Climate Change and YSSY crosswinds?
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/
“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.
“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/
“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.
“CO2 is plant food there can’t be a pollutant”. Wow.
There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.
You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!
There are solutions out there to climate change, but the measures don’t sit well with a lot of people. We’ll collectively have to decide whether we pay the cost of them now or pay for the cost of not dealing with what science is telling us will almost certainly happen later.
Have you lobbied you Local, State and Federal Member on what is required?
Have you taken measures to reduce your reliance on grid energy?
I have posted before on this Forum what I think is required. . A combination of PV and wind with an output of at least three times that is required to power the country on a clear windy day. The excess power to go to storage that has a minimum of three days supply. This is to cover nights and days when the PV output is low or nonexistent and the wind is low or to high. Why three days? Look at PV output over a period of time and you will realise.
As for "shouting", maybe I used the incorrect word. But you obviously got my drift.
Join Date: May 2018
Location: South of the North pole
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE=dr dre;10634098]
I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.
tQUOTE]
You have not debunked 1 single fact. You have not provided empirical evidence to support your claims. Websites like skeptical science are just complete hogwash.
The climate models used today have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. That is a FACT not a claim. The fact that the main champions and poster children for man made climate emergency are The Left wing people like Hollywood, Greta Thunberg and the left liberal media including FAKE NEWS CNN says a hell of a lot.
We on the right require FACTS....not a tug on the heart strings.
I haven’t been “shouting” at anyone. I’ve just pointed out false statements presented by others and debunked them with linked info from scientific sources. That’s not “shouting”.
tQUOTE]
You have not debunked 1 single fact. You have not provided empirical evidence to support your claims. Websites like skeptical science are just complete hogwash.
The climate models used today have been proven to be wildly inaccurate. That is a FACT not a claim. The fact that the main champions and poster children for man made climate emergency are The Left wing people like Hollywood, Greta Thunberg and the left liberal media including FAKE NEWS CNN says a hell of a lot.
We on the right require FACTS....not a tug on the heart strings.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dre said: “There’s 102 signatories from Australia. Going through the list I count maybe 1 who could remotely claim to be a scientist in a field somehow related to climatology. As for the rest there’s a lot of miners, mining company CEOs, shipbuilders, aircraft engineers, a state MP who is a cattle farmer, a journalist, a doctor and businesspeople. Or in no way, shape or form climate scientists.”
”You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!”
So of the 700 scientists you eliminate 101 of them... I supposed you used sourcewatch or skeptical science websites again to “debunk” these scientists.....what about the remaining 599?
You want to discount people because they are not “real climate scientists” (it’s the “not a real Scotsman fallacy”-look it up) but you are happy to rely on anonymous websites or other sources who are definitely not climate scientists.
I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies and also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.
For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf
”You’re going to have to try harder next time HabuHunter!”
So of the 700 scientists you eliminate 101 of them... I supposed you used sourcewatch or skeptical science websites again to “debunk” these scientists.....what about the remaining 599?
You want to discount people because they are not “real climate scientists” (it’s the “not a real Scotsman fallacy”-look it up) but you are happy to rely on anonymous websites or other sources who are definitely not climate scientists.
I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies and also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.
For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf
I'll refer you to the link TimmyTee posted above.
https://climatefeedback.org/evaluati...imate-science/
I categorized all 506 signatories according to their self-identified field of expertise. Only 10 identified as climate scientists, and 4 identified as meteorologists. (Together, that’s 2.8% of the total.) Signatories in totally unrelated academic fields (for example, psychology, philosophy, archaeology, and law) outnumbered climate scientists by two to one.
I’m just trying to help you see your own logical fallacies
also try to ensure that both sides of the debate get a fair and rational airing.
Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists, again this isn’t even remotely the case.
For for others who are more open minded and interested in getting a bit of balance in the debate:
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf
https://clintel.nl/wp-content/upload...tober-2019.pdf
Could you please point out where the peer reviewed studies or documents that back up each of those claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good) are located? Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?
Last edited by dr dre; 7th Dec 2019 at 09:48.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Somewhere South
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of these 'Credible Scientists' are government funded. Most governments are very quick to jump on the CC bandwagon as it gives them the chance to raise taxes under the pretence that they are just trying to save the world. There are many independent scientists who have different opinions.
