https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry I cannot be held responsible for your inability to reecognise facts.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David GoodwinOff topic.
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >>@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
He may be able to fill the hole in Nicola Willis' budget!
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-03-2024/tax-cuts-are-still-coming-in-the-budget-says-luxon-but-how-will-they-be-funded
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:Thanks for the confirmation, Tony.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry I cannot be held responsible for your inability to reecognise facts.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
It would be wise for you to leave matters of science to those that understand. So you couldn't find any science in that litany of opinions either.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
Ok, I've watched the whole thing. I don't know why. Morbid curiosity I
guess.
Presentation and narration are pretty well done. Clearly not this
directors first time. Unfortunately, like this directors previous well >debunked effort, the content is not up to scratch.
The arguments it makes are pretty muddled, simultaneously claiming that
the climate is not changing but also that it is but its not us causing
it, its the sun or supernovas or something else and by the way a warming >climate is actually good and that more CO2 is good and that the number
of wildfires and heatwaves and floods and large storms we've seen
recently are also normal and australia and canada have always been on
fire.
It presents a lot of facts, but they're generally out of context and
don't really seem to support the conclusions they're hoping the audience
will draw.
One that stuck out to me was a graph showing how air temeprature was
rising while ocean temperature isn't and using that to claim that air >temperature readings are influenced by the heat island effect and so not >trustworthy. The graph on its own doesn't support this conclusion at
all; water has a much higher heat capacity than air. The graph shows
what we expect to happen: air temperature rises faster because it takes
much less energy to heat a litre of air than a litre of water. Oceans
*are* warming (ocean surface temperatures have set a new record for
every one of the last twelve months), they can just absorb more energy
and so warm slower than the air.
They also present the disproven theory that the warming (which also
isn't happening apparently) is being caused by the sun alone. I believe
this theory also made a big appearance in the directors previous
doumentary. For more discussion on this particular subject and the
experts who raise it in this documentary, listen to this: >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmTiEsrhmM
There are also a whole bunch of misleading generalisations or factual
errors, and while the experts they interview may be experts in their own >fields, they are as far as I can find not experts on the subject they're >being interviewed about. They're mostly just providing their own non- >professional opinion of the kind you could get from any random person on >reddit.
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express
whether he believes it himself or not, John Clauser is on the board of
the CO2 Coalition lobby group who William Happer is also involved with, >Steven Koonin is a former BP scientist. I've no doubt many of the other >experts have ties to similar climate change denial lobby groups or
fossil fuel interests.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024 10:50:34 +1300, David GoodwinUnfortunately for you and other climate change lobbyists the article is as fair and unbiased as anything you have ever posted to the contrary. Only you don't read anything you know you will hate, do you?
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >>@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
Ok, I've watched the whole thing. I don't know why. Morbid curiosity I >>guess.
Presentation and narration are pretty well done. Clearly not this
directors first time. Unfortunately, like this directors previous well >>debunked effort, the content is not up to scratch.
The arguments it makes are pretty muddled, simultaneously claiming that
the climate is not changing but also that it is but its not us causing
it, its the sun or supernovas or something else and by the way a warming >>climate is actually good and that more CO2 is good and that the number
of wildfires and heatwaves and floods and large storms we've seen
recently are also normal and australia and canada have always been on
fire.
It presents a lot of facts, but they're generally out of context and
don't really seem to support the conclusions they're hoping the audience >>will draw.
One that stuck out to me was a graph showing how air temeprature was
rising while ocean temperature isn't and using that to claim that air >>temperature readings are influenced by the heat island effect and so not >>trustworthy. The graph on its own doesn't support this conclusion at
all; water has a much higher heat capacity than air. The graph shows
what we expect to happen: air temperature rises faster because it takes >>much less energy to heat a litre of air than a litre of water. Oceans
*are* warming (ocean surface temperatures have set a new record for
every one of the last twelve months), they can just absorb more energy
and so warm slower than the air.
