Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
So basically, you're still deep in denial about our direct influence on climate change at present....check 
So basically, you're deep in denial that the climate has been naturally changing for billions of years and will continue to naturally change for billions more...check.
Not meaning to take sides, but throw away lines like this are meaningless no which side they come from. All I see is a lot of sticks and stones being thrown over a fence.
If you put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere naturally the climate changes
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..FormulaNova said..
Japan is having the worst snow season in 20 years apparently. That should be cause enough to stop using fossil fuel...
Cooler air = less humidity = less rain and snow.
You're right FN; Less snow = less people flying to japan = less fossil carbon fuel use.
Oh no, I am still going if I can 
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..Climate change is real. It has been naturally changing for billions of years and will continue to naturally change for billions more
So basically, you're still deep in denial about our direct influence on climate change at present....check
Can you please tell us how much influence?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..Bara said..holy guacamole said..
OK so to wrap up, Tony Baloney thinks Turnbull has lots of money invested in renewable energy projects and Bara thinks there's lots of corruption in renewable energy projects, any more than the average for any projects.
Neither appear to have provided any evidence.
Yet they openly question the evidence that human activity is creating climate change that must be addressed.
Funny.
Conspiracy theorists! Farq.
Next they'll be claiming arsonists caused most of the horrendous bushfires this summer instead of dry lightning, which is more likely in climate change induced drought.....oh wait....that conspiracy theory has already been spread on the right wing nutters space bubble and thoroughly debunked.
You mate are firmly living in bizzaro world along with delfugo.
I have been a believer of climate change science since before the likes of you started getting hysterical about it.
But as per the script if you dare question anything to do with CC you are labelled a denialist conspiracy theorist etc. It really is childish.
I'm simply pointing out that the business people and pollies involved with the renewables industry are as greedy as those that aren't. I don't think that I know that from 15 odd years experience dealing with them.
The crime is that the effort to mitigate climate change is being wasted and hijacked by the renewables industry and various other emissions reductions programs like CERs in Europe.
But you 2 clowns think that's ok. In fact whackos like you 2 are why they get away with it and why we have basically missed the boat on tackling CC effectively. You are as naive as a skandy kid with autism.
Not one I'm involved with but check out Carnegie clean energy for a local example. There are thousands more like this around the globe. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.
I doubt you will bother though. Stopping the waste of resources earmarked for tackling climate change isn't much of a buzz. Better to hyperventalate about conspiracy theorists and imaginary denialists.
I'll leave ya to it.
..LOL and you're claiming I'm hysterical.... Never claimed corruption was OK in any sector.
Anytime you want to give us some examples that corruption is any more prevalent in renewable energy investment than any other sector, I'm all ears.
I did.
And just like I said you would neither of you 2 clowns bothered looking into it.
Why is that I wonder?
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..holy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..Climate change is real. It has been naturally changing for billions of years and will continue to naturally change for billions more
So basically, you're still deep in denial about our direct influence on climate change at present....check
Can you please tell us how much influence?
I leave that up to the scientists. Plenty of info out there if you care to withdraw your head from the sand.
Select to expand quoteBara said..holy guacamole said..Bara said..holy guacamole said..
OK so to wrap up, Tony Baloney thinks Turnbull has lots of money invested in renewable energy projects and Bara thinks there's lots of corruption in renewable energy projects, any more than the average for any projects.
Neither appear to have provided any evidence.
Yet they openly question the evidence that human activity is creating climate change that must be addressed.
Funny.
Conspiracy theorists! Farq.
Next they'll be claiming arsonists caused most of the horrendous bushfires this summer instead of dry lightning, which is more likely in climate change induced drought.....oh wait....that conspiracy theory has already been spread on the right wing nutters space bubble and thoroughly debunked.
You mate are firmly living in bizzaro world along with delfugo.
I have been a believer of climate change science since before the likes of you started getting hysterical about it.
But as per the script if you dare question anything to do with CC you are labelled a denialist conspiracy theorist etc. It really is childish.
I'm simply pointing out that the business people and pollies involved with the renewables industry are as greedy as those that aren't. I don't think that I know that from 15 odd years experience dealing with them.
The crime is that the effort to mitigate climate change is being wasted and hijacked by the renewables industry and various other emissions reductions programs like CERs in Europe.
But you 2 clowns think that's ok. In fact whackos like you 2 are why they get away with it and why we have basically missed the boat on tackling CC effectively. You are as naive as a skandy kid with autism.
