Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 5, 2015.
anything to do with their political agenda ?
It's difficult to believe such an argument could be informed by fact, so one can only imagine it is informed by ideological position, and that usually tends to align with a political agenda, so yeah I guess.
No different to a merkin using their political agenda to discredit something someone says becuase they aren't a 'scientist'. Worse still when they then make up some bullshit about it not being a 'fact' when someone points out that 1000s of scientists have said the very thing they are trying to discredit.
You cant really get much closer than this
Full blown deniers will twist themselves in knots to try and argue against climate change. Much like full blown fanatics will twist themselves in knots to blame it for everything. Once again, it's more about an us vs them than any semblance of truth.
Posting images from scientific or allegedly scientific papers without link to the section, and therefore context, is a classic trick
It's green ideology they're blaming. It also influences Labor and even LNP voters, much like how Labor supports nationalist positions despite their leaders all being avowed globalists.
Hahahaha, so when, of all groups, the IPCC says that drought isn't linked to climate change, it's an opinion...
Ok, let's look at some facts, then...
EPA - Global precipitation has increased:
Pssst, Twiz, it's Figure 2 you want to look at Figure 2, buddy
NASA - Increased precipitation is spread fairly evenly around the globe. Specifically, Australia has received increased precipitation:
Even if anthropogenic climate change is real, which it isn't, it's not causing droughts. Ipso fatso, it's not causing Austrralia's bushfires. Not even the IPCC - the biggest climate change fanatics in the world - are stupid enough to make that claim when faced when the evidence from the EPA and NASA.
The facts are in - and they show climate change is not responsible for our current crisis.
In case that was a reference to my post (not saying it was, but just in case) then you can find my screenshot here:
Download the pdf for Chapter 2, and go to Page 214, which is the section covering drought. The particular paragraph that I screenshotted is on Page 215, at the end of the drought section.
I do not know of a link to the document's contents being laid out on a webpage, sorry. All I have is a link to where you can grab the IPCC's pdf files, but I've laid out the Chapter to download and the exact page to look at, so I think that's quite fair from my end.
Regarding opinions vs facts, most people aren't verifying the science for themselves - they are trusting the opinions of others.
Cheers. I'll have a look when I get home from work.
If you are ever diagnosed with cancer, you should definitely hire out your own cat scan rig, conduct your own blood tests etc and only then will you know if the opinion of the so called *experts* has merit.
Like the "97% of scientists believe climate change is real and caused by humans" garbage.
I wonder if anyone has ever tried to validate the truth of this claim?
I'm gonna be a bit of an arsehole and say...I doubt anyone on this forum has.
But......I have...and so I know it's Fake News...
I'm not arguing the point or saying you are wrong, I didn't put any contra argument forward. Its just that if you dont provide a source of reference then its just an opinion and you can leave yourself open but we have had this conversation prior.
After following Fitsimmons for the last few months he has convinced me that no amount of hazard reduction would have prevented the current fires as we are in a pretty bad drought, and he is well qualified to make that claim.
As for climate change, well that's a whole other argument.
Have you been affected by the fires up your way ? I have friends in Kurrajong who nearly lost their house but they are OK, for now at least.
that depends on your level of skepticism and some sources are simply not sources
Memes and Mrs Jones on Facebook is where I get my facts.
Even if the majority of scientists do agree (I'm sure they do), most of them would be the garbage scientists not good enough for a salaried job in industry.
you mean the life long PHD students ?
I worked with a few at ANU on a commercial venture they were working on and that was about 20 years ago, and to this day there venture has never been commercialized, but hey, they are still being paid, albeit poorly, to carry out research
Hopefully they don't give me thalidomide for my morning sickness.
Separate names with a comma.