What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: Current Affairs and Politics

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,830
WTF? Pollution?

"Climate change" is about carbon dioxide. Which plants f**king eat to grow.

It isn't pollution, not in any sense of the word. The use of that term is simply another example of moral hijacking by the left, used to guilt trip you into submitting to their bullshit, and it is a perfect example of why they should never be believed.

Don't confuse "climate change" with legitimate environmental issues like pollution, or deforestation, or rampant and destructive plastic use. Those are legitimate issues that we need to deal with - but they are not in any way linked to "climate change".

What your post basically shows is that you are a braindead moron, who has no ability to think logically and is easily manipulated by emotion. Why am I not surprised that Gronk has liked your post?

That's a fair old rant but surely even you understand that climate change theory has an awful, awful lot to do with various kinds of pollution... Right?

And before you call me a brain dead moron or whatever, note that I despise "concensus science" and it's the sole reason I no longer work in the field
 
Messages
11,677
Plants can only consume so much carbon. Are they growing fast enough to cover the increase? I know much of the world is getting greener but a lot of it is getting browner too. And big trees don't pop up overnight.

Why is there a problem with an increase? You're just making an assumption, with no evidence, that the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is a problem - specifically, that it increases global temperature.

No data shows this link in the past. Carbon dioxide levels have been almost 20 times what they are now and there was no runaway greenhouse effect. As a matter of fact, evidence from the likes of the Vostok Ice Cores show carbon dioxide actually trails temperature throughout the historical record, not the other way around.

If carbon dioxide causes temperature increases then why did global temperature drop between 1940 and 1970?

Why was it warmer during medieval times? Even warmer than that during Roman times? Even warmer than that during Egyptian times? Carbon dioxide levels were lower back then...

Why did the post-1970 warming trend stop just prior to 2000? What caused the increase between 1910-1940, when carbon dioxide levels were stable?

So what does it matter if the greening of the Earth (which you correctly stated is happening) can absorb the increase in carbon dioxide levels? At no point in our historical record is there any evidence to suggest that increases in carbon dioxide lead to increases in temperature. The historical record shows that higher temperatures than what we have now have been great for life (both human society and animals and plants).

So, hat does it matter?

And how does this relate to your original claim that carbon dioxide is a pollutant?
 

Gary Gutful

Post Whore
Messages
53,254
WTF? Pollution?

"Climate change" is about carbon dioxide. Which plants f**king eat to grow.

It isn't pollution, not in any sense of the word. The use of that term is simply another example of moral hijacking by the left, used to guilt trip you into submitting to their bullshit, and it is a perfect example of why they should never be believed.

Don't confuse "climate change" with legitimate environmental issues like pollution, or deforestation, or rampant and destructive plastic use. Those are legitimate issues that we need to deal with - but they are not in any way linked to "climate change".

What your post basically shows is that you are a braindead moron, who has no ability to think logically and is easily manipulated by emotion. Why am I not surprised that Gronk has liked your post?
Why is the Great Barrier Reef suffering significant documented declines in health? What do you think is causing it, science man?
 
Messages
11,677
That's a fair old rant but surely even you understand that climate change theory has an awful, awful lot to do with various kinds of pollution... Right?

And before you call me a brain dead moron or whatever, note that I despise "concensus science" and it's the sole reason I no longer work in the field

No, it doesn't. Not in any way.

Remember, "climate change" used to be called "global warming" (until the world stopped warming ;)). It is about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas (which it is, although only a very minor one) and how this is directly responsible for the increase in global temperature since 1970 (which stopped in around 2000 ;)).

It is also now linked to increased weather events (which are all lies - hurricanes are declining in number and severity, and global burn acreage has decreased by >80% since the 1930s), as well as the melting of the glaciers (even though there is clear evidence that this began around 1850) and rising sea levels (which have not actually occurred at all).

Now, without playing semantics, we can establish very clearly that carbon dioxide is the exact opposite of a pollutant. You see, plants east it and use it to grow.

So, sorry, Baz, but you're wrong, mate. Awfully, awfully wrong.
 
