https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
and https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:55:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd you are even more stupid for not understanding how silly a question it is. You and Lawrence deserve each other.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Clearly you did not know the answer . . .
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Clearly you did not know the answer . . .
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:apparently not even capable of that - abuse is all you have to offer.
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:55:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd you are even more stupid for not understanding how silly a question it is. There are no silly questions, just silly answers. But you are
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Clearly you did not know the answer . . .
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
You and Lawrence deserve each other.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 03:06:00 -0000 (UTC), TonyDeleted abuse.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 11 Mar 2024 01:55:50 -0000 (UTC), TonyAnd you are even more stupid for not understanding how silly a question it is.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:Clearly you did not know the answer . . .
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
Deleted abuse.You and Lawrence deserve each other.
On 2024-03-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Yes he is, He might join RAS soon.
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
No he is a Troll.
On 2024-03-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You are a bit rough on Tony - it may appear surprising but I suspect
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
No he is a Troll.
On 11 Mar 2024 04:05:26 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Abuse removed
On 2024-03-11, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
You think somebody is faking all these droughts and storms?Are you really that stupid?
No he is a Troll.
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
and https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears toWell there you go, that's fine.
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...Well there you go, that's fine.
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then make my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is just one
part of the story.
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the "official" opinions being questionable.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...Well there you go, that's fine.
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >>>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then make >>my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is just >>one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...Well there you go, that's fine.
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >>>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the "official" opinions being questionable.
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand why you are raising those spectres.
says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the >> "official" opinions being questionable.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Well there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >> >>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >> >>>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at
all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is
the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air
pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from
all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists
over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just
don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that
Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps
dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that
stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess
at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty
of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to
believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of
this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably
boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea
that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
and
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the >"official" opinions being questionable.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...Well there you go, that's fine.
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >>>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >>>>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then make >>>my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is just >>>one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand why >you are raising those spectres.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the >>> "official" opinions being questionable.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>> >>>says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Well there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>> >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >>> >>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not some >>> >>>random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then >>> >>make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is >>> >>just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is
the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air
pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from
all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just
don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess
at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty
of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to
believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably
boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea
that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold opinions >one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and co-governance >(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters in >an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they can be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is >obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fait >minded folk.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate change to any worthwhile extent. In other words Nature is the main cause of climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand why >>you are raising those spectres.
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >>>says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of the >>>> "official" opinions being questionable.Well there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>> >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with >>>> >>>the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>> >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then >>>> >>make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is >>>> >>just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is
the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air
pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess
at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably
boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold opinions >>one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and co-governance >>(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters >>in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man >>made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they can >>be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of
scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they
may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved
in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do
know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views
on climate change,
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is >>obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair >>minded folk.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate >change to any worthwhile extent.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand why
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>> >>>says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of theWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>>> >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>>> >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and then >>>>> >>make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that is >>>>> >>just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold opinions >>>one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters >>>in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man >>>made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they can >>>be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of
scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they
may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved
in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do
know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views
on climate change,
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is >>>obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair >>>minded folk.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean what you wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate >>change to any worthwhile extent.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand >>>>why
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>> >>>says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of >>>>>>theWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to >>>>>> >>>have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees >>>>>> >>>with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>>>> >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that >>>>>> >>is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters >>>>in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man >>>>made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they >>>>can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved
in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do
know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views
on climate change,
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weatherMeaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make sense. And you know that.
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international
agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the >National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce
costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are
now affecting us.
Absolute nonsense.Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is >>>>obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair >>>>minded folk.
sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather
events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked
to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New
Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessaryOff topic poltical rhetoric.
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that
wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean >what you wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand >>>>>why
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of >>>>>>>theWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees >>>>>>> >>>with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant >>>>>>> >>>qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>>>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that >>>>>>> >>is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>>>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>>>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>>>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>>>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man >>>>>made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they >>>>>can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved
in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views
on climate change,
change to any worthwhile extent.
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >>destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international >>agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the >>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce
costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are
now affecting us.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair >>>>>minded folk.
sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather >>events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked
to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New >>Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not knowOff topic poltical rhetoric.
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that
wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean >>what you wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they >>>>>may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved >>>>>in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >>>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views >>>>>on climate change,
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand >>>>>>why
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of >>>>>>>>theWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees >>>>>>>> >>>with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>>>>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>>>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that >>>>>>>> >>is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>>>>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>>>>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>>>>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>>>>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they >>>>>>can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
change to any worthwhile extent.
