OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[hindy111]

Cows have a right to fart, too.

C'm

So if something drops from pH 8.2 to pH 8.1 it becomes 30% more what? What is the word that 'leftoids' have supposedly hijacked? I'm slightly right of centre in my politics so I'd like to know what word it is that the 'leftoids' denied me my right to use.

That's perfect soil acidity for growing blueberries.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

Belittling by suggesting that quoted sources is merely a cut n paste job is a vein attempt to reposition yourself as the one with superior intellect.

I am the one with a superior intellect.

Your condescending attitude is a mask for your self doubt.

I am guilty of many things. Self-doubt is not one of them.

Just post a rebuttal of everything that @Gary Gutful put considerable effort in compiling FFS.

There was no considerable effort. I mean, compared to you? Yes, there was considerable effort. Significantly considerable.

But it was just a mish-mash of quick cut jobs of anything he could find that seemed to even remotely link to the question. And, I provided a nice summary rebuttal - everything is natural except the one thing we don't want to be, because we have an agenda to push. Oh, and that pause post-2000 is natural, too, somehow overcoming the non-natural rise, because...science...despite the fact that it's right after a non-natural event...somehow...

 

[hindy111]

So you can add more acid to something but it doesnt become more acidic? That sounds fanciful.

It sounds like someone's taken a bit too much acid.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

That would be too hard. He doesn't have it in him.

I've posted my rebuttal - NASA data is fake. I have even given videos and graphs to show it.

 

[Gronk]

C'm



That's perfect soil acidity for growing blueberries.

Blueberries are what leftoids put in their organic açai smoothies.

 

[Gronk]

I am the one with a superior intellect.



I am guilty of many things. Self-doubt is not one of them.



There was no considerable effort. I mean, compared to you? Yes, there was considerable effort. Significantly considerable.

But it was just a mish-mash of quick cut jobs of anything he could find that seemed to even remotely link to the question. And, I provided a nice summary rebuttal - everything is natural except the one thing we don't want to be, because we have an agenda to push. Oh, and that pause post-2000 is natural, too, somehow overcoming the non-natural rise, because...science...despite the fact that it's right after a non-natural event...somehow...

Avoidance via bravado.

 

[hindy111]

Well, Pou made the post but I'll take a quick run at your three.

Fresh water? Droughts are reducing in occurrence and severity and precipitation is increasing:

View attachment 33351

View attachment 33352

Land - not sure what you mean? Usable land? Land we can live in? As above, droughts are reducing. Land is becoming more arable. So, am I right to lump this in with food?

LAI (Leaf Area Index) is increasing, and significantly less people are dying from famine:

View attachment 33353

View attachment 33354

But, like I said, Pou made the post so I'll wait and see what he meant.

I think in the 70s was the peak for most natural disasters. But we didn't have social media then and religion was still quite a good method to control people.
I feel like this is almost a new control mechanism and why their will always be sceptics. Especialy from people who think outside the square.

 

[hindy111]

Blueberries are what leftoids put in their organic açai smoothies.

Lefties paint this picture that right wing are greedy and selfish or bogun hicks who don't give a shit about anything.While they are these caring people or academics who understand the bigger issues.

Righties paint a picture that lefties are bludgers and lazy. Want a free ride. While they are hard working people.

Fact is 99.9% of them even with their political views live exactly the f**king same.

 

[Gronk]

Lefties paint this picture that right wing are greedy and selfish or bogun hicks who don't give a shit about anything.While they are these caring people or academics who understand the bigger issues.

Righties paint a picture that lefties are bludgers and lazy. Want a free ride. While they are hard working people.

Fact is 99.9% of them even with their political views live exactly the f**king same.

You’re an budding philosopher mate. Instead of posting it here, have you thought about journaling ?

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I think in the 70s was the peak for most natural disasters. But we didn't have social media then and religion was still quite a good method to control people.
I feel like this is almost a new control mechanism and why their will always be sceptics. Especialy from people who think outside the square.

Incorrect.

I've already shown that burn acreage was greatest in the first half of the 20th century. Droughts the same.

It's similar for hurricanes, which are the other natural phenomenon that alarmists go on about.

 

[Gary Gutful]

I've posted my rebuttal - NASA data is fake. I have even given videos and graphs to show it.