They also present the disproven theory that the warming (which also
isn't happening apparently) is being caused by the sun alone. I believe >>this theory also made a big appearance in the directors previous >>doumentary. For more discussion on this particular subject and the
experts who raise it in this documentary, listen to this: >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pKmTiEsrhmM
There are also a whole bunch of misleading generalisations or factual >>errors, and while the experts they interview may be experts in their own >>fields, they are as far as I can find not experts on the subject they're >>being interviewed about. They're mostly just providing their own non- >>professional opinion of the kind you could get from any random person on >>reddit.
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >>obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express >>whether he believes it himself or not, John Clauser is on the board of
the CO2 Coalition lobby group who William Happer is also involved with, >>Steven Koonin is a former BP scientist. I've no doubt many of the other >>experts have ties to similar climate change denial lobby groups or
fossil fuel interests.
Thank you David for a good and fair summary. I recognised some of the
faces, but you have linked parts of the video to scientific concepts
that explain both the reasons and the reality of the climate change
that we are experiencing. Well done.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:55:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any science in that litany of opinions either.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry I cannot be held responsible for your inability to reecognise facts. >>It would be wise for you to leave matters of science to those that understand.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were >>>repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
Thanks for the confirmation, Tony.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >>@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
He may be able to fill the hole in Nicola Willis' budget!
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-03-2024/tax-cuts-are-still-coming-in-the-budget-says-luxon-but-how-will-they-be-funded
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:55:27 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou need to take lessons in English - read the OP and weep!
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any science in that litany of opinions either.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), TonySorry I cannot be held responsible for your inability to reecognise facts. >>It would be wise for you to leave matters of science to those that understand.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were >>>repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
Thanks for the confirmation, Tony.
On 2024-03-22, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:In Rich's mind, that is absolutely possible, unless of colurse it has been caused by Covid, or the tooth fairy.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >>>@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>>> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >>>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
He may be able to fill the hole in Nicola Willis' budget!
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/20-03-2024/tax-cuts-are-still-coming-in-the-budget-says-luxon-but-how-will-they-be-funded
Hey that is caused by the climate emergency.
On 2024-03-22, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 18:55:27 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:So you couldn't find any science in that litany of opinions either.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:Sorry I cannot be held responsible for your inability to reecognise facts. >>It would be wise for you to leave matters of science to those that understand.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were >>>repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>>- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked >>>about?
Thanks for the confirmation, Tony.
So all those graphs, which you must have skipped over, is not science? Or at least part of it.
As one guy said he tells the students to check out ideas themselves.
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express
whether he believes it himself or not,
John Clauser is on the board of the CO2 Coalition lobby group who
William Happer is also involved with,
I've no doubt many of the other experts have ties to similar
climate change denial lobby groups or fossil fuel interests.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:But you appear to be acknowledging that he has been linked to those
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >>obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express >>whether he believes it himself or not,
Why, that's a total slur. Patrick Moore is a founding member of
Greenpeace who later saw the light and quit the group. Clearly not a
bought opinion.
John Clauser is on the board of the CO2 Coalition lobby group who
William Happer is also involved with,
I don't know Clauser, but Happer is a top physicist of unimpeachable >integrity who has always seen that anthrogenic climate change has no
basis in science, as have others like Freeman Dyson..
Oh there is no doubt at all, except that there must also be doubtI've no doubt many of the other experts have ties to similar
climate change denial lobby groups or fossil fuel interests.
The operative words being "I've no doubt".
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express >whether he believes it himself or not,
Why, that's a total slur. Patrick Moore is a founding member of
Greenpeace who later saw the light and quit the group. Clearly not a
bought opinion.
John Clauser is on the board of the CO2 Coalition lobby group who
William Happer is also involved with,
I don't know Clauser, but Happer is a top physicist of unimpeachable integrity who has always seen that anthrogenic climate change has no
basis in science, as have others like Freeman Dyson..
I've no doubt many of the other experts have ties to similar
climate change denial lobby groups or fossil fuel interests.
The operative words being "I've no doubt".
