. I don't think I want to touch this one with a barge pole. I've argued this before. :banghead:

But if you're going to say you know more than scientists who have spent decades building up their knowledge of a subject, I expect you'd have something SPECTACULAR. Just figured you should give it a mention when you start a new thread.

Not going to argue with it, because that's pointless. But I'd be interested to see it.
 
It is increasingly obvious to the worlds scientist in this area that Global warming is real.

There is overwhelming consensus on this issue.

What I find is that older people who have managed to accumulate some wealth fight this tooth and nail because they won't be around to experience the negative factors and don't want the system that has worked for them changed.

I am no spring chicken but just in case this is real I want action taken now. It won't be a steady straight line increase in temps. There are greenhouse gases locked up in frozen deposits which will rapidly escalate the greenhouse effect.

I hope GG is tight and I am wrong but I don't want to risk it.
We take out insurance against all sorts of risks to look at a carbon tax as a global insurance policy against the possibilty of Global warming.

Looks like George W Bush got somewhere with trying to change the name from Global Warming to Climate change.
Could anybody really argue that the climate is not changing. It is changing all the time.
 
I have no doubt that scientists should be treated with respect, however scientists who try to predict the future, in particular the weather deserve absolutely no respect.

Additionally when they conceal data that disproves their case as the University of East Anglia did , they cease to be worthy of the name scientist.

Even the UN is in on the scam. An organisation full of the bastard offspring of every tinpot dictator in Africa, Asia and Europe, should not promulgate that glaciers will melt in the Himalayas.

This is a particularly dastardly lie as the Indian head of the agency spreading this horse**** is paid an indecent salary to boot.

I won't get started on Al Gore.

gg
 
Additionally when they conceal data that disproves their case as the University of East Anglia did , they cease to be worthy of the name scientist.
Click to expand...

What information do you think they tried to conceal?

What is being said about the Himalayas, and why do you think it's wrong?

What the hell has Al Gore got to do with the Science? Or the membership of the UN? Or the salary of some bloke in India?

...in case I missed something.
 
Well Well Garpal ole Pal, looks like ya recovered from the extra workload on last Tuesday when all those bludgers on the payroll hada day off on Mondy, gotta hand it to ya holding the place togetha.

And back on topic

I won't get started on Al Gore.

gg
Click to expand...

Yep obviously another bludger who lost his way.

And agree on the scientists, never seen it so dry in more than 60 years down here GG, love you to send one of you floods this way, but the point, some stupid scientist has treid to say it used to be this dry a long time ago in aerial pingpong country, he must be dreamin.

Keep up the good fight GG but yaint gunna suck this old black duck in(strewth; ya did, here I am), but you got a few others, must admit
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
I have no doubt that scientists should be treated with respect, however scientists who try to predict the future, in particular the weather deserve absolutely no respect.
Click to expand...

I base many decision upon predictions provided by BOM very happy with accuracy of predictions. As well when used to go fishing found nautical predictions highly accurate. Obviously could live without it but it makes life much easier to plan these days , so I have a lot of respect for scientist who predict the weather.

Not debating that there hasn't been some misrepresentation about Global warming but also pretty confident in declaring that the climate skeptics have been much more dishonest.

But anyway as I have mentioned I see this as a issue about risk management. One one side we have the possibility that life as we know it will be detrimentally altered against the other possibility that we waste some money and retard some aspect of economy making the planet cleaner and more sustainable.
 
MACCA350 said:
The media and politicians alike seem to have gone quiet on the subject...........maybe they're hoping people will forget about the whole farce :cautious:

..........then again it could just be the holiday season, give them another week or so to get over their hangovers and they'll be back in full swing:rolleyes:

cheers
Click to expand...

One media figure has become vocal on the subject. I guess his suicide bombers don't use much carbon...?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/29/AR2010012901463.html
 
Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.

Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.

And yes, prosecute the Gorists and Gravy Trainers.

Unfortunately it will not happen, and they will resurrect the issue, Lazarus like, at some point in the future. :rolleyes:
 
Isn't the question, has man contributed to global warming or is it just another natural cycle of the planet?

And if global warming is happening, how much has man contributed to it?

If it is a small percentage, do we really believe that man can change a natural cycle?

If man has significantly contributed to global warming through emissions shouldn't we also be address the issue of increasing world populations?

KRUDD and the govnuts have totally lost me on this issue when they talk about doubling of the population in 25 years. This simply means that what each individual produces in emissions today will need to halved within 25 years to maintain the current level of Oz emissions.

While it would seem many scientists have evidence that global warming is occurring there are just as many that support the earth is cooling.

Cheers
 
RamonR said:
I base many decision upon predictions provided by BOM very happy with accuracy of predictions. As well when used to go fishing found nautical predictions highly accurate. Obviously could live without it but it makes life much easier to plan these days , so I have a lot of respect for scientist who predict the weather.

Not debating that there hasn't been some misrepresentation about Global warming but also pretty confident in declaring that the climate skeptics have been much more dishonest.

But anyway as I have mentioned I see this as a issue about risk management. One one side we have the possibility that life as we know it will be detrimentally altered against the other possibility that we waste some money and retard some aspect of economy making the planet cleaner and more sustainable.
Click to expand...