Not one I'm involved with but check out Carnegie clean energy for a local example. There are thousands more like this around the globe. Hundreds of billions of dollars wasted.
I doubt you will bother though. Stopping the waste of resources earmarked for tackling climate change isn't much of a buzz. Better to hyperventalate about conspiracy theorists and imaginary denialists.
I'll leave ya to it.
..LOL and you're claiming I'm hysterical.... Never claimed corruption was OK in any sector.
Anytime you want to give us some examples that corruption is any more prevalent in renewable energy investment than any other sector, I'm all ears.
I did.
And just like I said you would neither of you 2 clowns bothered looking into it.
Why is that I wonder?
But does your "evidence" demonstrate that corruption is any more prevalent in "renewable energy" investment than any other investments, or are you just trying to tar renewable energy investment because ideologically, you reckon it's all a bit unfair?
No it does not. I asked you to provide evidence that corruption is more prevalent in renewable energy than anywhere else and you've failed to do so. You made some blanket statements about single projects and claim this is evidence of a general pattern.
Perhaps I've missed some link you posted to a peer reviewed study into this alleged corruption?
For instance, would there be less onerous environmental requirements on wind farms than open pit coal mines in the vicinity of artesian aquifers, simply because coal mines fark up the environment and wind turbines have negligible effect? Could coal ports requiring dredging of sensitive marine environments require more onerous environmental checks and balances than solar power farms that simply sit on open ground long since denuded of vegetation?
I wonder....
Select to expand quoteHarrow said..holy guacamole said..
So basically, you're still deep in denial about our direct influence on climate change at present....check
So basically, you're deep in denial that the climate has been naturally changing for billions of years and will continue to naturally change for billions more...check.
Not meaning to take sides, but throw away lines like this are meaningless no which side they come from. All I see is a lot of sticks and stones being thrown over a fence.
Of course climate changes naturally, but there's no evidence that the current changes are natural. None. There is however a strong correlation between warming and climate change and rising human produced greenhouse gases. This is the point still lost on so many deniers.
No I'm just calling out the implication of TA's statement. It's obvious he's making the statement to reduce the relevance of human AGW in the discussion and this suspicion is strengthened by his subsequent question. I've posted before the data on radiative forcing amounts but he obviously denies this is true?
Come on mate, TA is in complete denial about AGW and always has been.
Do you accept the science? Do you accept that our emissions exacerbate the greenhouse effect?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..holy guacamole said..TonyAbbott said..Climate change is real. It has been naturally changing for billions of years and will continue to naturally change for billions more
So basically, you're still deep in denial about our direct influence on climate change at present....check
Can you please tell us how much influence?
I leave that up to the scientists. Plenty of info out there if you care to withdraw your head from the sand.
The answer is..... a tiny %
Most changes in the climate are natural
Relax, you can cancel your revolution now, no need to destroy western civilization.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..Relax, you can cancel your revolution now, no need to destroy western civilization.
Do you realise how completely hysterical that sounds?
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said....The answer is..... a tiny %
Is it tiny? Show us the evidence to support your statement.
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said....Most changes in the climate are natural
Based on what scientific evidence? What's driving the current change if not human activity? Surely you have some data or measurements?
My evidence that alarmists are full of it is all the failed predictions and massive exaggerations. All the failed models. The dodgy temperature gauges. The rejection of science for dogma. Hockey stick graphs.
Watch al gores movie again, it just gets better with time.
Greta wants me to act as if my house is on fire...... Should I be calling 000, should I be fleeing, where do I go if I am pretending every house is on fire, or is she just being an alarmists?
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
What's driving the current change if not human activity? 
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
My evidence that alarmists are full of it is all the failed predictions and massive exaggerations. All the failed models. The dodgy temperature gauges. The rejection of science for dogma. Hockey stick graphs.
Watch al gores movie again, it just gets better with time.
Greta wants me to act as if my house is on fire...... Should I be calling 000, should I be fleeing, where do I go if I am pretending every house is on fire, or is she just being an alarmists?
Wow, that's a mad ladies breakfast!!!!
Select to expand quoteTonyAbbott said..
My evidence that alarmists are full of it is all the failed predictions and massive exaggerations. All the failed models. The dodgy temperature gauges. The rejection of science for dogma. Hockey stick graphs.
Watch al gores movie again, it just gets better with time.
Greta wants me to act as if my house is on fire...... Should I be calling 000, should I be fleeing, where do I go if I am pretending every house is on fire, or is she just being an alarmists?
