Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
detai

Getting ridickulous/climate change and stuff

Recommended Posts

Bloody scare mongers.

Firstly, Melbourne won't exsist by 2050 due the pictures that are around.

Australian exports will crash too by 2050

most fish life is fuked

most land animals are rooted

Melbourne will be an extension of the Simpson desert, if it isn't under water, which suggests it could be a good beach to go camping on.

I'll be lucky to see 2020 but the Chinese have a problem where by the end of 2010, there will be 80% more males than females in the 18-35 age group, and that'll make them angry or horny or all 3, and we'll either have to take a bullet from an angry, gee, say 2 billion of them, or surrender and take one up the butt.

The middle east is just..........well, they'll probably shoot each other dead.

Oil will run out in the next 10 or so years, gas is near history and probably the world will self implode anyway. All this and we have Y3K to look out for.

 

Anything else gunna happen???.....i know i missed a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

as a species we seem to love a good scare. (i'm sure someone has a good theory there).

 

we used to worry about MAD mutually assured destruction. for some reason we don't worry so much about that one now even though there are still enough nukes to easily wipe us all out a few times.

that's right, now we have the war on TERRRR (only one syllable if you listen to some yanks)

 

Y2K got us excited but was an absolute fizzer.

 

bird flu has been tried a few times but most people don't get too excited about it.

 

back in the 80s aids was going to wipe us all out, but in the west has not been the major problem prophesied. (is in other places).

 

for all my life, and for some time before it we have been going to run out of oil in 10-15 years. (one day, they will be right).

 

now people may be the cause of climate change, but it doesn't help that type of people who have told us since 1960something that we are going to run out of oil in 15 years are the ones telling us that we are all going to drown inside 20 years.

this is not a statement of belief either way. more of a marketing observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't have to be Einstein to see that that there's a new growth industries born out of all this scaremongering.

 

Ever notice that to be green these day involves spending money.

 

You don't here the conservative argument (or to conserve) to much.

 

let me see ........

 

I've got sell the car and buy a more efficient one.(what happens to the old car when I sell it .. no body else is going to drive it .. dont think so! ....& how much energy does it take to build a new car)

 

I've got chuck out my old top loading washing machine and buy a front loading one.

 

I've got chuck out my old fidge and buy a more efficient one. ( does the old fridge get degased when it goes to the tip so we don't let more GHG into the atmosphere.....NO!)

 

Were are all those energy efficient light bulbs coming from now that incandescence will be phased out. (Not to mention the energy it will take to produce them just so we can chuck out the old ones)

 

All the rain water tank sale$$$$$

 

$olar Panel$

 

Carbon credit$

 

Eviromental levie$

 

Job$$$$$$

 

Don't get me started..............

 

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've got sell the car and buy a more efficient one.(what happens to the old car when I sell it .. no body else is going to drive it .. dont think so! ....& how much energy does it take to build a new car)

:lol:

 

339693[/snapback]

 

 

 

figures like %70 of energy consumed in a cars life is in its manufacture.... not that that gets mentioned much.

 

then there is the annoying concept in the usa of ZEMs. zero emissions vehicles... like how is that possible??!!

 

first you have to make the thing.

 

then you have to power it. if they claim it's ZEM then typically that's electricity, which doesn't come out of the air. typically you burn coal or oil to make the electricity or you have a nuclear power plant which while greener in some aspects is not without problems.

 

also in the usa PZEMs (partially zero emissions vehicle)... surely it IS or it ISN'T!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Neccessity as they say is the mother of invention...

 

The climate on this rock has been changing since time began, the only difference is we are evolved enough to notice... and prove that we are playing a part...

 

There is nothing unnatural about climate change... it is part of the way things work.

 

All this energy going into fighting the change.... methinks that we had beter spend some time thinking through how to live with it...

 

Otter - You are just feeling the pinch because your habitat is at risk..... Dont wory my furry little friend I intend to put you out of your misery well before your pond dries up..... How does Feb 10th 2008 work for you??