And I watch BOM, carefully particularly atm when its pouring out of the heavens, and they agree with me.

But if BOM tell me that its going to be as dry as a theweisers, next January, during our rainy season, then I will ignore them.

If you go on a fishing trip and the weather forecast is wrong, all you get is a fright, some choppy waves and don't get to feed the fish.

With this Global Warming horse****, billions of dollars will be spent unproductively, mostly on bureaucrats wages and antibiotics for their transmission diseases when they come home.

wayneL said:
Beyond a few vested interests and those zealots who have embraced it as a religion, co2 based AGW is a dead issue, the science largely discredited, the proponents caught out BSing and humiliated.

Let's now concentrate on minimizing man's impact on the environment in a number of other ways that are real, measurable and doable.

And yes, prosecute the Gorists and Gravy Trainers.

Unfortunately it will not happen, and they will resurrect the issue, Lazarus like, at some point in the future. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

A good summary Wayne, it is a religion, has all the hallmarks, doom, gloom, penance, get to heaven if yer good.

And I agree totally with minimising the harm that we do to other species and the planet, but I see no evidence that convinces me the globe is warming.

Haven't any of these ****forbrains heard of homeostasis I think its called or feedback to keep the organisms going. Don't ask me to explain it. I read it in Readers Digest at the barbers on that rainy day when none of my slack bloody workers could see through their hangovers to even drive to work. The earth accommodates change.

gg
 
I assume all those that propose nothing be done about this issue don't bother to insure their houses and other possessions.

After all there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence that you house is going to burn down in the next year. So if all that matters is hard evidence and risks are not taken into account then insurance is a huge waste of money.
 
RamonR said:
I assume all those that propose nothing be done about this issue don't bother to insure their houses and other possessions.

After all there is not the slightest bit of credible evidence that you house is going to burn down in the next year. So if all that matters is hard evidence and risks are not taken into account then insurance is a huge waste of money.
Click to expand...

Oh that tired ol' argument.... :sleeping:

Let's take any/all arguments of impending doom and spend trillions on "insurance" ON EACH ONE!

Pulleeeeze!

By the way, Mars, with "not the slightest bit of credible evidence" might just invade Earth. What are we going to do about that?
 
Even evergreen Tassy is copping a lot of dryness. A large part of the north west is dry which is unusual. Often there are enough showers to keep it mostly green. It has been trending that way for a while.

Rainfall records show in the south east of the Australia experienced a wet period during the 1950s. No surprise that is when the agricultural push was on.

Climate change has been happening for ages. If the evidence of it is correct then it helped take down the old kingdom in Egypt and others in the region. 200 years of dryness in Ethiopa reduced the water down the Nile. etc.

I guess GG is in about human induced change.

Shouldn't the issue be more about if we can influence the climate? If we can influence then wouldn't we want it more favourable for us?
 
wayneL said:
Oh that tired ol' argument.... :sleeping:

Let's take any/all arguments of impending doom and spend trillions on "insurance" ON EACH ONE!

Pulleeeeze!

By the way, Mars, with "not the slightest bit of credible evidence" might just invade Earth. What are we going to do about that?
Click to expand...

If it is a tired old argument then surely the answers to my question our already out there any you could easily quote them instead of calling it a tired old argument.

I assume from your answer you don't carry any insurance as you are arguing against insuring against risks.

I am not arguing for insuring against risks without any evidence. I am merely pointing out that the people saying do nothing are saying we need proof before taking any action. Whilst not holding the same standards when the risk involve only themselves.

I would say that there is overwhelming evidence that Mars in not going to invade the world.

So maybe we only take action on those risks that have been agreed by all the worlds leading academies of science.
 
From the scientists point of view it is ALL about funding (I used to work at CSIRO) they can "prove" anything if you give them enough money.
I have had some heated arguments with fellow scientists, they just do not want to see any other view than the one that makes them money.

I spend a lot of my time visiting farmers all over Australia and around the world. ( as an agricultural consultant)
The farmers livehood depends on the weather. Not one in thousands I have met have agreed with Global warming, they have seen it all before, that is, severe weather patterns etc.

I am also disgusted with our media for helping to sensationalise "the big lie" for the sake of selling newspapers.

The other aspect to this is how gullible "women" in particular are to this tripe.
I love going to dinner parties and expousing my "views", and I find it is always the women who want to take you apart for disagreeing with their new philosophy.
I am sorry we ever gave them the vote:D:D
 
boofhead said:
Shouldn't the issue be more about if we can influence the climate? If we can influence then wouldn't we want it more favourable for us?
Click to expand...
I agree.
It doesn't matter in the slightest if Global warming is caused by man or not.
All that matters is if we can do something about it.

No one seems to be arguing that we can't do something about it merely that the costs of doing something about it are too prohibitive.
 
RamonR said:
So maybe we only take action on those risks that have been agreed by all the worlds leading academies of science.
Click to expand...

I never take the excess reduction insurance when hiring a car because I know it will cost me 100 times more in the long run. Although I know at some time I will probably have a car prang. :D:p:

Insurance doesn't always add up. Mostly its a fear thing.
 
Top