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 02:38:34 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:Once more you stoop to character assassination and avoid dealing with facts or thew original post - once more you show your true colours.
On Sat, 23 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:But you appear to be acknowledging that he has been linked to those
A number of these experts are also known lobbyists. Patrick Moore is an >>>obvious one who just expresses whatever opinion he is paid to express >>>whether he believes it himself or not,
Why, that's a total slur. Patrick Moore is a founding member of
Greenpeace who later saw the light and quit the group. Clearly not a >>bought opinion.
that are climate change denial groups.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Moore_(consultant)
from which:
"Moore is a policy advisor on climate and energy at The Heartland
Institute (a conservative and libertarian think tank).[45]"
"A March 2014 episode of the American program Hannity featured Moore
making the statement that the Earth "has not warmed for the last 17
years" in a debate with pundit Bob Beckel. Politifact, a political
fact checking website operated by the Tampa Bay Times, rated Moore's >assertion "mostly false", remarking that a significant net warming
over that time frame had occurred even though the spread was
relatively flat as well as that Moore cherry-picked the time frame to
obscure the overall heating trend.[65]"
and
"Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by
consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of
corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy
Institute.[58] Moore's work as a lobbyist has prompted criticism from >environmental activists, who have accused him of acting as an advocate
for many of the industries that Greenpeace was founded to
counter.[39][9] His critics point out Moore's business relations with >"polluters and clear-cutters" through his consultancy.[39] Monte
Hummel, president of the World Wildlife Fund Canada, has claimed that
Moore's book Pacific Spirit is a collection of "pseudoscience and
dubious assumptions".
and while not related to his environmental views, his ability to make
good judgements may be affected by : "During an interview by French >investigative journalist Paul Moreira, which was first broadcast on
French television station Canal+, Moore was asked about the safety of
the herbicide glyphosate. Moore told Moreira that one "could drink a
whole quart of it" without any harm. When Moore was challenged to
drink a glass of the weedkiller, he refused, saying "I'm not an idiot"
and "I'm not stupid" before ending the interview. Monsanto, the
primary producers of glyphosate weedkillers under the Roundup brand,
denied claims that Moore is a paid lobbyist for their
company.[71][72][73] The interview came shortly after the release of a
World Health Organization (WHO) report adding glyphosate to a list of >probable carcinogens.[74][75]"
Mpore character assassination - you cannot help yourself can yoU?John Clauser is on the board of the CO2 Coalition lobby group who
William Happer is also involved with,
I don't know Clauser, but Happer is a top physicist of unimpeachable >>integrity who has always seen that anthrogenic climate change has no
basis in science, as have others like Freeman Dyson..
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Clauser
In May 2023, Clauser joined the board of the CO2 Coalition, a climate
change denial organization.[11]
In November 2023, Clauser called himself a "climate denier" at an
event organized by the Deposit of Faith Coalition, a group of Catholic >organizations.[12] He believes that Earth's temperature is primarily >determined by cloud cover instead of, as stated by the scientific
consensus on climate change,[13] carbon dioxide emissions. He has
concluded that clouds have a net cooling effect on the planet, and
stated "there is no climate crisis."[12] The consensus among
meteorologists and climatologists is that low-altitude, thick clouds
do have a net cooling effect, but high-altitude, thin ones have a
warming effect;[14] there is observational evidence that the overall
current cloud feedback amplifies global warming, and does not have a
cooling effect.[15]
From : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Happer
Happer disagrees with the scientific consensus on climate change,
stating that "Some small fraction of the 1 °C warming during the past
two centuries must have been due to increasing CO2, which is indeed a >greenhouse gas", but argues that "most of the warming has probably
been due to natural causes."[17] Michael Oppenheimer,co-founder of the >Climate Action Network, said that Happer’s claims are "simply not
true" and that the preponderance of evidence and majority of expert
opinion points to a strong anthropogenic influence on rising global >temperatures.[18] Climate Science Watch published a point-by-point
rebuttal to one of Happer’s articles.[19] A petition that he
coauthored to change the official position of the American Physical
Society to a version that raised doubts about global warming was >overwhelmingly rejected by the APS Council.[20][verification needed]
Happer has no formal training as a climate scientist,[5] and says that
his beliefs about climate change come from his experience at the
Department of Energy, at which he supervised all non-weapons energy
research, including climate change research.[18]
Said by someone who is an expert in nothing but character assassination.Oh there is no doubt at all, except that there must also be doubt
I've no doubt many of the other experts have ties to similar
climate change denial lobby groups or fossil fuel interests.