 

:lol::lol::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point about energy required to manufacture better more efficient products is valid. We shouldn't throw away perfectly good washing machines/fridges/cars just because they use a percentage more power than new models. The key is to replace when the old shit is run into the ground (unless it's REALLY shit like a brown coal power station... They at least need to be migrated to natural gas (or even thorium))

 

But you've missed an even more important point. A lot of the NEW stuff being built is still shit and inefficient! We're still buying record numbers of big fuel-hungry cars, even though petrol prices are going up and up (and up!) We're falling over ourselves to build McMansions, even energy costs are going up and up (and up!), not to mention interest rates...

 

It's the close minded "I'm right Jack, f** you" attitude that's got us into this hole in the first place, but we just keep digging... And many consumers (being consumers) would MUCH rather do a "it's all bullshit" group-hug than face up to the fact that things have to change.

 

You know, fossil fuels are amazing resources, they really are. There's SO much truly useful stuff in them. But we're not only hell-bent on using them in the stupidest way possible (BURNING them for Christ's sake!), but we're also making pretty damn sure none of them will be available for future generations...

 

God we're selfish idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God we're selfish idiots.

 

339754[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I am not sure I would include yourself in the "we're" Reefy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok Reefmanburgers, so what is the plan. What do we have to do. Lots of ' oh we are buggered if we continue' and 'oh we have to do stuff', but what is it that we have to do. What is it that you green mofos want us to do exactly? Drop everything we do now and pick up sticks and stones, live in a cave?

 

Get over it, will never happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
for all my life, and for some time before it we have been going to run out of oil in 10-15 years. (one day, they will be right).

 

339688[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The oil sands of Alberta Canada (140,000 square km) are second in size only to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia. The main reason they have not been used to date is that middle east oil is cheaper to recover. At current prices, Canadian sand oil is very profitable. The current 1m barrels per day is checken feed compared to the Middle East, but production will increase if prices remain high.

 

There is enough oil in Alberta alone to meet current world demand for 100+ years. By then, ITER will be on board and oil will no longer be as important. Can't wait till ITER gets up & running. :lol: The energy industry's Holy Grail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
we used to worry about MAD mutually assured destruction. for some reason we don't worry so much about that one now even though there are still enough nukes to easily wipe us all out a few times.

 

339688[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

With Bush Jnr still at the helm of the States and Putin imbedding himself deeper into the Soviet Political system with his fervour to increase military spending the concerns are still there... :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The oil sands of Alberta Canada (140,000 square km) are second in size only to the oil fields of Saudi Arabia.

 

339777[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Also the biggest polluter...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bloody scare mongers.

Firstly, Melbourne won't exsist by 2050 due the pictures that are around.

Australian exports will crash too by 2050

most fish life is fuked

most land animals are rooted

Melbourne will be an extension of the Simpson desert, if it isn't under water, which suggests it could be a good beach to go camping on.

I'll be lucky to see 2020 but the Chinese have a problem where by the end of 2010, there will be 80% more males than females in the 18-35 age group, and that'll make them angry or horny or all 3, and we'll either have to take a bullet from an angry, gee, say 2 billion of them, or surrender and take one up the butt.

The middle east is just..........well, they'll probably shoot each other dead.

Oil will run out in the next 10 or so years, gas is near history and probably the world will self implode anyway. All this and we have Y3K to look out for.

 

Anything else gunna happen???.....i know i missed a bit.

 

339669[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

And Al Gore will rule the world with an Iron Fist!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's very political,

 

There's 2 sides to the politics in this that people just can't distinguish between;

 

1. Green

 

2. Enviromental.

 

There not the same !

 

Unfortunatly were getting a lot of the Green and not enough Enviromental.

 

Here I go again..........

 

:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Reefmanburgers, so what is the plan. What do we have to do. Lots of ' oh we are buggered if we continue' and 'oh we have to do stuff', but what is it that we have to do. What is it that you green mofos want us to do exactly? Drop everything we do now and pick up sticks and stones, live in a cave?

 

Get over it, will never happen.

 

339774[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Mate you picked the wrong guy, if you have a look back at a lot of his posts Reefy is one guy doing something about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok Reefmanburgers, so what is the plan. What do we have to do. Lots of ' oh we are buggered if we continue' and 'oh we have to do stuff', but what is it that we have to do. What is it that you green mofos want us to do exactly? Drop everything we do now and pick up sticks and stones, live in a cave?

