Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Joined
28 May 2020
Posts
4,667
Reactions
8,504
Another piece of climate alarmism gone nuts.
Just a few points.
The population of Egypt is 109 million in 2021.
To get to 250 million by 2080 requires a 150% increase in 60 years.
Given that around 96% of Egypts landmass is desert, its hard to imagine the 4% thats left being able to accomodate an increase of that magnitude.
It states that "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day" to achive what it suggests is a stable population.
As usual , the people at the top expect the elimation to come from those lower down the rung.

But the biggest joke is the idea that we are going to suffocate because of an increase in carbon dioxide.
At 0.04%, or 400 parts per million, its going to take increases of such huge proportions to cause suffocation.
Hypoxia is caused by low levels of oxygen, not so much because of carbon dioxide levels.
Its absolute garbage , and to be coming from an org like UNESCO with the word scientific in it , makes it even worse.

1700862287136.png

u
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,562
This is Seans claim. The source of this claim appears to Professor Ian Plimer.
As usual with Professor Plimers work it is misleading and as honest as Donalds Trumps property valuations.
His argument is found here

This analysis points out the deception behind Professor Plimers calculations. The simplest reason is just double counting. But there is much more than simply that.


The same specious argument was used by other people to "prove"the worlds natural environment is already effective at absorbing all CO2.
That statement is manifestly wrong as evidenced by the rapidly rising CO2 levels.

The consequences are the rapid increase in global temperatures caused by these emissions.

We are part of the problem. We are facing the consequences rising temperatures.
Wrong
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
Another piece of climate alarmism gone nuts.
Just a few points.
The population of Egypt is 109 million in 2021.
To get to 250 million by 2080 requires a 150% increase in 60 years.
Given that around 96% of Egypts landmass is desert, its hard to imagine the 4% thats left being able to accomodate an increase of that magnitude.
It states that "we must eliminate 350,000 people per day" to achive what it suggests is a stable population.
As usual , the people at the top expect the elimation to come from those lower down the rung.

But the biggest joke is the idea that we are going to suffocate because of an increase in carbon dioxide.
At 0.04%, or 400 parts per million, its going to take increases of such huge proportions to cause suffocation.
Hypoxia is caused by low levels of oxygen, not so much because of carbon dioxide levels.
Its absolute garbage , and to be coming from an org like UNESCO with the word scientific in it , makes it even worse.

View attachment 166191
u

Digging deep there Mick . You must have been poring relentlessly over millions of internet files to find a copy of the Nov 1991 UNESCO Courier with that particular story :cautious:

Just kidding. :)I know you plucked it from one of the usual "deny, deflect delay" sites that want to keep you amused with such trivia and ignore the rapidly increasing global temperatures driven by equally rapidly increasing greenhouse gas levels .

A 32 year old interview with Jacques-Yves Cousteau making some silly slip ups. And they/you want to conflate it with climate alarmism.

Not smart.
 
Joined
28 May 2020
Posts
4,667
Reactions
8,504
Digging deep there Mick . You must have been poring relentlessly over millions of internet files to find a copy of the Nov 1991 UNESCO Courier with that particular story :cautious:

Just kidding. :)I know you plucked it from one of the usual "deny, deflect delay" sites that want to keep you amused with such trivia and ignore the rapidly increasing global temperatures driven by equally rapidly increasing greenhouse gas levels .

A 32 year old interview with Jacques-Yves Cousteau making some silly slip ups. And they/you want to conflate it with climate alarmism.

Not smart.
So its ok for you pluck articles supporting your stance from the usual 'the world is coming to an end because of Climate change" ?
The problem is , the alarmists have provided so many outlandish, exagerated and alarming articles, you really don't have to go far to find them.
And while we are at it, the consensus argument that is often trotted out has never stood the test of time.
Here is an example of another consensus argument that didn't age well.
Mick

1700877750650.png

Mick
 
Joined
30 June 2008
Posts
14,510
Reactions
6,399
So its ok for you pluck articles supporting your stance from the usual 'the world is coming to an end because of Climate change" ?

Mick I don't "pluck articles" supporting my stance that the world is coming to an end because of Climate change.

I quote the facts around how rapidly the world is heating up. I reference the scientists who have pieced together the connection between human produced greenhouse gases and the accelerating temperature. I publish the graphs which highlight how rapidly our world is warming up.

What are the the consequences of these physical realities ? Rapid accelerated melting of ice caps. Record temperatures across the globe that accelerate fires to extremes not seen in human memory. Extreme weather conditions that have been turbo charged by warmer oceans and higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. All of realities can be found with a tap. I highlight a few of them.