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >>sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >>>destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >>>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >>>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international >>>agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the >>>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >>>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce >>>costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness >>>inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are >>>now affecting us.
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even >>>sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair
minded folk.
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather >>>events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked
to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New >>>Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not knowOff topic poltical rhetoric.
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that >>>wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection
between the two islands.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean >>what you wrote.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down >>>>climate
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they >>>>>may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved >>>>>in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >>>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views >>>>>on climate change,
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand >>>>>>why
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>,
lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years of >>>>>>>>theWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears >>>>>>>> >>>to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees >>>>>>>> >>>with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have >>>>>>>> >>>relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not >>>>>>>> >>>some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of >>>>>>>> >>>yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that >>>>>>>> >>is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at >>>>>>>all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists >>>>>>>over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having >>>>>>>secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of >>>>>>>this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these >>>>>>matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly >>>>>>man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they >>>>>>can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
change to any worthwhile extent.
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >>sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >>>destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >>>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >>>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international >>>agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the >>>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >>>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce >>>costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness >>>inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are >>>now affecting us.
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even >>>sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it >>>>>>is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all >>>>>>fair
minded folk.
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather >>>events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked
to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New >>>Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
They are doing no such thing, why do you lie?It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not knowOff topic poltical rhetoric.
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that >>>wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection
between the two islands.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:41:35 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean >>>what you wrote.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said. >>>>Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would >>>>claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>>>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they >>>>>>may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved >>>>>>in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >>>>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views >>>>>>on climate change,
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years ofWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees >>>>>>>>> >>>with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not
some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that
is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
the
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at
all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists
over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be >>>>>>>>*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that >>>>>>>>Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having
secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty >>>>>>>>of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of
this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
why
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that. >>>>>>>For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they >>>>>>>can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
change to any worthwhile extent.
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >>>sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >>>>destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather >>>>events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >>>>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >>>>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement >>>>that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international >>>>agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we >>>>have a government department, supported by every government since the >>>>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >>>>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce >>>>costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness >>>>inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are >>>>now affecting us.
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even >>>>sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair
minded folk.
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather >>>>events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some >>>>believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our >>>>waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked >>>>to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New >>>>Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not know
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary >>>>materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that >>>>wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer. >>>>Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The >>>>blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction. >>>Off topic poltical rhetoric.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection >>between the two islands.
Can you provide a cite?
I am aware that the Government have declined a request to fund new
ferries that require shore facilities to be rebuilt at a cost that
greatly exceeds the cost of the new ships. Kiwirail have committed to >finding alternatives:
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/kiwirail-statement-on-project-irex/
So a change of plan, not a cancellation. The IREX project reflected
the previous government's dedication to spending large amounts of
taxpayer dollars without a thought to the return.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:41:35 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:That is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean >>what you wrote.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said. >>>Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would >>>claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:So you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >>>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >>>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >>>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of >>>>>scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they >>>>>may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved >>>>>in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >>>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views >>>>>on climate change,
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years ofWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees
with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not
some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and >>>>>>>> >>then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that
is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
the
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at
all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >>>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air >>>>>>>pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from >>>>>>>all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >>>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists
over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be
*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >>>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that
Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having
secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps >>>>>>>dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that >>>>>>>stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >>>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess >>>>>>>at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty
of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of
this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >>>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea >>>>>>>that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income >>>>>>>depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
why
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >>>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and >>>>>>co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that. >>>>>>For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they
can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
change to any worthwhile extent.
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >>sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and >>>destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather >>>events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >>>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >>>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement >>>that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international >>>agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we >>>have a government department, supported by every government since the >>>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >>>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce >>>costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness >>>inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are >>>now affecting us.
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even >>>sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair
minded folk.
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather >>>events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some >>>believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our >>>waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked >>>to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New >>>Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not know
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary >>>materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that >>>wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer. >>>Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The >>>blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction. >>Off topic poltical rhetoric.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection >between the two islands.
Can you provide a cite?
I am aware that the Government have declined a request to fund new
ferries that require shore facilities to be rebuilt at a cost that
greatly exceeds the cost of the new ships. Kiwirail have committed to finding alternatives:
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/kiwirail-statement-on-project-irex/
So a change of plan, not a cancellation. The IREX project reflected
the previous government's dedication to spending large amounts of
taxpayer dollars without a thought to the return.
In article <r12avi1khehidd5p31egbp107vo38ghs76@4ax.com>, >nogood@dontbother.invalid says...