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne
Age: 51
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of these 'Credible Scientists' are government funded. Most governments are very quick to jump on the CC bandwagon as it gives them the chance to raise taxes under the pretence that they are just trying to save the world. There are many independent scientists who have different opinions.
Last edited by unexplained blip; 8th Dec 2019 at 02:28.
As Blip says every Gov is running away from the problem as fast as possible - it will cost a fortune, it will upset all sorts of important lobbies, the voters will hate the restrictions put on them and worst of all it's so long term there is no electoral benefit to be seen for maybe 20 years.
Read this weeks "Economist" on Carbon Capture - it's not just a question of stopping or slowing future CO2 production there's a vast ocean of the stuff that from the last 50 years that needs to be removed. And it can't be done by planting trees - well it could be if you can find an area the size of Russia to plant up from scratch .
Read this weeks "Economist" on Carbon Capture - it's not just a question of stopping or slowing future CO2 production there's a vast ocean of the stuff that from the last 50 years that needs to be removed. And it can't be done by planting trees - well it could be if you can find an area the size of Russia to plant up from scratch .
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dr Dre said: “ “There’s still a debate ongoing within science” is a logical fallacy itself.”
This is not a logical fallacy.
Dr Dre said: “Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists”
No it doesn’t.
And I see you’ve edited your comments regarding not allowing both sides of a debate to be heard. That was a telling comment which revealed your bias.
Dr Dre said: “There were only 14 people on that declaration that could be counted as experts in the subject field.”
This is a good example of the “not a real Scotsman logical fallacy”. It it goes like this: All Scotsmen eat porridge for breakfast.
But my Uncle is a Scotsman and he doesn’t eat porridge. Oh but he isn’t a real Scotsman!
You’ve whittled down the list of 700 scientists because they’re not “real climate scientists”. How do you define a “climate scientist”? How do you determine “an expert in the field”?
Realistically just about any well trained scientist, but especially those who have studied physics, mathematics, engineering, modelling, statistics, geosciences etc will be able to look at a climate paper and follow along and understand and form an opinion.
And then you link an article which has 6 scientists commenting on the letter but only 1 of them is currently working in the climate field.
You are persistent with your fallacies but you are not consistent!
This is not a logical fallacy.
Dr Dre said: “Saying “both sides” implies that it’s roughly an even split between deniers and scientists”
No it doesn’t.
And I see you’ve edited your comments regarding not allowing both sides of a debate to be heard. That was a telling comment which revealed your bias.
Dr Dre said: “There were only 14 people on that declaration that could be counted as experts in the subject field.”
This is a good example of the “not a real Scotsman logical fallacy”. It it goes like this: All Scotsmen eat porridge for breakfast.
But my Uncle is a Scotsman and he doesn’t eat porridge. Oh but he isn’t a real Scotsman!
You’ve whittled down the list of 700 scientists because they’re not “real climate scientists”. How do you define a “climate scientist”? How do you determine “an expert in the field”?
Realistically just about any well trained scientist, but especially those who have studied physics, mathematics, engineering, modelling, statistics, geosciences etc will be able to look at a climate paper and follow along and understand and form an opinion.
And then you link an article which has 6 scientists commenting on the letter but only 1 of them is currently working in the climate field.
You are persistent with your fallacies but you are not consistent!
Congrats for arguing little snippets of my post but ignoring the overall argument. I disagree with your logic but lets just accept this part of your post as accurate:
Wouldn't you be shocked to hear that those groups of people have read climate papers and come to these conclusions:
Physics:
Statement on Earth's Changing Climate
Engineers:
Engineers Australia - Climate Change Policy
Statisticians:
Statement on Climate Change
Geologists:
Statement on Climate Change
And you can also add societies of Meteorologists, Chemists, Astronomers, Oceanographers, Biologists, Marine Scientists, Agricultural Scientists, Environmental Scientists, Medical Scientists and so on and so forth....