There are also thousands of reports and studies on how the rapidly warming environment is undermining current plant and animal ecosystems. They are a bit drier but the highlights are picked up and reported.

You appear to never acknowledge any of these realities. Instead you have to pick up 30 year old silly comments as a way of avoiding any discussion on what is happening in front of our eyes.

---------------------------
As far as another consensus argument that didn't hold up ? WTF . If the world wasn't heating up so much you could have a point. But it is so that piece of deflection is just dumb. But again. You have quoted it from a source that clearly can only use deflection to undermine acknowledging what is happening.
 
Joined
28 May 2020
Posts
4,667
Reactions
8,504
Mick I don't "pluck articles" supporting my stance that the world is coming to an end because of Climate change.

I quote the facts around how rapidly the world is heating up. I reference the scientists who have pieced together the connection between human produced greenhouse gases and the accelerating temperature. I publish the graphs which highlight how rapidly our world is warming up.

What are the the consequences of these physical realities ? Rapid accelerated melting of ice caps. Record temperatures across the globe that accelerate fires to extremes not seen in human memory. Extreme weather conditions that have been turbo charged by warmer oceans and higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. All of realities can be found with a tap. I highlight a few of them.

There are also thousands of reports and studies on how the rapidly warming environment is undermining current plant and animal ecosystems. They are a bit drier but the highlights are picked up and reported.

You appear to never acknowledge any of these realities. Instead you have to pick up 30 year old silly comments as a way of avoiding any discussion on what is happening in front of our eyes.

---------------------------
As far as another consensus argument that didn't hold up ? WTF . If the world wasn't heating up so much you could have a point. But it is so that piece of deflection is just dumb. But again. You have quoted it from a source that clearly can only use deflection to undermine acknowledging what is happening.
Because the thread is about climate alarmism, weird theories of catastrophic immediacy, and there have been plenty posted.
So many failed predictions, so many many failed warnings.
I don't demand that you address them, thats entirely your prerogative.
If you want to start a thread about which scientist you think is correct about global warming, go right ahead and start one.
But you would be wasting your time with a demand that I participate.
Mick
 
Joined
28 August 2022
Posts
4,270
Reactions
6,723
Because the thread is about climate alarmism, weird theories of catastrophic immediacy, and there have been plenty posted.
So many failed predictions, so many many failed warnings.
I don't demand that you address them, thats entirely your prerogative.
If you want to start a thread about which scientist you think is correct about global warming, go right ahead and start one.
But you would be wasting your time with a demand that I participate.
Mick
Hear, hear me too.
 
Joined
28 May 2020
Posts
4,667
Reactions
8,504
And continuing the theme of failed climate alarmism.
This post from The Web Archive was first posted 23 years ago.

1700996825996.png


Winter has not yet offically started, but already the UK is looking at being 90% snow coverage.
Ski enthusiasts look forward to an El Nino conductive snow season.
Mick


1700997049408.png
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,562
Firstly no one needs 100 metres of sea level rise to create a human disaster. We don't even need a 10 metre rise to wipe out most coastal cities.

Anything between 1-3 metres of sea level rise would be sufficient to make most coastal cities uninhabitable in their present forms. And that doesn't take into consideration the effects of storm surges which would force storm water far further inland.

Update on sea level rise.



How long does Miami actually have to build a wall around it, or move back from the beach?

Parts of the Netherlands are 6m below sea level so maybe a small wall for a start while the people move house. Perhaps the houses on the beach will be covered in coral down the track and be a good dive site?
 
Joined
3 July 2009
Posts
25,074
Reactions
20,276
Mick I don't "pluck articles" supporting my stance that the world is coming to an end because of Climate change.

I quote the facts around how rapidly the world is heating up. I reference the scientists who have pieced together the connection between human produced greenhouse gases and the accelerating temperature. I publish the graphs which highlight how rapidly our world is warming up.

What are the the consequences of these physical realities ? Rapid accelerated melting of ice caps. Record temperatures across the globe that accelerate fires to extremes not seen in human memory. Extreme weather conditions that have been turbo charged by warmer oceans and higher levels of moisture in the atmosphere. All of realities can be found with a tap. I highlight a few of them.

There are also thousands of reports and studies on how the rapidly warming environment is undermining current plant and animal ecosystems. They are a bit drier but the highlights are picked up and reported.

You appear to never acknowledge any of these realities. Instead you have to pick up 30 year old silly comments as a way of avoiding any discussion on what is happening in front of our eyes.