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:41:35 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that >> >>>>>climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a >> >>>>>scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >> >>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >> >>>>>>>says...David, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years ofWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees
with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not
some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and
then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that
is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
the
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at
all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is >> >>>>>>>the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air
pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from
all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds >> >>>>>>>governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists
over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be
*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just >> >>>>>>>don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >> >>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that
Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having
secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps
dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that
stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by >> >>>>>>>emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess
at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty
of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >> >>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of
this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably
boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea
that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income
depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
why
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold
opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and
co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they
can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of
scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they
may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved
in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do
know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views
on climate change,
change to any worthwhile extent.
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
what you wrote.
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make >> >>sense. And you know that.
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and
destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to
landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have
accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international
agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the
National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend
actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce
costs of non-compliance. .
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are
now affecting us.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair
minded folk.
sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather
events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked
to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New
Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not knowOff topic poltical rhetoric.
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that
wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection
between the two islands.
Can you provide a cite?
I am aware that the Government have declined a request to fund new
ferries that require shore facilities to be rebuilt at a cost that
greatly exceeds the cost of the new ships. Kiwirail have committed to
finding alternatives:
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/kiwirail-statement-on-project-irex/
So a change of plan, not a cancellation. The IREX project reflected
the previous government's dedication to spending large amounts of
taxpayer dollars without a thought to the return.
The new terminals were being built because the current terminals, built
in the 50s, are end of life and need replacing regardless of the size or >shape of ship using them. Even if KiwiRail ordered new ferries the same
size as the current ones, the new terminals still need to be built.
As size of ship has no significant impact on terminal cost it made sense
to order larger ferries and design the new terminals to support them,
rather than sticking with the size of ferries we we first deployed back
in the 1960s.
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 18:11:18 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <r12avi1khehidd5p31egbp107vo38ghs76@4ax.com>, >nogood@dontbother.invalid says...
On Sat, 16 Mar 2024 15:41:35 +1300, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 23:38:43 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Indeed, your denial of climate change is absolute nonsense.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 19:09:16 -0000 (UTC), TonyThat is what your wrods mean. I suggest you correct them if your don't mean
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:No I do not agree - that is not a valid conclusion from what I said.
On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 04:04:17 -0000 (UTC), TonySo you agree that there is no reason to believe that we can slow down climate
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I suspect it may be difficult to find any scientist that believes that
In article <part1of1.1.n7YChAMeDv7i5A@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzDavid, I am not into deep state or UN conspiracies so I cannot understand
says...
Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:
On 2024-03-14, Tony <lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.MURrBomY9#Fc3w@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
andhttps://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/underwater-thermal-activities-an-factor-overlooked-by-the-climatists/
Exactly Gordon. There are many examples, especially in recent years ofWell there you go, that's fine.https://waikanaewatch.org/2024/03/11/will-the-climate-cultists-take-any-notice/
Well worth reading.
Skimmed through it. There were no citations and the author appears to
have no qualifications relevant to this subject. He also disagrees
with
the vast majority of expert advice from those who *do* have relevant
qualifications in this field.
If I get cancer I'm going to take my advice from an Oncologist, not
some
random guy on the street telling me about the healing properties of
yodeling.
I on the other hand am open minded and will listen to anybody and
then
make
my
mind up. I am not fixated by what qualifications people have - that
is
just
one
part of the story.
The Covid narrative is a case in point.
the
"official" opinions being questionable.
I'm not sure why one should consider expert advice in this case to be at
all questionable. Whats the motivation to lie? What nefarious goal is
the deep state trying to achieve by convincing us to reduce air
pollution and move to more energy efficient technology? Who gains from
all of this?
Setting up and maintaining such a vast conspiracy spanning the worlds
governments, the UN, and the overwhelming majority of climate scientists
over the space of a few decades would cost a fortune so there has to be
*something* to make that huge amount of effort worthwhile. And I just
don't see any motivation, let alone any credible evidence of such a >> >>>>>>>conspiracy existing.
It seems far more believable that the moon landings were faked, or that
Elvis is living in hiding somewhere, or that the US government is having
secret interactions with Alien civilisations - at least we can perhaps
dream up some motivations for those, even if there is no evidence that
stands up to real scrutiny.
But if we look at the other side, the "Climate change isn't caused by
emissions" or "Climate change isn't real" side, we don't have to guess
at motivations or settle for fantastical explanations. There are plenty
of companies with a lot of money at stake that would love for us to >> >>>>>>>believe our emissions are not a problem and we have credible evidence of
this narrative being pushed. The motives are clear and believably >> >>>>>>>boring.