The operative words being "I've no doubt".
about the use of the term expert to imply that an expert in one field
must necessarily be an expert in another field.
But in this video he isn't giving an opinion on atomic physics. Or
optics. Or anything else he is an expert on. He is giving an opinion on >climate science. An opinion that runs contrary to that of actual experts
in that field. Opinions he can not backup with actual scientific
research.
Its odd that he should even be interviewed for a video on
climate science.
As for his integrity... >https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes- >sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
https://web.archive.org/web/20190801034845/https://energydesk.greenpeace >.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:I think you may be being a little hard on "climate scientists" , but only a little - they appear to be easily persuaded to publish heresay and bad science. Your comments about physics is absolutely correct, something I am well acquainted with, it being my background (with mathematics) all science is part of physics. A pet concern of mine is so-called science degrees, there is no such thing really - they provide a small glimpse of reality from the bottom of the heap, barely aware of the beauty above them and calling themselves "scientists".
But in this video he isn't giving an opinion on atomic physics. Or
optics. Or anything else he is an expert on. He is giving an opinion on >>climate science. An opinion that runs contrary to that of actual experts
in that field. Opinions he can not backup with actual scientific
research.
Wow, have I got news for you. Anyone who's attended University
science knows that failed science students have two recourses to
dropping out of Uni: they switch to Geography or Climate Science.
That's right, Climate Science is a refuge for failures. Happer is a >successful physicist, the hardest of the science branches -- as a
matter of fact, physics rules all the other sciences, because all
other sciences are based on physics. As Rutherford said, "science
consists of physics, and stamp collecting". Happer, and all
physicists, are fully qualified to pass judgement on the very bad
"science" which is "anthropogenic climate change".
There is no such thing as an "expert climate scientist". All climate >scientists are failures. Their standard of proof for their own
discipline would constitute a failure in any other branch of science.
As Freeman Dyson said, climate science is just unbelievably lousy,
it's all bad guesses. But of course the media, a sack of mediocrities
in their own right, amplify the climate nonsense. And nonsense it is.
Its odd that he should even be interviewed for a video on
climate science.
Not odd at all, if you know your physics. Happer is an expert.
Someone like Michael Mann is just a moron.
As for his integrity... >>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes- >>sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
The Guardian?? You must be joking.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190801034845/https://energydesk.greenpeace >>.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
Greenpeace?? You must be joking.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
But in this video he isn't giving an opinion on atomic physics. Or
optics. Or anything else he is an expert on. He is giving an opinion on >>climate science. An opinion that runs contrary to that of actual experts
in that field. Opinions he can not backup with actual scientific
research.
Wow, have I got news for you. Anyone who's attended University
science knows that failed science students have two recourses to
dropping out of Uni: they switch to Geography or Climate Science.
That's right, Climate Science is a refuge for failures. Happer is a >successful physicist, the hardest of the science branches -- as a
matter of fact, physics rules all the other sciences, because all
other sciences are based on physics. As Rutherford said, "science
consists of physics, and stamp collecting". Happer, and all
physicists, are fully qualified to pass judgement on the very bad
"science" which is "anthropogenic climate change".
There is no such thing as an "expert climate scientist". All climate >scientists are failures. Their standard of proof for their own
discipline would constitute a failure in any other branch of science.
As Freeman Dyson said, climate science is just unbelievably lousy,
it's all bad guesses. But of course the media, a sack of mediocrities
in their own right, amplify the climate nonsense. And nonsense it is.