---------------------------
As far as another consensus argument that didn't hold up ? WTF . If the world wasn't heating up so much you could have a point. But it is so that piece of deflection is just dumb. But again. You have quoted it from a source that clearly can only use deflection to undermine acknowledging what is happening.
Hey Bas, we talked about this years ago, you keep saying we have a problem that we can fix by going green.
I said the problem is that there is too many people and even if we make the electricity green, we can't keep up with the demand.
We will end up having t cover the planet with solar panels, because where people years ago, had one TV , one fridge, now they have electric everything and guess what the third world countries where they weren't using electricity no want to use as much as us.

The real problem Bas, is us, every second two people die and four people are born, get your head around that and it is exponential. 🥳

I mean really what chance do we have, when someone as aware of the problem as you are, still doesn't have an EV, solar panels and a house battery, obviously we are done for, cooked, cactus.
 
Last edited:
Joined
14 February 2005
Posts
14,419
Reactions
14,909
We will end up having t cover the planet with solar panels, because where people years ago, had one TV , one fridge, now they have electric everything
Go back just one generation and it someone had a 26" TV then that was one way to know they were rich.

Today owning an 85" screen is completely unremarkable and does not signify wealth.

Go back one generation and schools or small offices in NSW or SA didn't have air-conditioning. Today even in Victoria or Tasmania it's expected that a school or office has air-conditioning.

First house I lived in as a kid we had gravity fed hot water, a perfectly normal thing at the time. House we moved to later had mains pressure - and that was an actual major feature of the house at the time. Today pretty much nobody still has gravity hot water.

Expectations, for everything, have been massively scaled up and with that so has energy use. :2twocents
 
Joined
14 February 2005
Posts
14,419
Reactions
14,909
Regardless of which side of the debate you're on, this is just crazy:


_131831478_mediaitem131831477.jpg.webp


What you're looking at there isn't electric lighting and nor is it a bushfire. No, it's gas being flared on a massive scale.

That bright patch running north - south in Saudi Arabia being a pretty much perfect replication of the Ghawar oil field. The whole damn thing's covered in flares basically.


mate_size%2C_shape%2C_and_location_of_Ghawar_Field.png


I won't mess about here. This is a criminal waste of a finite natural resource and that's without mentioning the close to ground air pollution affecting human health (and no doubt other things too) in the Middle East and it's without even mentioning climate. Even without that it's still bad.

Now when I see someone saying oil shouldn't be produced in Australia or the UK, well this is what they're supporting as the alternative. So long as we don't produce it here but continue using it, that just means it's coming from the Middle East or Russia where this flaring takes place on an epic scale. Environment be damned.

In all honesty even if we drilled the Barrier Reef and had a major spill, it would still probably be less destructive than what we're supporting overseas. Not that I'm saying we ought drill the reef, but there's other places where oil could plausibly be found in Australia and so long as it's properly regulated, so long as we're not doing this sort of thing, it beats what's going on overseas.

Now someone worried about all this would logically say "think globally, act locally". Unfortunately in practice what we have is "think locally, turn a blind eye to the rest".

Regardless of whether you think climate change is the most serious threat to life on earth or whether you think the whole thing's utter nonsense, there's still a strong argument against oil from the Middle East, Russia and a few other places. And yet for some strange reason it's places like Australia or the UK that cop the criticism. Hmm..... :2twocents
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,562
One thing that's been on the cards for years is that the northern hemisphere is going to be in trouble from a lack of power for heating during their cruel winters. Winters that kill many more people than any hot spells. I think the World wide figure is something like 20:1 deaths casued by cold compared to heat. Looks like this winter will be no different in the UK.

Screenshot 2023-11-30 at 9.21.33 am.png


UKHSA and the Met Office have issued an amber Cold-Health Alert (CHA) in 3 regions of England. A yellow CHA has also been issued in 2 regions of England.

The regions included in the amber alert are:
  • North East
  • North West
  • Yorkshire and the Humber
The regions included in the yellow alert are:
  • East Midlands
  • West Midlands
The alert is currently in place from 6pm on Tuesday 28 November to midday on Tuesday 5 December. The Met Office has forecast average temperatures around or less than 2°C during the time of the alert in areas under amber alert, with wintry showers, icy conditions, and some snow.

Under the new CHA system introduced by UKHSA and the Met Office, an amber alert means that cold weather impacts are likely to be felt across the whole health service for an extended period of time, with potential for the whole population to be at risk and where other sectors may also start to observe impacts, indicating a coordinated response is required. A yellow alert means that any impacts include the increased use of health care services by vulnerable populations and an increase in risk to health for individuals over the age of 65, those with pre-existing health conditions, including respiratory and cardiovascular diseases and some other vulnerable groups, such as those sleeping rough.

