Climate Change and our Land of Fire, Flood and Drought.

And then there are those of us who are confused by a lot of the bull**** & differing theories & wish to believe both sides of this argument but find it most difficult to do so because of a lot of **** that is voiced, vested interests, untruths by politicians & AULRO members ad nauseum who should really know better. I am not qualified like some here to sort this out for I am a simple person without Degrees of any sort. but I was bloody good at my job.

At my age, I suppose I shouldn't really give a rat's arse, but I do though for my Grand Children & GG Children's sake. I do what I can with 6kw of Solar, Rainwater Harvesting, drive a small engined economical car & probably some other things that unwittingly help the Climate situation. I cannot do any more.

I am going to calm down now & endeavor to live a normal life without all this crap.

Now, what was the question?[bigsmile1]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

....
The experts in this field also are clear that emissions are accelerating the change. They also say the change is making weather events more extreme, both droughts and floods.
.....

---

That's all well and good, but where's the actual proof of it?
Where is this supposed more extreme weather?
Where are these worst droughts and floods?

When were all these supposed worse bushfires?

Have you actually taken the time to look at the historical data yet?

Or are you insinuating that THIS mob are climate deniers because they use historical facts, rather than modern scare mongering tactics?

Quote:

---

Historical accounts and scientific analysis indicate that South-Eastern Australia experienced 27 drought years between 1788 and 1860, and at least 10 major droughts between 1860 and 2000.

The Millennium Drought (2001–09) was one of the most severe. In 2017 drought set in again across parts of New South Wales and Queensland.

---

Just a snippet of the article. Note that the millenium drought was "one of" the most severe .. not the most severe!

Also note the terms used by your so called 'scientists'.
A recent study by Melb Uni(then latched onto by the hysteria driven theconversation.com news outlet [bighmmm]), the Melb Uni researcher labels the historical accounts of the people on the ground back in the day(early Aus settlers and farmers) as 'estimates'.
And seems to consider the research she's done, founded on the basis that Antarctic ice cores measurements, are accurate!

The inane conversation.com news outlet create the headline that 'recent droughts may be the worst in 800 years .. obvious scambaiting .. OK . maybe not scam .. but sensationalist nonetheless!(may as well be scam) .. because it's so damned inaccurate!
The Melb uni researcher clearly shows that by recent the actual definition encompasses the federation drought .. clearly the worst in Aus history.
But she seems to dismiss it as a catastrophic event! Her own pictograms clearly show it's severity compared to the millenium drought, yet her only thoughts are for the recent droughts of late 20th and early 21st century droughts.
Basically dismisses the historical droughts of early settlement to federation as basically nothing! .. REALLY!

Have a look at the actual data to see the example images of the actual breadth of the drought conditions .. none worst that the 1900's drought in terms of overall effect, yet dismissed as a non event by this so called scientist!
There are so many inaccurate statements made by this supposed scientist in her own data .. it's laughable!
eg. Sturts drought was supposed to be restricted to "specific regions" .. and her own pictogram shows that by specific regions she really means basically the entire continent!

HERE

Once again, and clearly a case of the statements being made don't describe the reality on the ground.

So what inevitably happens is that this researcher gets applauded by the modern scientist for following the 'accepted modern protocol'(ie. towing the party line), and will obviously be a front runner for the next round of research grants! [bighmmm]

This is not my data .. I'm just highlighting the silliness of the anti climate deniers OWN corroborating scientific evidence!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

.... Times have changed and this is the new normal. Either we keep up or we stagnate.

---

And this is why I believe that the new normal now is all about how it's changed from science to religion.
All young kids now are being taught that the globe is warming and that's a bad thing(yet to be proven).
So they all grow up with this in mind. It's part of their psychology now .. and they can't escape it.

So any new science into the field will always be tainted with a bias that the globe is warming and that's a bad thing(still yet to be proven!).

You can't do science if you have a bias. You inevitably go out to find evidence to effectively confirm your belief, rather than data to find out the truth.

Even to this day, after hundreds of years of pretty much having confirmed their theories astrophysicists still try to prove themselves wrong on one way or another.
THIS IS SCIENCE! .. allow the naysayers their voice.
To understand what I'm talking about google the latest info on the topic of the new 'crisis in cosmology'.
It's old news now, but in terms of scientific theory in cosmology it's new.
No one is really discounting it, and if it turns out to be accurate(something to do with the hubble constant).
Turns out that for the past hundred years that we've thought the universe to be infinite may well be wrong, and that it's infinite.
What the outcome actually ends up is irrelevant .. what's important is that even tho they have hundres of years of data .. they still question it through science.