Its odd that he should even be interviewed for a video on
climate science.
Not odd at all, if you know your physics. Happer is an expert.
Someone like Michael Mann is just a moron.
As for his integrity... >>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes- >>sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
The Guardian?? You must be joking.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190801034845/https://energydesk.greenpeace >>.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
Greenpeace?? You must be joking.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024 04:21:23 GMT, wn@nosuch.com (Willy Nilly) wrote:More abuse from the liar who claims to have a science degree. Rich, you are so transparent you barely exist.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
But in this video he isn't giving an opinion on atomic physics. Or >>>optics. Or anything else he is an expert on. He is giving an opinion on >>>climate science. An opinion that runs contrary to that of actual experts >>>in that field. Opinions he can not backup with actual scientific >>>research.
Wow, have I got news for you. Anyone who's attended University
science knows that failed science students have two recourses to
dropping out of Uni: they switch to Geography or Climate Science.
That's right, Climate Science is a refuge for failures. Happer is a >>successful physicist, the hardest of the science branches -- as a
matter of fact, physics rules all the other sciences, because all
other sciences are based on physics. As Rutherford said, "science
consists of physics, and stamp collecting". Happer, and all
physicists, are fully qualified to pass judgement on the very bad
"science" which is "anthropogenic climate change".
There is no such thing as an "expert climate scientist". All climate >>scientists are failures. Their standard of proof for their own
discipline would constitute a failure in any other branch of science.
As Freeman Dyson said, climate science is just unbelievably lousy,
it's all bad guesses. But of course the media, a sack of mediocrities
in their own right, amplify the climate nonsense. And nonsense it is.
I take it you failed climate science, Willy Nilly. Where did you take
it?
Its odd that he should even be interviewed for a video on
climate science.
Not odd at all, if you know your physics. Happer is an expert.
Someone like Michael Mann is just a moron.
As for his integrity... >>>https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/greenpeace-exposes- >>>sceptics-cast-doubt-climate-science
The Guardian?? You must be joking.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190801034845/https://energydesk.greenpeace >>>.org/2015/12/08/exposed-academics-for-hire/
Greenpeace?? You must be joking.
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >costs?
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts! >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one
has ever eventuated.
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts -
there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one
has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >costs?
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one
has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus of >proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be true >then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment etc. And
the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst there is no >evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that >the climate is not changing.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:57:56 -0000 (UTC), TonyEverything you wrote above is off topic - that is every single word. You are a sociopath.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>>> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one >>>> has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who >>>cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>>costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus of >>proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be >>true
then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A >>mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment etc. >>And
the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst there is no >>evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that >>the climate is not changing.
The fairly minor move towards EVs has been more about concern over
prices for oil - certainly prices would be higher if the USA had not
found a way to get so much from shale. A lot of taxi operators moved
to Prius vehicles because they gave a better financial return - do you
object to that? Another major concern for our country is that we were
not really prepared for our second ever national climate induced
emergency, which flooded large areas and has left many people still
without a home all these months later - and increased insurance costs
for everyone. Extreme weather in Australia has burnt a lot of land;
and we have now seen large fires out of Christchurch on two occasions.
Land slips and movements have led to increased costs to fix roads - a
huge cost in the Nelson area, and yet bizarrely we seeing yet again
Roads of National Party significance rather than an increased emphasis
on rail where that can provide a useful alternative in some areas.
Changing water temperatures are affecting the fish that can be caught
in our seas, and in some areas warmer waters are leading to problems
for aquaculture, and warmer temperatures are changing the crops that
work best in different parts of New Zealand. Our new government
doesn't seem to care about our international agreements - not meeting
agreed targets may make it harder to sell our goods, but tax cuts will
help landlords get through the tough times. What are you panicking
about, Tony?
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Bill.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 05:03:56 +1300, BR <blah@blah.blah> wrote:This and the last government are/were driven by international opinion and pressures, just like most countries. They are/were (especially the last government) also governed by politicians who often put political opportunity before science.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
Bill.