So yeah, I really don't see how one could seriously entertain the idea
that the experts are somehow questionable here. Not unless your income
depends on holding this seemingly indefensible position.
why
you are raising those spectres.
I merely point out that most important matters have people who hold >> >>>>>>opinions
one way or another.
Obvious examples of this are climate change, Covid vaccines and
co-governance
(at a local level). Dismissing peoples views (of any sort) on these matters
in
an ad hoc way is not reasonable and yet people do exactly that.
For every scientist that believes that climate change is predominantly man
made
you could find one with an opposite view. Scientists are people and they
can
be
persuaded by money, power and fame just like anybody else.
climate change is predominantly man-made, and also difficult to find a
scientist that would claim that mankind has made no difference to our >> >>>>>climate. A related problem is that there are not very many "Climate >> >>>>>Change Scientists" - many scientists have some understanding of
scientific principles, and may be eminent in their fields, but they >> >>>>>may have little academic experience with the sort of issues involved >> >>>>>in understanding the influences on climate and climate cycles. We do >> >>>>>know that some people with other qualifications have expressed views >> >>>>>on climate change,
change to any worthwhile extent.
Read again: "... and also difficult to find a scientist that would
claim that mankind has made no difference to our climate. "
what you wrote.
Meaningless and off topic. Agreements are of use only so long as they make
The last few hundred years have seen increasing burning of fuels and
destruction of forests by mankind - and increasing severe weather
events. We have seen generally rising temperatures, massive changes to >> >>>landscapes, and changes to our atmosphere. Some of those changes have >> >>>accelerated in recent decades, and there is international agreement
that climate change is real, and that all countries must seek to
reduce that change. Paula Bennett signed us up to an international
agreement that has since set targets for emission reductions, and we
have a government department, supported by every government since the >> >>>National-led government signed us up to those agreements, to recommend >> >>>actions to be taken by government to both meet obligations and reduce >> >>>costs of non-compliance. .
sense. And you know that.
Prove it, nobody else has so you might as well try.
In other words Nature is the main cause ofNature is the main cause of climate, and there is some randomness
climate change and we need to adapt. At last some sense.
inherent in climate, but mankind has made significant changes that are >> >>>now affecting us.
Absolute nonsense.
Sad that some deny any impact of mankind on those changes, but even
I don't know anybody that suggests that the climate is not changing - it is
obviously changing. Cause of that change is open to discussion to all fair
minded folk.
sadder that some do not accept that there is anything mankind can do
to stop the changes we are experiencing of increasing severe weather
events, including fires, droughts, and warming oceans (which some
believe is partly due to the level of plastic debris now in our
waters). It is not clear whether increased volcanic activity is linked >> >>>to those other effects, but increased fires in Australia and now New
Zealand are being seen as art of climate change events.
It is the current government that is going off-track. I do not know
We are seeing an increasing cost for road building as necessary
materials increase in cost - but some are blinkered into thinking that >> >>>wide motorways to encourage less efficient transport is the answer.
Look around the world, the increasing cost of bitumen is leading
others to go back to rail as a primary means of transport. The
blinkered thinking of the right is leading us in the wrong direction. >> >>Off topic poltical rhetoric.
why they hate rail - and now they have confirmed that by canceling a
ferry across Cook Strait that would have enabled more rail connection
between the two islands.
Can you provide a cite?
I am aware that the Government have declined a request to fund new
ferries that require shore facilities to be rebuilt at a cost that
greatly exceeds the cost of the new ships. Kiwirail have committed to
finding alternatives:
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/media/kiwirail-statement-on-project-irex/
So a change of plan, not a cancellation. The IREX project reflected
the previous government's dedication to spending large amounts of
taxpayer dollars without a thought to the return.
The new terminals were being built because the current terminals, built
in the 50s, are end of life and need replacing regardless of the size or >shape of ship using them. Even if KiwiRail ordered new ferries the same >size as the current ones, the new terminals still need to be built.
As size of ship has no significant impact on terminal cost it made sense
to order larger ferries and design the new terminals to support them, >rather than sticking with the size of ferries we we first deployed back
in the 1960s.
I found this:
https://www.kiwirail.co.nz/who-we-are/publications-and-resources/information-released-by-kiwirail/official-information-act-response-new-interislander-ferries/
This publication supports the notion that port facility redevelopment
was required solely because of the nature of the ferries ordered. If
you have a credible alternative view feel free to cite it.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 113:58:44 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,336,164 |