Stop questioning science ... and it's no longer science.

This notion that old science can't be faltered is quite frankly stupid.
Yesterdays scientist only knows as much as they had measured and discovered.
Tomorrows scientist will know more!.
Always happened, always will.
Climate science is not immune to science itself. And if you believe that it is .. then you're following a religion.

Open your eyes folks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AK83

And this is why I believe that the new normal now is all about how it's changed from science to religion.
All young kids now are being taught that the globe is warming and that's a bad thing(yet to be proven).
So they all grow up with this in mind. It's part of their psychology now .. and they can't escape it.

So any new science into the field will always be tainted with a bias that the globe is warming and that's a bad thing(still yet to be proven!).

You can't do science if you have a bias. You inevitably go out to find evidence to effectively confirm your belief, rather than data to find out the truth.

Even to this day, after hundreds of years of pretty much having confirmed their theories astrophysicists still try to prove themselves wrong on one way or another.
THIS IS SCIENCE! .. allow the naysayers their voice.
To understand what I'm talking about google the latest info on the topic of the new 'crisis in cosmology'.
It's old news now, but in terms of scientific theory in cosmology it's new.
No one is really discounting it, and if it turns out to be accurate(something to do with the hubble constant).
Turns out that for the past hundred years that we've thought the universe to be infinite may well be wrong, and that it's infinite.
What the outcome actually ends up is irrelevant .. what's important is that even tho they have hundres of years of data .. they still question it through science.

Stop questioning science ... and it's no longer science.

This notion that old science can't be faltered is quite frankly stupid.
Yesterdays scientist only knows as much as they had measured and discovered.
Tomorrows scientist will know more!.
Always happened, always will.
Climate science is not immune to science itself. And if you believe that it is .. then you're following a religion.

Open your eyes folks.

---

No, I disagree. The new normal is based on actual climate science.
The religion is denialists refusing to accept the science because it conflicts with their ideological beliefs. For example, Pauline Hanson's statements are based on ideology, not science.
The science is clear - climate change is real, humans are contributing to it and emissions reductions and a carbon tax can reduce its effects. That's science.
Opposing that is ideological religion.

Quote:

---

climate change is real, humans are contributing to it

---

I don't think that ANYONE is disagreeing with this, However Many people are concerned that the "Human Contribution" has been "Inflated" and that the natural climate change that the Earth is continually going through has been Vastly "Understated".
What "Proof" do these climate change scientists have that even IF we reduce or even halt altogether the "Human Contribution" that this climate change will stop ??
Instead of all these scientists and activists using all their energies and resources politically maybe they should be using those energies and resources to try and combat the inevitable.
As for "the carbon tax" Well this is simply yet just another government "Rort" and will achieve SFA except to line the pockets of the fat cats in power.

The science is not clear, if it was this discussion wouldn't be taking place. The panic merchants are placing faith in and blindly believing the cherry-picked statistics and projected guesswork.
These same panic peddlers would be taken more seriously if they actually practiced what they preached.
A point, repeatedly ignored, is that those people who haven't got on the "humans are causing climate change" bandwagon, are not denying C.C.. In an intelligent fashion, they are testing and questioning all the evidence and red herrings, that's the scientific method.

just a thought, if humans are increasing the rate of change in the climate. doesnt that mean that climate change is inevitable and we have to deal with it anyways?

I am sorry but I would rather believe climate scientists with recognised experience and qualifications in the area rather than redneck denialists who post on forums with no experience and qualifications other than wishing it was not so.

The issue is not that climate change is happening as it happens but it is the rate of change that is unprecedented throughout the history of the planet.

The planet and humans will survive changes in climate but many other life forms will not.

Garry

Quote:

---

I am sorry but I would rather believe climate scientists with recognised experience and qualifications in the area rather than redneck denialists who post on forums with no experience and qualifications other than wishing it was not so.

---

Are you saying that just because Many people do Not simply swallow the climate change "Doctrine" they are "Red Necks"??
I put it to you that those that simply believe everything that the climate change scientists/activists say and follow it parrot fashion without looking at both sides of the debate are "Lemmings"[biggrin]

I wonder if anyone has thought to phone the Chinese Embassy & ask them to put the mockers on all the **** they are pushing into the atmosphere just for a start?

Probably not I would think, but just a thought as you do.