I've watched that and read many articles on it. I have also read a lot of counter positions. Both sides raise some good points and it helped me put McIntyre's position into perspective. Mann certainly didn't help himself and I can see why he has been targeted by the deniers for some fairly sloppy work. But focusing just on his work is a distraction from many other credible arguments.

Where I got to is where I have always been on most complex scientific issues and where I have always been on climate change. It is far more complicated than any one side is suggesting. I am not sure how anyone can be extremely confident one way or the other.

 

[Gary Gutful]

You’re an budding philosopher mate. Instead of posting it here, have you thought about journaling ?

I'd only read it if each journal entry started with 'Dear Dairy'.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Why would increased temperatures lead to resource scarcity? What resources in particular are you talking about?

I'm talking in particular about water stored in mountains as ice, though any change in rainfall patterns can lead to reduced access to water where large numbers of people currently live.

Increased rainfall in one part of the world doesn't offset reduced rainfall in an inhabited region. The people living there don't give a f**k if there is more rain somewhere else.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I'm talking in particular about water stored in mountains as ice, though any change in rainfall patterns can lead to reduced access to water where large numbers of people currently live.

Increased rainfall in one part of the world doesn't offset reduced rainfall in an inhabited region. The people living there don't give a f**k if there is more rain somewhere else.

And, Pou, the more "water stored in mountains as ice" the less water there is for the people you seem so concerned for.

Not that there's that many of them, from the above global precipitation trends in the 20th century graph.

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

I've watched that and read many articles on it. I have also read a lot of counter positions. Both sides raise some good points and it helped me put McIntyre's position into perspective. Mann certainly didn't help himself and I can see why he has been targeted by the deniers for some fairly sloppy work. But focusing just on his work is a distraction from many other credible arguments.

Where I got to is where I have always been on most complex scientific issues and where I have always been on climate change. It is far more complicated than any one side is suggesting. I am not sure how anyone can be extremely confident one way or the other.

And that, old mate, is the most measured response so far.

So, once again, credit where it is due - you put the most effort into a response and you are now trying to take a balanced approach to all data.

Your ambivalence is still wrong, though

 

[Poupou Escobar]

I've watched that and read many articles on it. I have also read a lot of counter positions. Both sides raise some good points and it helped me put McIntyre's position into perspective. Mann certainly didn't help himself and I can see why he has been targeted by the deniers for some fairly sloppy work. But focusing just on his work is a distraction from many other credible arguments.

Where I got to is where I have always been on most complex scientific issues and where I have always been on climate change. It is far more complicated than any one side is suggesting. I am not sure how anyone can be extremely confident one way or the other.

That's right. The science is nowhere near as conclusive as HJ believes, which is why there are scientists (a lot of them, apparently) who are on the climate alarmism side of the debate.

But while neither side has shown conclusive proof of their position, it is simply good risk management to force the burden of proof on those in favour of continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere. Minimising that change is the safe option, and therefore requires less proof.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

And, Pou, the more "water stored in mountains as ice" the less water there is for the people you seem so concerned for.

Not that there's that many of them, from the above global precipitation trends in the 20th century graph.

And again, the average of anything anywhere hides the extreme data points that impact people's lives. To benefit people rain needs to fall in river basins, so it reaches them, and it needs to be steady rather than falling in patterns that cause floods.

 

[Gary Gutful]

And that, old mate, is the most measured response so far.

So, once again, credit where it is due - you put the most effort into a response and you are now trying to take a balanced approach to all data.

Your ambivalence is still wrong, though

Being measured and balanced has served me pretty well so far in life.

 

[Gary Gutful]

That's right. The science is nowhere near as conclusive as HJ believes, which is why there are scientists (a lot of them, apparently) who are on the climate alarmism side of the debate.

But while neither side has shown conclusive proof of their position, it is simply good risk management to force the burden of proof on those in favour of continuing to change the composition of the atmosphere. Minimising that change is the safe option, and therefore requires less proof.

Agreed. It's where most of the big corporates and a lot of sensible Governments have gotten to.

I wouldn't base such important decisions on a couple of dodgily edited YouTube videos and a few graphs.

 

[hindy111]

You’re an budding philosopher mate. Instead of posting it here, have you thought about journaling ?

It's the truth. Save the planet. Turn on the air con I dont deserve not to live comfortably. And onto the plane to my next holidays.