Wouldn't you be shocked to hear that those groups of people have read climate papers and come to these conclusions:
Physics:
Earth's changing climate is a critical issue and poses the risk of significant environmental, social and economic disruptions around the globe. While natural sources of climate variability are significant, multiple lines of evidence indicate that human influences have had an increasingly dominant effect on global climate warming observed since the mid-twentieth century.
Engineers:
Engineers Australia accepts the comprehensive scientific basis regarding climate change, the influence of anthropogenic global warming, and that climate change can have very serious community consequences
Statisticians:
The American Statistical Association endorses the IPCC conclusions
Geologists:
Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes
And you can also add societies of Meteorologists, Chemists, Astronomers, Oceanographers, Biologists, Marine Scientists, Agricultural Scientists, Environmental Scientists, Medical Scientists and so on and so forth....
Last edited by dr dre; 8th Dec 2019 at 10:57.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 48
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
So what’s all this crap about Climate change got to do with the crosswinds in SYD? I recommend bulldoze 07/25 and do it like BNE, no option land in max crosswind! SYD has to be the most pathetic ****house international airport in the entire world with their crappy Airservices rules. It’s an embarrassment. And to top it off it’s got a curfew lol what a joke! No wonder it’s the laughing stock of pretty much every nation within 5000 miles. And don’t get me started about Melbourne, it’s worse!
I take it you are not intending to run for Public Office in the Sydney area any time soon?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So Dr Dre, you and I agree that scientists from fields other than climate change can make meaningful contributions to the debate.
So that means that the 700 climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers etc who signed the no climate emergency letter sent to the UN are also making a meaningful contribution to the debate.
We are making progress.
So that means that the 700 climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers etc who signed the no climate emergency letter sent to the UN are also making a meaningful contribution to the debate.
We are making progress.
Yes, you’ve just admitted you wrote a falsehood in post #245, when you said “700 climate scientists”, now it’s “climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers” ( you’re also ignoring the tonnes of business people with fininacial links to industries that may lose money due to climate action policies) but at least you are making progress. 
There’s about a minimum of 7.8 million scientific researchers in the world so even if we make all your 700 signers “scientists” it’s still only 0.009% of the total so you’re going to have a find a few more to bring that total up to at least 3%.
Anyway this talk of who has more scientists is irrelevant because that climate declaration signed by the 700 still has zero hard scientific facts to back up up the claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good). Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?
There’s about a minimum of 7.8 million scientific researchers in the world so even if we make all your 700 signers “scientists” it’s still only 0.009% of the total so you’re going to have a find a few more to bring that total up to at least 3%.
Anyway this talk of who has more scientists is irrelevant because that climate declaration signed by the 700 still has zero hard scientific facts to back up up the claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good). Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, you’ve just admitted you wrote a falsehood in post #245, when you said “700 climate scientists”, now it’s “climate scientists/scientists/scholars/eminent thinkers” .....
Anyway this talk of who has more scientists is irrelevant because that climate declaration signed by the 700 still has zero hard scientific facts to back up up the claims made on page 2 of that document (Warming is slow, unreliable models, CO2 is good). Could you post some links to those from some credible scientific sources please?
You just admitted that those 700 letter signers are a credible scientific source.
Will you link me to the study that proves man made CO2 is causing a climate emergency?
Thread Starter
I agree slow progress is being made in this discussion.
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take it you are not intending to run for Public Office in the Sydney area any time soon?
I agree slow progress is being made in this discussion.
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
I second the motion.
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
I second the motion.
Join Date: Jan 2018
Location: Okinawa
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree slow progress is being made in this discussion.
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
Can we agree that
A) There are some credible scientific researchers/thinkers/contributors that have doubts that we are in a ‘climate emergency’?
B) The output of computer models that forecast future temperatures aren’t scientific facts
C) There is a consensus among scientists that AGW is a real concern
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject that rewards moderate positions with a broad disdain from the two extreme camps?
Nicely done 73qanda.
I agree with A and B.
I think C you should change the word “consensus” so it reads:
C) There are a large number of scientists that believe AGW is a real concern. (There are still a number of scientists who think the effects of AGW have only a small if any part to play.)
I’m not sure I agree with D. I think if you just used the first bit it’s ok :
D) There is a kind of polarising hysteria around the subject.