Climate Change in Australia


What I don’t get is they could have bullshited on heaps more to get votes, but they didn’t.


It would be great if there was even the slightest evidence that it was effective in reducing emissions.

The libs have ■■■■■■ a lot more cash than that into the ‘direct action’ pot since Abbott brought the policy in, but emissions are still increasing. Basically the only sustained period of emissions reduction in the last 20 ish years was the couple of years in which the Gillard govts carbon price was operating.

This $2 billion will go straight into the pockets of wealthy landowner National Party mates who’ll claim it as compo for not clearing land that they weren’t planning on clearing anyway.


Probably more relevant here than in the U.S politics thread


Sofed is Trump


At this stage we need wholesale regulation of emissions and those who emit them, combined with heavy investment into alternative sources of energy and other means to reduce our carbon footprint.

Doing that will only lessen the impact CC has on us, then we also need to spend money on dealing with the impacts of climate change that we now won’t be able to avoid. But considering we can’t even deal with the current refugee crisis I have low expectations that we will be able to deal with one 10 times worse.


Not proven, Yet. But given mans intellectual ability to predict plausible outcomes, even against vested interests powerful objections, this is a future that even Trumps children and grandchildren might not like, Nero fiddled while Rome burned. Trump “the leader of the free world” is wanking while the World burns.


I took a cut-paste out of a WHO document explaining how to understand and try to deal with anti-vaxxers. Seems pretty apropos for the modus operandi of a couple of posters on here.

Table 4: The five characteristics of science denialism (first introduced by Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle [15] and discussed by Diethelm and McKee [19]).

  1. Conspiracies-Arguing that scientific consensus is the result of a complex and secretive conspiracy.
  2. Fake experts - Using fake experts as authorities combined with denigration of established experts.
  3. Selectivity - Referring to isolated papers that challenge scientific consensus.
  4. Impossible expectations - Expecting 100% certain results or health treatments with no possible side-effects.
  5. Misrepresentation and false logic - Jumping to conclusions, using false analogies etc.


There is no way that Hoofnagle and Hoofnagle are real people.


Who is voting for him


He is unreal



This will end well.

Seriously, you and sorfed are just making fools of yourselves. No-one believes you, everyone’s sick of you both.


I’m a cynical skeptical guy that questions everything but that bloke is a rambling mess. He makes no sense at all.


Bro, did you not see that reply to you I made the other day regarding critical reading? You REALLY need to learn about how to source legitimate science. I’m perfectly willing to entertain your arguments but they immediately fall flat when you consistently link stuff from non credentialed and payola organisations


It is such a shame that the current forum software does not have a function for ignoring particular posters. (Instead it invests bigtime into nanny filters making sure US midwest “moms” are not offended by seeing perfectly ordinary words like ‘■■■■’ or ‘■■■■’.) FFS!



Did you watch the video Benfti ? It covers all the issues that have been troubling me, in a way that I thought was quite reasonable and easy to understand.

So the questions for me ( and a lot of others, incl. many oeople smarter than me ) are:

  1. Are they legitimate ?
  2. What impact do they each have on the climate ?
  3. And lastly, If they are legitimate and they are impacting…why is the IPCC ignoring them in their modelling.

Until answers are provided by a concensus of a broad group of scientists that don’t all have ‘skin in the game’, people like me (not deniers just skeptics of CO2 being the main driver in CC) will continue to sit on the fence.

Thats where its at globally I believe, there are very powerful people that don’t trust the IPCC due to data being changed, outrageous statements being put into the media etc etc…villifying “deniers” (as if they denied the Holocast) won’t change peoples mind.

An open debate may.


I just gave up 40 minutes of my life to watch this YouTube.

Did you actually listen to it and understand what he was arguing ? Do yo understand the difference between climate and weather.

Your questions

  1. Are they legitimate ?

The checking I did of facts presented seem to be legit.

  1. What impact do they each have on the climate ?

Solar activity, as has been discussed before does have a documented effect on our weather. And studies have shown a correlation between El Nino etc weather patterns and solar flares.

  1. And lastly, If they are legitimate and they are impacting…why is the IPCC ignoring them in their modelling.

Climate change scientists do not ignore any of this in their modelling or reports. They do make the distinction between climate and weather though, which is totally ignored by the guy who made the presentation.

Now as I am sure you do understand Climate is the long-term Weather patterns of an given area. So go back and listen to what the guy is saying, as he picks out events that have isolated effects, like solar flares, and clearly shows it on his graphics as such an event.


Benefit of the doubt, you go for the right team, so what would be your main complaint against doing all we can to curtail pollution, factory farming, agricultural mega farming, etc etc, and to improve the way we treat the fragile ecosystems that keep us alive?

Even if we all just pretend, like you seem to want to do, that thousands of the most intelligent people in the world with no ‘skin in the game’ other than fear for their immediate family and descendants and all animal and vegetable life on the planet are wrong or taking the pith, what would be your main issue with tidying up our terrifying farking mess?

You want to introduce what ifs, there’s a big what if. What if we did something good?


I watched the first 10 minutes, I’ve got zero issues with skeptics. Believe it or not I’m a skeptic too, but this is why you REALLY need hone your critical reading and thinking skills if you want to be taken seriously on this topic.

My main issue with the video, and this was the biggy, is it doesn’t credit the speaker, more specifically, not list the speakers credentials. Thats immediately a red flag. A quick bit of research finds that it’s a guy called Ben Davidson. Further research shows Bens qualifications and a lawyer, who also studied Economics with a minor in meteorology back in 2005. These sorts of backgrounds are the perfect ‘skeptic’ they know just enough about science to sound legitimate, but their real specialty is in narrative. Now ask yourself with your “sceptical” mind, what interest could a lawyer/economist have in disproving man made climate change?..

This is where people like yourself who claim to be a skeptic, get shown as a denialist. Claim to be all skeptical when it comes to legitimate science, but don’t run that same comb of skepticism through the supposed debunking of said science.

As for the science in that video, before you take what that guy says as verbatim. Look at the extent he goes to protect his narrative when he got challenged by a real science journalist.

That’s a transcript linked by a particularly crappy designed site (I thought you might take it more seriously that way) of how your mate Davidson desperately tries to control the narrative he’s spruking while not being able to handle the science.