 

Get over it, will never happen.

 

339774[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Ha, I've never been called a green motherf##ker before...

 

You know you're probably right. The only countries with enough wealth to cover their own arses have people like you who would probably start a riot if anyone tried to get them to change, and the rest (most) of the world (being the poor undeveloped countries) are scrambling to not only match OUR lifestyles, but have exploding populations...

 

But anyway, what would I have you do? Zero your own footprint for a start, and leverage your voice as much as you can. Simple. Of course you won't believe a word of it, but I'll say it anyway.

 

* Switch over to 100% green energy (before you say "Der, but all the power is mixed together, you can't know you're getting the green power out, you green motherf##cker", it's the CREDIT. People need to be buying the stuff to justify investment into more of it.).

 

* Only buy good stuff. (read above re: fridges/cars/houses)

 

* Change your super away from fossil-fuel companies to renewables/ethical companies. (VERY smart as this is where growth will be long-term) We all have super these days and need to vote with our wallets.

 

* Support companies and pollies that support helping the developing world do things better than we have. This is the elephant in the room...

 

* Carbon offset everything else. Yes I know most carbon offsets are a con, but there's still SOME good ones I think. And that's why this is last on the list. Offsetting should always be a last resort.

Climate positive is a good one

 

Easy? Of course not! It's almost certain not to work (I'm sure you agree), especially once a 9billion+ population is factored in. I don't feel good about it at all. And why should I spend a lot of my time trying to convince people like you, when we both mean f##k all anyway? In fact, I feel more and more like saying "F##k it, I'm sticking my head in the sand, spending up and taking my family around the world and what happens will happen".

 

But I dunno... Somehow I think I'd feel even worse doing that.

 

And besides, once we got back there won't be enough caves for everyone to live in anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No scare mongering - just fact.

 

Does anyone realise that with a carbon trading scheme, we will be the ones who will have to pay more for our goods & services. Although there is no regulatory body as yet (anyone can pretty much do as they please in the name of the environment) as the AGO (Australian Greenhouse Office) has only published "guidelines", more and more companies will move towards a greener thinking management plan which means more cost to us. Even with Early Adoption Credits will make a companies COGS (Cost of Goods Sold) now more expensive.

 

Carbon will increase in value from the $10 - $15 a tonne to probably $50 in three years. Just think by 2010 or 11 when Kevy baby has guaranteed us that we will have a national carbon trading scheme, how much stuff will go up. Also note that he has agreed to reduce our carbon footprint by 25-40% by 2020. In real terms that could be well over 50% if you take into account growth.......

 

That is going to be one very expensive exercise me thinks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

* Only buy good stuff. (read above re: fridges/cars/houses)

 

 

339800[/snapback]

 

 

 

possibly more importantly... DON"T buy stuff.

 

but when you have to good stuff is fine, but too many people think stuff needs to be replace because it looks outdated, rather than it has completed its useful life.

 

me.. i want some credit for driving a 58 holden and for riding a bike that has a bunch of 20 year old shimano 600 parts on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon will increase in value from the $10 - $15 a tonne to probably $50 in three years.

 

 

339804[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Does this mean carbon bikes will get dearer??

 

Now you are scaring me!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
* Carbon offset everything else. Yes I know most carbon offsets are a con, but there's still SOME good ones I think. And that's why this is last on the list. Offsetting should always be a last resort.

Climate positive is a good one

 

339800[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I think carbon offsetting should be akin to travel insurance - if you can't afford it then you can't afford to travel.

 

When ever I fly I buy offsets to cover the estimated emissions and I buy credits to cover my typical yearly footprint. It doesn't cost much and it's easy to do.

 

--Toby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Carbon will increase in value from the $10 - $15 a tonne to probably $50 in three years.

 

 

339804[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Does this mean carbon bikes will get dearer??

 

Now you are scaring me!

 

339807[/snapback]

 

 

 

no, they should be cheaper...

part of a carbon sequestration program.

if it's in the bike then it's not in the air :lol::lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think carbon offsetting should be akin to travel insurance - if you can't afford it then you can't afford to travel.