Our current government includes members of the government that
originally signed New Zealand up to international agreements that >acknowledged that human activities were contributing to climate
change, and the current government supports that conclusion. Are you
able to provide evidence that New Zealand Governments since that time
are "perpetuating the climate nonsense"?
Is the current Act/National/NZ First government complicit in making
grotesque claims? If so, what are they?
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >costs?
That's crazy talk. All the political hysteria about non-existent anthropogenic climate change is causing *enormous* social and
civilisational damage -- are you entirely asleep? It's caused environmentally loony practices such as the UK power company Drax
paying to clear-fell 100,000s hectares of overseas forests to get
shipped in to feed their power plants instead of using plentiful local
coal.
Also there is a significant suicide rate among teenagers in
Western countries who are depressed from all the garbage environmental propaganda. There are far more than that.
Your other nonsense points
are similarly countered -- as an example, wind turbines are
environmentally destructive -- they use more energy to fabricate,
construct, & operate than they ever return in service, and they make
our electricity grid less reliable and more expensive.
But if you want tales of harm, enjoy this speech given on this topic
by Michael Crichton in 2003:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
land where endangered species are present ...
Hearsay isn't exactly a good foundation to base an argument on so
perhaps we'll just ignore this for now.
Wind turbines do not require more energy to manufacture than they
produce - if it were true then they would be uneconomic to buy
We dig stuff out of the ground, make a wind turbine, it
generates power for a few decades, and then we recycle what we can and
put the rest back in the ground where it came from.
for as long as [coal] it is running it produces air pollution that is
harmful to human health.
They do not reduce the reliability of the grid.
course wind generation tends to be deployed where there is fairy
consistent wind (they don't make money if they're not spinning), and if >generation is spread around the country its probable that any given time
some portion of wind turbines will be generating power (it is improbable
that all of the countries windiest locations will be windless at the
same time).
And as I have also pointed out previously, wind generation is not
expensive, it and solar are actually the two *cheapest* ways of
generating electricity.
He seems to start out by
misunderstanding the Drake equation ...
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:57:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>>> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one >>>> has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who >>>cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>>costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus of >>proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be true
then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment etc. And
the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst there is no >>evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that >>the climate is not changing.
The fairly minor move towards EVs has been more about concern over
prices for oil - certainly prices would be higher if the USA had not
found a way to get so much from shale. A lot of taxi operators moved
to Prius vehicles because they gave a better financial return - do you
object to that? Another major concern for our country is that we were
not really prepared for our second ever national climate induced
emergency, which flooded large areas and has left many people still
without a home all these months later - and increased insurance costs
for everyone. Extreme weather in Australia has burnt a lot of land;
and we have now seen large fires out of Christchurch on two occasions.
Land slips and movements have led to increased costs to fix roads - a
huge cost in the Nelson area, and yet bizarrely we seeing yet again
Roads of National Party significance rather than an increased emphasis
on rail where that can provide a useful alternative in some areas.
Changing water temperatures are affecting the fish that can be caught
in our seas, and in some areas warmer waters are leading to problems
for aquaculture, and warmer temperatures are changing the crops that
work best in different parts of New Zealand. Our new government
doesn't seem to care about our international agreements - not meeting
agreed targets may make it harder to sell our goods, but tax cuts will
help landlords get through the tough times. What are you panicking
about, Tony?
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this newsgroup, >have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire predictions >have all failed to eventuate.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your
claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that
its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you
said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove
them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change
isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its
reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those
claims.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been demonstrated >as even likely, let alone proven.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>costs?
That's crazy talk. All the political hysteria about non-existent anthropogenic climate change is causing *enormous* social and
civilisational damage -- are you entirely asleep?