Dr Agostinho Sousa, Head of Extreme Events and Health Protection at UKHSA, said:

With a risk of widespread overnight frosts and some snow across the country this week, it’s important to check in on the wellbeing of those most vulnerable to the cold.
Cold weather can have a serious impact on health, particularly older people, and those with pre-existing health conditions, as it increases the risks of heart attacks, strokes, and chest infections.
If you have a pre-existing medical condition or are over the age of 65, it is important to try and heat the rooms where you spend most of your time in, such as your living room or bedroom.
 

Sean K

on permanent holidays
Joined
21 April 2006
Posts
20,849
Reactions
8,562
Twiggy is at COP28 telling all the other CEOs how crap they are at doing something about CO2 emissions.

Screenshot 2023-12-01 at 5.09.07 pm.png



But his message is no less blunt: “If you’re a leader and you try to hold the line for business as usual because you’re just too damn lazy and have such little character to make change, then you should get off the stage – whatever it is, corporate or political – and let someone with more talent and more character take the reins.”

He’s nevertheless going to COP, as he usually does, even though he thinks it has been captured by oil and gas interests.

“As long as its constitution is controlled by the oil and gas sector, COP will find it increasingly difficult to maintain global, and particularly youth, integrity,” he told AFR Weekend just before stepping onto a plane for Dubai on Friday.


BUT, I'm sure he flew there in his Bombardier.

Is it wind powered?


ANDREW “TWIGGY” FORREST TREATS HIMSELF TO PRIVATE JET WORTH $98 MILLION​


Screenshot 2023-12-01 at 5.06.22 pm.png


Billionaire mining magnate and Fortescue Metals chairman – Dr Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest – has ditched his 25-year-old set of wings to take delivery on his long-awaited Bombardier Global Express 7500 private jet. And although the latter comes with a hefty $98 million price tag, given how the bloke casually added another $15 billion to his net worth last year – not to mention cashing in a $1.6 billion dividend check for the past six months alone – Twiggy won’t be flinching when he sees the incoming AMEX statement.

Arriving at his doorstep/tarmac on Good Friday, the Canadian-made Bombardier Global Express 7500 can apparently travel from one side of the world to the other without ever having to stop for a refuel. According to the AFR, Andrew Forrest “wasted no time” before testing out the “enviable reach capability” of his brand new private jet. The Fortescue Metals carrier logged a direct flight from Perth to Honolulu right off the bat – that’s 10,900 kilometres in a single run.
 
Joined
28 August 2022
Posts
4,270
Reactions
6,723
Twiggy is at COP28 telling all the other CEOs how crap they are at doing something about CO2 emissions.

View attachment 166542


But his message is no less blunt: “If you’re a leader and you try to hold the line for business as usual because you’re just too damn lazy and have such little character to make change, then you should get off the stage – whatever it is, corporate or political – and let someone with more talent and more character take the reins.”

He’s nevertheless going to COP, as he usually does, even though he thinks it has been captured by oil and gas interests.

“As long as its constitution is controlled by the oil and gas sector, COP will find it increasingly difficult to maintain global, and particularly youth, integrity,” he told AFR Weekend just before stepping onto a plane for Dubai on Friday.


BUT, I'm sure he flew there in his Bombardier.

Is it wind powered?


ANDREW “TWIGGY” FORREST TREATS HIMSELF TO PRIVATE JET WORTH $98 MILLION​


View attachment 166541

Billionaire mining magnate and Fortescue Metals chairman – Dr Andrew “Twiggy” Forrest – has ditched his 25-year-old set of wings to take delivery on his long-awaited Bombardier Global Express 7500 private jet. And although the latter comes with a hefty $98 million price tag, given how the bloke casually added another $15 billion to his net worth last year – not to mention cashing in a $1.6 billion dividend check for the past six months alone – Twiggy won’t be flinching when he sees the incoming AMEX statement.

Arriving at his doorstep/tarmac on Good Friday, the Canadian-made Bombardier Global Express 7500 can apparently travel from one side of the world to the other without ever having to stop for a refuel. According to the AFR, Andrew Forrest “wasted no time” before testing out the “enviable reach capability” of his brand new private jet. The Fortescue Metals carrier logged a direct flight from Perth to Honolulu right off the bat – that’s 10,900 kilometres in a single run.
Twiggy does not suffer fools and idiots and calsl a spade a spade not a shovel.
 
Top