Messages
11,677
Why is the Great Barrier Reef suffering significant documented declines in health? What do you think is causing it, science man?

It could very well be an increase in temperature, Gary.

The question is what caused this increase?

We did have one between 1970-2000, but that doesn't mean carbon dioxide did it.

Once again:
* Did carbon dioxide cause the increase in temperature between 1910-1940?
* If so, why did temperatures then decline between 1940-1970? After carbon kept rising?
* If not, then it was natural, so why is the 1970-2000 increase any different? They were about the same increase over about the same timeframe, so why are they different?
* Why has temperature flattened out since 2000, if carbon dioxide keeps rising?
* Did carbon dioxide cause the emergence from the Little Ice Age in the 18th Century? How?
* If not, then why is the recent, and finished, temperature increase any different (non-natural)?
* Why would we assume that a short term, 30-year temperature increase is a big deal when we have similar natural increases in recent history, as well as a longer term trend of increase that took us out of the Ice Age 13,000 years ago, that clearly cannot be linked to carbon dioxide?

It could very well be an increase in temperature that is causing some damage to the GBR, Gary. Doesn't mean carbon dioxide did it.

***

You see, you just all keep making the same mistake. You pick something, say "What about this?!?!" but do so under the assumption that carbon dioxide cause increased temperature.

We have historical records (both proxy and direct) that show that there has never been a link between the two. So, why do you all keep talking as if it is the case?

Because someone told you so? Because you have been told to think that? Can't you look at the data for yourselves? It's pretty straight forward once you spend a little bit of time on it, you know?
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,341
That's because...wait for it...you're emotional. It's how you run your life, it's what your decisions are based on. It is why you are ignorant, and always wrong.

I've finally figured it out. You must be a parody account. Nobody could really be like you IRL.
 
Messages
11,677
I've finally figured it out. You must be a parody account. Nobody could really be like you IRL.

I know it's tough to accept that someone could be as charismatic and intelligent as me, Gronk, especially considering the kind of company leftoids keep. I get it.

But it's true, mate. I'm real. I exist. And I'm glorious.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,830
No, it doesn't. Not in any way.

Remember, "climate change" used to be called "global warming" (until the world stopped warming ;)). It is about carbon dioxide being a greenhouse gas (which it is, although only a very minor one) and how this is directly responsible for the increase in global temperature since 1970 (which stopped in around 2000 ;)).

It is also now linked to increased weather events (which are all lies - hurricanes are declining in number and severity, and global burn acreage has decreased by >80% since the 1930s), as well as the melting of the glaciers (even though there is clear evidence that this began around 1850) and rising sea levels (which have not actually occurred at all).

Now, without playing semantics, we can establish very clearly that carbon dioxide is the exact opposite of a pollutant. You see, plants east it and use it to grow.

So, sorry, Baz, but you're wrong, mate. Awfully, awfully wrong.

We breath oxygen HJ... Are you aware of the issues too much oxygen in the atmosphere would cause? There are entire ecosystems in the ocean based on the chemosynthesis of hydrogen sulfide, would you be sweet if we just started pouring that into the sea? After all, an entire set of ecosystems eat it and use it to grow!

The fact that you seem to be refusing to acknowledge a basic truth renders everything you've said completely worthless, tbh. Carbon dioxide can be a pollutant. As is just about anything in excess. FFS even too much water has the potential to destroy certain ecosystems...
 

Gronk

Moderator
Staff member
Messages
78,341
The Climate Council was created by public funding after Abbott shut down the Australian Climate Commission.

Presser just released after ScoMo's UN speech in front of a packed house. :p

EFWrbiBXsAERyb7


EFWFhByUEAEv_t6


MORRISON’S COLOSSAL BULLSHIT

Prime Minister Scott Morrison has taken to the global stage delivering a speech to the United Nations in New York which was long on spin and short on fact.

“Scott Morrison’s speech and his claim that Australia was doing enough on climate change was colossal bullshit,” said the CEO of the Climate Council, Amanda McKenzie.