 

When ever I fly I buy offsets to cover the estimated emissions and I buy credits to cover my typical yearly footprint. It doesn't cost much and it's easy to do.

 

--Toby

 

339808[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Toby

 

What sort of offsets do you buy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WE'RE ALL DEAD ANYWAY........

 

Has anybody read Bill Bryson's "a short history of nearly everything"?

 

Those who want a real hard reality check should give this a read.

 

some points in it

 

-in the history of the Earth, 99.9999% of all species have become extinct. (and this was well before humans starting f@cking it up with carbon emissions, etc)

 

-if you looked at the earths life as a 24 hour clock, humans have only been on it for the last 10 seconds.

 

So a very very long history says we wont be around ever.........

 

ok, that being said, I'm going surfing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Toby

 

What sort of offsets do you buy?

 

339818[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I've been buying green energy credits through

 

http://climatefriendly.com

 

--Toby

 

339830[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Good stuff. At least it is actually doing something now, unlike sequestration!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

Paywall, can you give us a taste of the article?

ETA: It wouldn't happen to be the article about Indian air temperatures put out by the Cornwall Alliance would it?

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it's about one scientist who says he was wrong about climate change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Paywall, can you give us a taste of the article?

ETA: It wouldn't happen to be the article about Indian air temperatures put out by the Cornwall Alliance would it?

Sorry, but I cried wolf on climate change

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I’d like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created.

By MICHAEL SHELLENBERGER

On behalf of environmentalists everywhere, I would like to formally apologise for the climate scare we created over the past 30 years. Climate change is happening. It’s just not the end of the world. It’s not even our most serious environmental problem.

I may seem like a strange person to be saying all of this. I have been a climate activist for 20 years and an environmentalist for 30.

But as an energy expert asked by the US congress to provide ­objective testimony, and invited by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to serve as a reviewer of its next assessment report, I feel an obligation to apologise for how badly we environmentalists have misled the public.

READ NEXT

Here are some facts few people know:
 Humans are not causing a “sixth mass extinction”
 The Amazon is not “the lungs of the world”
 Climate change is not making natural disasters worse
 Fires have declined 25 per cent around the world since 2003
 The amount of land we use for meat — humankind’s biggest use of land — has declined by an area nearly as large as Alaska
 The build-up of wood fuel and more houses near forests, not climate change, explain why there are more, and more dangerous, fires in Australia and California
 Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s
 The Netherlands became rich, not poor, while adapting to life below sea level
We produce 25 per cent more food than we need and food surpluses will continue to rise as the world gets hotter
 Habitat loss and the direct killing of wild animals are bigger threats to species than climate change
 Wood fuel is far worse for people and wildlife than fossil fuels, and
 Preventing future pandemics requires more, not less, “industrial” agriculture.

The author’s new book. The author’s new book.

I know the above facts will sound like “climate denialism” to many people. But that just shows the power of climate alarmism. In reality, the above facts come from the best-available scientific studies, including those ­conducted by or accepted by the IPCC, the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations, the Inter­national Union for the Conservation of Nature and other leading scientific bodies.

Some people will, when they read this, imagine that I’m some right-wing anti-environmentalist. I’m not. At 17, I lived in Nicaragua to show solidarity with the Sandinista socialist revolution. At 23 I raised money for Guatemalan women’s co-operatives. In my early 20s I lived in the semi-Amazon doing research with small farmers fighting land invasions. At 26 I helped expose poor conditions at Nike factories in Asia.

Green beginnings

I became an environmentalist at 16 when I threw a fundraiser for Rainforest Action Network. At 27 I helped save the last unprotected ancient redwoods in California. In my 30s I advocated renewables and successfully helped persuade the Obama administration to ­invest $US90bn into them. Over the past few years I helped save enough nuclear plants from being replaced by fossil fuels to prevent a sharp increase in emissions.

But until last year, I mostly avoided speaking out against the climate scare. Partly that’s because I was embarrassed. After all, I am as guilty of alarmism as any other environmentalist. For years, I ­referred to climate change as an “existential” threat to human civilisation, and called it a “crisis”.

