![]() |
|
Trumpled (Alternative Leading) - Printable Version +- Carlton Supporters Club (http://new.carltonsc.com) +-- Forum: Social Club (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-6.html) +--- Forum: Blah-Blah Bar (http://new.carltonsc.com/forum-23.html) +--- Thread: Trumpled (Alternative Leading) (/thread-2312.html) Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
|
Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016 Intriguing that you'd let a climate change skeptic interpret the figures for you. At least it wasn't written by Loony Lord Monckton, I guess. At page 1035, the writers of the study noted that: Quote:Our findings regarding the degree of consensus about human-caused climate change among the most expert meteorologists are similar to those of Doran and Zimmerman (2009): 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change. These results, together with those of other similar studies, suggest high levels of expert consensus about human-caused climate change (Farnsworth and Lichter 2012; Bray 2010). You can choose not to believe climate scientists as being self-interested bandwagonners if you wish but I reckon I'll stick to the experts thank you very much. And the very study that you rely upon shows that 93% of them are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Remember that even fewer than 7% of climate scientists actually disputed that there is global warming. Much of the study was directed to determining how much humans contributed to it. Just because some climate scientists do not think humans are the primary cause doesn't mean that those scientists regard attempts to limit human contributions as futile. Your friendly sceptic tried to suck everyone in by painting everyone who didn't say humans were the primary cause of GW as climate change skeptics, as well as trying to disregard the actual scientists who are working in the field. Naughty, naughty. Also remember that the survey was of the members of the American Meteorological Society which is only a subset of the relevant fields comprehended by climate science, and only 26.3% of the professional members of the society responded to the survey. I'm not seeing any serious challenge to the predominance of the climate change model but maybe you can find something better elsewhere ... Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - cookie2 - 02-11-2016 (02-11-2016, 02:31 AM)madbluboy link Wrote:Hundreds of Australian scientist's jobs are being made redundant at the moment because they don't believe we need to invest anymore money in proving climate change because it's already proven. Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change. Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016 (02-11-2016, 03:06 AM)cookie2 link Wrote:Saw an interview last week of the head of the CSIRO, forget his name, who stated that the focus would be changed from proving that climate change is actually happening to researching into what can be done to slow it down to manageable/safe levels and with a definite commercial bent. He went on to state that there would not be an overall reduction in staff, but I guess the actual skills required will change. I'd be far more worried about global cooling if I were him. Far more people will suffer/die in the event of cooling rather than warming. Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - flyboy77 - 02-11-2016 ps Mav, I'll take it as a given that your last lengthy rant was your cute way of now saying that you agree the 97% claim is unaldulterated BS. QED Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016 By the way, why is it even relevant to argue that some or all of Climate Change is natural? Or that there are other sources of carbon dioxide? If climate change will radically affect the lives of the world's population, shouldn't we be trying to do all we can to put a break on it? If that means scaling back emissions and that will have a beneficial effect, then we should do it, shouldn't we? It's not as though we have made a habit of accepting Nature's interventions with a shrug of the shoulders. How would the Netherlands have fared if it didn't erect dykes to keep out seawater? What the hell are those dams doing throughout the world and how did Lake Burley Griffin and Albert Park Lake get there? Heard of the desalination plant? Heard of the saying, "If God wanted us to fly, he'd have given us wings"? Sure as hell, if Lindsay Fox finds that his beachside property is being eroded by rising sea levels, he'll be the first to reinforce his boundaries. Should we bother about trying to stop asteroids landing and kicking up dust which will accelerate the greenhouse effect? Hell no, that's a natural event. If it happens, then God wanted it that way. Love the cute intervention of CSIRO management. Pardon me if I think that the Liberal Government has something to do with that. First we had the attempt to set up a Climate Change denier in a government-funded school in a WA Uni. Now we're expected to believe that we can all assume that Climate Change is real and it's now time to do something about it. Hmmmm. Shut down enough research into climate change and the Government can start putting money into "clean coal" research as its lame contribution to taking action. No doubt much money can be shovelled into the amazing little black rock ... Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016 (02-11-2016, 03:13 AM)flyboy77 link Wrote:ps Mav, I'll take it as a given that your last lengthy rant was your cute way of now saying that you agree the 97% claim is unaldulterated BS.If you want to interpret black as white, then be my guest. But you'd be better off joining the Magpies as then you won't be too disconcerted by the results! Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Thryleon - 02-11-2016 That escalated quickly. Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-11-2016 Not from my perspective. Obviously, climate change and abortion can be quite heated issues but it's possible to have a reasonably calm debate. I'd imagine, though, that this would be much harder in the US. That's what intrigues me about the Zika virus issue as it could well open up both issues. For now, the Republican candidates can get away with sucking up to the right wing extremists while they are battling away in the primaries and appearing before right-wing debate moderators. What happens when the successful Republican candidate is forced to debate issues such as reproductive rights, gun control and climate change? As the fundamentalist Christians and Evangilists are an important part of the right-wing base, it's interesting to note that they have a strange basis for climate denial. Genesis 1:26–28 tells us: Quote:Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” This "dominion mandate" tells Biblical literalists that climate change scientists are doing the work of Satan. If God gave man dominion over all of the earth, then surely he didn't seed it with materials which could bring the existence of man into question. Extracting the oil and coal from the earth is therefore part of God's plan. Climate science is an affront to God. The Pope's declaration that mankind had an obligation to address climate change must have annoyed them intensely. Wacky as this might seem, it isn't the wackiest thing these guys believe. Young Earth Creationists believe that the earth is only 6,000 or so years old. They dismiss fossils and other features which are scientifically proven to date from well before that period. They say they are either frauds perpetrated by Satan or tests of faith created by God. Hell, at the recent WA by-election, the Liberals under Abbott put up a Young Earth Creationist and he's now in our Parliament. And let's not even mention evolution or gay marriage ... Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-12-2016 Wow, as if on cue - http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/pregnant-victorian-woman-diagnosed-with-zika-virus-20160211-gms8b4.html. This is horrible. As I understand it, microcephaly is difficult to detect in the womb save in extreme cases. The mother-to-be must be devastated. Let's hope Flyboy is right and the virus doesn't cause the condition. The other thing is that one map I saw indicated that countries in South and Central America had reported an increase in microcephaly concomitant with the spread of the virus but the same thing hasn't necessarily been reported in the Asian countries to our north which suffer from the virus. Could there be 2 strains? If so, let's hope this is the less problematic one. If Australia has recorded a number of Zika infections, it's only a matter of time until the US does too and pregnant women there contract it. PS: Here's an update which details a new study and also suggests that mutations of the virus are feared by scientists: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/entry/zika-news-pope-contraception_us_56bcc4eae4b08ffac1243664?section=australia Quote:2. Autopsy found Zika virus in fetal brain tissue Re: US Presidential Election 2016 - Mav - 02-12-2016 Here's the study referred to above, published in the New England Journal of Medicine: Zika Virus Associated with Microcephaly |