“Over the winter we saw bushfires burning across Australia while the Amazon rainforest and the Arctic were on fire. A major new report shows that suburbs in Sydney, Perth and Melbourne could experience serious sea level disasters every year on our current trajectory. Meanwhile, on this government’s watch, Australia’s pollution is rising year on year. To suggest we are doing enough is ludicrous and dangerous,” she said.

“Mr Morrison is out of touch with what is happening all around us. He is also out of touch with Australians who are really worried,” said Ms McKenzie.

“Mr Morrison told the United Nations that our children have a right to optimism. Perhaps they would feel more optimistic if he started to take the problem of climate change seriously,” she said.

FACT-CHECKING MORRISON’S SPEECH:
Morrison statement: “Now, Australia is also taking real action on climate change and we are getting results. We are successfully balancing our global responsibilities with sensible and practical policies to secure our environmental and our economic future.”

Fact-check: Australia’s Paris target is to reduce our emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2030. This is one of the weakest targets amongst developed countries. If other countries adopted Australia’s target the world would be heading for catastrophic climate damage. Rising emissions and worsening climate impacts are placing Australian lives, our economy and the natural environment at risk.

Morrison statement: “Australia is responsible for just 1.3 per cent of global emissions. Australia is doing our bit on climate change and we reject any suggestion to the contrary.”

Fact-check: Australia is the 17th largest polluter in the world, bigger than 175 countries. We are the third largest exporter of fossil fuels in the world.

Morrison statement: “By 2020 Australia will have overachieved on our Kyoto commitments, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by 367 million tonnes more than required to meet our 2020 Kyoto target. Now there are few member countries, whether at this forum or the OECD who can make this claim.”

Fact-check: The reason for this is that Australia’s Kyoto targets were the second weakest in the world for the first commitment period (a target to increase emissions by 8% above 1990 levels) and the weakest in the world for the second commitment period (a target to reduce emissions by just 5% below 2000 levels by 2020). It isn’t hard to overachieve on dismal targets. The reality is today our emissions are going up and up – according to the government’s own data.

Morrison statement: “Our latest estimates show both emissions per person and the emissions intensity of the economy are at their lowest levels in 29 years.”

Fact-check:Australia has the highest emissions per capita in the developed world. It is true that Australia’s emissions per capita have fallen more than most countries, but this is from an extraordinarily high baseline, and has largely been driven by rapid population growth. Even with this drop, we still have the highest per capita emissions in the developed world. Our emissions per capita are higher than Saudi Arabia, a country not known for its action on climate change. Ultimately, our international targets are not based on per capita emissions.

Morrison statement: “Australia’s electricity sector is producing less emissions. In the year to March 2019, emissions from Australia’s electricity sector were 15.7% lower than the peak recorded in the year to June 2009.”

Fact-check: This is cherry picking. There are 47 sectors in the Australian economy, almost all of them are going up. This figure of 15.7% is only correct for the electricity sector in the east coast of Australia, not all of Australia. While emissions from electricity are down, and this is good news, this is despite the best efforts of the Federal Government to undermine the renewable energy sector. Also, emissions from electricity production account for only 33% of our total emissions. Overall, there has been a rise in emissions from other sectors such as transport. Australia’s emissions are increasing and have been for five years in a row.

Morrison statement: “…it is important to note that Australia only accounts for around 5.5 per cent of the world’s coal production.”

Fact-check: This is spin, as it makes Australia’s contribution to climate change seem much smaller than it is. In reality, if you include Australia’s fossil fuel exports, we are the fifth largest emitter on the planet, after the US, China, EU and India. Australia is the world’s second largest coal exporter.

Morrison statement: “We are committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 per cent below 2005 levels by 2030.”

Fact-check: This is woefully inadequate and not aligned to what the science says is necessary to tackle climate change. Australia’s emissions have risen every year for the past five years, across almost every sector of the economy. The Government’s commitment on paper might be 26-28%, but cheating with Kyoto credits effectively reduces our emissions reduction target to just 15%.