The author second from right in Brazil in 1985. Picture: Michael Shellenberger The author second from right in Brazil in 1985. Picture: Michael Shellenberger

But mostly I was scared. I remained quiet about the climate disinformation campaign because I was afraid of losing friends and funding. The few times I summoned the courage to defend climate science from those who misrepresent it I suffered harsh consequences. And so I mostly stood by and did next to nothing as my fellow environmentalists terrified the public.

I even stood by as people in the White House and many in the media tried to destroy the reputation and career of an outstanding scientist, good man, and friend of mine, Roger Pielke Jr, a lifelong progressive Democrat and environmentalist who testified in favour of carbon regulations. Why did they do that? Because his ­research proves natural disasters aren’t getting worse. But then, last year, things spiralled out of control. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said: “The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change.” Britain’s most high-profile environmental group claimed “climate change kills children”.

Turning point

The world’s most influential green journalist, Bill McKibben, called climate change the “greatest challenge humans have ever faced” and said it would “wipe out civilisations”. Mainstream journalists ­reported, repeatedly, that the Amazon was “the lungs of the world”, and that deforestation was like a ­nuclear bomb going off.

As a result, half of the people surveyed around the world last year said they thought climate change would make humanity ­extinct. And in January, one out of five British children told pollsters they were having nightmares about climate change.

Whether or not you have children you must see how wrong this is. I admit I may be sensitive because I have a teenage daughter. After we talked about the science she was reassured. But her friends are deeply misinformed and thus, understandably, frightened.

I thus decided I had to speak out. I knew that writing a few articles wouldn’t be enough. I needed a book to properly lay out all of the evidence. And so my formal ­apology for our fearmongering comes in the form of my new book, Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All.

Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s. Carbon emissions are declining in most rich nations and have been declining in Britain, Germany and France since the mid-1970s.

It is based on two decades of research and three decades of environmental activism. At 400 pages, with 100 of them endnotes, Apocalypse Never covers climate change, deforestation, plastic waste, species extinction, industrialisation, meat, nuclear energy, and renewables.

Some highlights from the book:

 Factories and modern farming are the keys to human liberation and environmental progress
 The most important thing for saving the environment is producing more food, particularly meat, on less land
 The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium
 100 per cent renewables would require increasing the land used for energy from today’s 0.5 per cent to 50 per cent
 We should want cities, farms, and power plants to have higher, not lower, power densities
 Vegetarianism reduces one’s emissions by less than 4 per cent
 Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did
 “Free-range” beef would require 20 times more land and produce 300 per cent more emissions
 Greenpeace dogmatism worsened forest fragmentation of the Amazon, and
 The colonialist approach to gorilla conservation in the Congo produced a backlash that may have resulted in the killing of 250 elephants.

Why were we all so misled? In the final three chapters of Apocalypse Never I expose the ­financial, political and ideological motivations. Environmental groups have accepted hundreds of millions of dollars from fossil fuel interests. Groups motivated by anti-humanist beliefs forced the World Bank to stop trying to end poverty and instead make poverty “sustainable”. And status anxiety, depression and hostility to modern civilisation are behind much of the alarmism.

The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium. The most important thing for reducing pollution and emissions is moving from wood to coal to petrol to natural gas to uranium.

Reality bites

Once you realise just how badly misinformed we have been, often by people with plainly unsavoury motivations, it is hard not to feel duped. Will Apocalypse Never make any difference? There are certainly reasons to doubt it. The news media have been making apocalyptic pronouncements about climate change since the late 1980s, and do not seem disposed to stop. The ideology behind environmental alarmism — Malthusianism — has been repeatedly debunked for 200 years and yet is more powerful than ever.

But there are also reasons to ­believe that environmental alarmism will, if not come to an end, have diminishing cultural power.

A real crisis

The coronavirus pandemic is an actual crisis that puts the climate “crisis” into perspective. Even if you think we have overreacted, COVID-19 has killed nearly 500,000 people and shattered economies around the globe.

Scientific institutions including WHO and IPCC have undermined their credibility through the repeated politicisation of science. Their future existence and relevance depends on new leadership and serious reform. Facts still matter, and social media is allowing for a wider range of new and independent voices to outcompete alarmist environmental journalists at legacy publications.