Just because it's other people's houses doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
It's an odd thing following threads like this and others which discuss climate change. What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. But is it that simple? What about perspective? As an analogy, two man are standing on a road facing each other. One faces the oncoming traffic and one the opposite way. The one facing the traffic is panicked and urges the other one on the emergency to move off the road. However the one looking the other way see's no such vehicle and retorts "relax, fake news, panic merchants" etc. Those that don't want to look at the evidence should best be left as "natural selection" candidates. The science is settled and those like the Tony Abbott's of the google world be left to relax in the middle of the road.
Climate alarmism is wrong
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7906077/Extinction-Rebellion-founder-calls-Nuremberg-style-trials.html
Damn climate has changed again up on the north coast.
Was as hot as a monkeys bum here yesterday. Now it's quite cool.
Looks like it might have screwed the north Easter which was predicted.
Funny that! Some can tell us how hot it's going to be 20 years in the future but the bom has trouble with tomorrow!
Select to expand quoteFlySurfer said..
My understanding is that Heller's conspiracy theory and global warming denial have been debunked. Heller seems to pop up in many of Potholer's vids debunked every time.
I don't know why he keeps on about it but Heller's a maverick very much against the main stream so he has natural contrarian appeal. I take anything he has to offer with a grain of salt.
Here's a random debunking of Heller's vid:
Select to expand quoteHeisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Select to expand quoteParadox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Select to expand quoteIFocus said..Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Not trying to discredit you, but, not a doctor Karl spent five minutes explaining that bald tyres on the road are slippery unlike the bald tyres in motorsport, and that's why they're illegal. Truth is, bald tyres have better grip, until it rains or there's anything on the road, the real reason they're illegal
Select to expand quotepsychojoe said..IFocus said..Paradox said..Heisenberg said..
What's obvious to me is there are those that either believe in the science or don't. .......
The science is settled
Those that "believe" in anything are the ones that are misguided. Science isn't a belief, it's observation and interpreation of verifiable facts. it also relies on a healthy environment of sckeptisism and debate.
I also find that the ones that use the phrase "the science is settled" are the ones that have no clue as to what the science actually is and just use it as a phrase to cover lack of knowledge and push thier own "belief"
It doesn't matter what the subject is, the "science" is rarely settled.
Dr Karl summed it best IMHO
He doesn't believe in climate change
He accepts the science.
I haven't seen one "opinion" that contradicts the science that isn't a talking head, funded by fossil fuels or is a fringe academic seeking fame and $$'s BTW most are funded.
Not trying to discredit you, but, not a doctor Karl spent five minutes explaining that bald tyres on the road are slippery unlike the bald tyres in motorsport, and that's why they're illegal. Truth is, bald tyres have better grip, until it rains or there's anything on the road, the real reason they're illegal
I don't know, having never thought about this before, but comparing slicks to bald tyres is probably a bit misleading. The typical person running around on bald tyres will probably have rock hard rubber that doesn't have much grip, and probably in a narrow contact patch, versus a race car with nice sticky wide rubber.
I agree that the water is the real problem, but a slick does not equal a bald tyre.
Select to expand quotejapie said..
Damn climate has changed again up on the north coast.
Was as hot as a monkeys bum here yesterday. Now it's quite cool.
Looks like it might have screwed the north Easter which was predicted.
Funny that! Some can tell us how hot it's going to be 20 years in the future but the bom has trouble with tomorrow!
Because short term predictions are very different from long term predictions. That is basic logic and science.
If you don't change your car oil, you know your engine will blow eventually. That doesn't mean that you can predict on any day whether your big end will kark it all 11 am, 2 pm or get through the whole week.
If you leave your sail in the sun sunry day, we know with 100% accuracy it will blow out - but no sailmaker will tell you it's gonna happen tomorrow or next Monday.
Short term weather has different drivers to long term climate.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..
Short term weather has different drivers to long term climate.
This is true, although I do not believe we have a very good handle on exactly what influence warming will have on the gobal climate. It has just as many complex and chaotic factors driving it as short term weather forecasting encounters.
Your analogy uses a known detrimental factor in a simple system with a known fixed outcome - catostrophic failure. It would be more appropriate to use that analogy if we were stripping CO2 out of the atmosphere as that would be a certain end of world scenario.
Increased warming of the planet provides many benefits as well as challenges and there are some good arguments that the benefits might outweigh the negatives.
It's a shame the IPCC doesn't interpret it's mandate to assess positves from global warming along with the negatives. Kind of makes it a very one sided narrative.