Morrison statement: “And our Great Barrier Reef remains one of the world’s most pristine areas of natural beauty. Feel free to visit it. Our reef is vibrant and resilient and protected under the world’s most comprehensive reef management plan.”

Fact-check: In 2016 and 2017, the Great Barrier Reef was severely damaged through back-to-back bleaching events which killed half of all corals on the planet’s largest living structure. Australia’s current goal, if followed by other countries, would sign the death warrant of the Great Barrier Reef.

https://www.climatecouncil.org.au/resources/morrison-un-summit/
 
Messages
11,677
We breath oxygen HJ... Are you aware of the issues too much oxygen in the atmosphere would cause? There are entire ecosystems in the ocean based on the chemosynthesis of hydrogen sulfide, would you be sweet if we just started pouring that into the sea? After all, an entire set of ecosystems eat it and use it to grow!

The fact that you seem to be refusing to acknowledge a basic truth renders everything you've said completely worthless, tbh. Carbon dioxide can be a pollutant. As is just about anything in excess. FFS even too much water has the potential to destroy certain ecosystems...

Actually, plants are able to deal with this, Baz, and they push out excess carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They actually breathe it out as well as in, based on the levels they inhale.

So, it's not the same, mate.

Sorry. I know you want it to be. But it's not.

Spend a half hour reading into how plants deal with the atmosphere and you'll see what I mean.
 

84 Baby

Immortal
Messages
30,048
Actually, plants are able to deal with this, Baz, and they push out excess carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They actually breathe it out as well as in, based on the levels they inhale.

So, it's not the same, mate.

Sorry. I know you want it to be. But it's not.

Spend a half hour reading into how plants deal with the atmosphere and you'll see what I mean.
I don’t think you read his post at all
 
Messages
11,677
Of course I did.

He basically said "OMG, there might be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plants!!! Because, you know, other gases can cause other problems for other species!!! So it's EXACTLY THE SAME!!!"

So, let me answer in another way...

The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is WELL BELOW what plants want. Plants actually want 1000ppm+.

Read that again - plants want at least 2.5x more carbon dioxide than is currently in the atmosphere. As a mnimum. Plants eat carbon dioxide and they are currently starving.

Is that clearer?

The fact that you seem to be refusing to acknowledge a basic truth renders everything you've said completely worthless, tbh

How's the above for a basic truth, Baz?
 

84 Baby

Immortal
Messages
30,048
Of course I did.

He basically said "OMG, there might be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plants!!! Because, you know, other gases can cause other problems for other species!!! So it's EXACTLY THE SAME!!!"

So, let me answer in another way...

The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is WELL BELOW what plants want. Plants actually want 1000ppm+.

Read that again - plants want at least 2.5x more carbon dioxide than is currently in the atmosphere. As a mnimum. Plants eat carbon dioxide and they are currently starving.

Is that clearer?



How's the above for a basic truth, Baz?
Yeah the f**ken trees are loving it
You realise every other species on planet doesn’t breathe carbon dioxide?
You realise the affect it has on oceans?
You realise that it doesn’t automatically magic it’s way into the trees collective pieholes?
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,830
Actually, plants are able to deal with this, Baz, and they push out excess carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They actually breathe it out as well as in, based on the levels they inhale.

So, it's not the same, mate.

Sorry. I know you want it to be. But it's not.

Spend a half hour reading into how plants deal with the atmosphere and you'll see what I mean.

I have a biology degree, mate, but I mean if you think it'd help...
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
103,830
Of course I did.

He basically said "OMG, there might be too much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere for plants!!! Because, you know, other gases can cause other problems for other species!!! So it's EXACTLY THE SAME!!!"

So, let me answer in another way...

The current level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is WELL BELOW what plants want. Plants actually want 1000ppm+.

Read that again - plants want at least 2.5x more carbon dioxide than is currently in the atmosphere. As a mnimum. Plants eat carbon dioxide and they are currently starving.

Is that clearer?



How's the above for a basic truth, Baz?

Very untruthful for something you've called a basic truth.
 
Top