Nations are reverting openly to self-interest and away from Malthusianism and neoliberalism, which is good for nuclear and bad for renewables.

The evidence is overwhelming that our high-energy civilisation is better for people and nature than the low-energy civilisation that climate alarmists would return us to.

Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did. Greenpeace didn’t save the whales — switching from whale oil to petroleum and palm oil did.

The invitations from IPCC and congress are signs of a growing openness to new thinking about climate change and the environment. Another one has been to the response to my book from climate scientists, conservationists and ­environmental scholars. “Apocalypse Never is an extremely ­important book,” writes Richard Rhodes, the Pulitzer-winning ­author of The Making of the Atomic Bomb. “This may be the most important book on the environment ever written,” says one of the fathers of modern climate science, Tom Wigley.

“We environmentalists condemn those with antithetical views of being ignorant of science and susceptible to confirmation bias,” wrote the former head of The Nature Conservancy, Steve McCormick. “But too often we are guilty of the same. Shellenberger offers ‘tough love’: a challenge to entrenched orthodoxies and rigid, self-defeating mindsets. Apocalypse Never serves up occasionally stinging, but always well-crafted, evidence-based points of view that will help develop the ‘mental muscle’ we need to envision and design not only a hopeful, but an attainable, future.”

That is all I hoped for in writing it. If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ll agree it’s perhaps not as strange as it seems that a lifelong environmentalist and progressive felt the need to speak out against the alarmism. I further hope that you’ll accept my apology.

-

Michael Shellenberger is president of Environmental Progress, an independent research and policy organisation. He is the author of Apocalypse Never: Why Environmental Alarmism Hurts Us All, published by Harper Collins

Michael Shellenberger will appear on Sky News with Chris Kenny today at 5pm

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So,  it is one person who's changed their mind?  Who, surprisingly, is appearing on Sky?  And he's not a scientist, so we don't have to cross one off the list of those that believe in climate change.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, goughy said:

So,  it is one person who's changed their mind?  Who, surprisingly, is appearing on Sky?  And he's not a scientist, so we don't have to cross one off the list of those that believe in climate change.  

But he did found an institute nearly 20 years ago that has coincidentally always espoused the things he is saying are now the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, goughy said:

So,  it is one person who's changed their mind?  Who, surprisingly, is appearing on Sky?  And he's not a scientist, so we don't have to cross one off the list of those that believe in climate change.  

He was scientific enough to contribute to the IPCC

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He did study peace and global studies at a Quaker college, and has a Masters of cultural anthropology.  Still, even if he was a climate scientist (or any scientist) my response would be the same; he's one person who's changed his mind.  We all know there are scientists who don't believe in climate change, and we know there are those that do.  Is he worth a "well, I'll be"?  To some, yes.  To others, no?  

There are clearly degrees in everything.  I believe in climate change, I believe we are having a negative effect on our climate, but do not think the queue is about to end.  And I also support nuclear energy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One scientist who has changed his mind is not overly significant.

Poor journalism when the Australian prints the press release for a new book almost word for word.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ironnerd said:

One scientist who has changed his mind is not overly significant.

Poor journalism when the Australian prints the press release for a new book almost word for word.

Welcome to much journalism these days.  And he's not a scientist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ironnerd said:

Why isn't this topic in the Sandbox?

Because it was started before the Sandbox existed?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/12/2007 at 9:32 PM, detai said:

I'll be lucky to see 2020 but the Chinese ..........well, 

 

 

Anything else gunna happen???.....i know i missed a bit.

Yeah Pauly, you missed a bit but at least you're still around to see it 😜

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, goughy said:

Welcome to much journalism these days.  And he's not a scientist.

With the move away from print to "free" online news quality is going to drop. I subscribe to one of newspaper just to support journalism. "Keeping the bastards honest" is an important role of a free and financed media.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's a lot of "reprinted/published with permission" articles about these days.  There is still journalism out there.  But a lot seems to be reprinting press releases verbatim.  Then you have the corflute signs around town proclaiming Assange is a journalist.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...