It's caused
environmentally loony practices such as the UK power company Drax
paying to clear-fell 100,000s hectares of overseas forests to get
shipped in to feed their power plants instead of using plentiful local
coal. Also there is a significant suicide rate among teenagers in
Western countries who are depressed from all the garbage environmental propaganda. There are far more than that. Your other nonsense points
are similarly countered -- as an example, wind turbines are
environmentally destructive -- they use more energy to fabricate,
construct, & operate than they ever return in service, and they make
our electricity grid less reliable and more expensive.
But if you want tales of harm, enjoy this speech given on this topic
by Michael Crichton in 2003:
https://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Crichton2003.pdf
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this newsgroup, have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire predictions have all failed to eventuate.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your
claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that
its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you
said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove
them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change
isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its
reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those
claims.
On 2024-03-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am not aware of anyone advocating removing private landlords,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:57:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>>> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were >>>>> >> repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >>>>> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked >>>>> >> about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one >>>>> has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>>something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who >>>>cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why >>>>are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>>>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>>>costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus of
proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be true
then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment etc. And
the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst there is no >>>evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that >>>the climate is not changing.
The fairly minor move towards EVs has been more about concern over
prices for oil - certainly prices would be higher if the USA had not
found a way to get so much from shale. A lot of taxi operators moved
to Prius vehicles because they gave a better financial return - do you
object to that? Another major concern for our country is that we were
not really prepared for our second ever national climate induced
emergency, which flooded large areas and has left many people still
without a home all these months later - and increased insurance costs
for everyone. Extreme weather in Australia has burnt a lot of land;
and we have now seen large fires out of Christchurch on two occasions.
Land slips and movements have led to increased costs to fix roads - a
huge cost in the Nelson area, and yet bizarrely we seeing yet again
Roads of National Party significance rather than an increased emphasis
on rail where that can provide a useful alternative in some areas.
Changing water temperatures are affecting the fish that can be caught
in our seas, and in some areas warmer waters are leading to problems
for aquaculture, and warmer temperatures are changing the crops that
work best in different parts of New Zealand. Our new government
doesn't seem to care about our international agreements - not meeting
agreed targets may make it harder to sell our goods, but tax cuts will
help landlords get through the tough times. What are you panicking
about, Tony?
If we remove private landlords there will be less houses for people to live >in. Shooting the messanger is not the way to go.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one
has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, whoYou are missing the point with respect.
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus of proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be true
then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment
etc.
And the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst
there is no
evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that the climate is not changing.
Things don't really get concerning for me until countries start
seriously proposing geoengineering. I don't know the solution to "Oops,
we messed up the climate" is really to mess with it further.
On 26 Mar 2024 02:30:36 GMT, Gordon <Gordon@leaf.net.nz> wrote:Irrelevant. The changes help landlords to provide houses for people to live in. That is the subject you were failing to address.
On 2024-03-25, Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I am not aware of anyone advocating removing private landlords,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 05:57:56 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>>says...You are missing the point with respect.
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105 >>>>>> >@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >>>>>> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were >>>>>> >> repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science
- can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked >>>>>> >> about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one >>>>>> has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>>>claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>>>something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who >>>>>cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why >>>>>are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want >>>>>cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living >>>>>costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus >>>>of
proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be >>>>true
then prove it.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A >>>>mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment etc. >>>>And
the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst there is no >>>>evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing >>>>that
the climate is not changing.
The fairly minor move towards EVs has been more about concern over
prices for oil - certainly prices would be higher if the USA had not
found a way to get so much from shale. A lot of taxi operators moved
to Prius vehicles because they gave a better financial return - do you
object to that? Another major concern for our country is that we were
not really prepared for our second ever national climate induced
emergency, which flooded large areas and has left many people still
without a home all these months later - and increased insurance costs
for everyone. Extreme weather in Australia has burnt a lot of land;
and we have now seen large fires out of Christchurch on two occasions.
Land slips and movements have led to increased costs to fix roads - a
huge cost in the Nelson area, and yet bizarrely we seeing yet again
Roads of National Party significance rather than an increased emphasis
on rail where that can provide a useful alternative in some areas.
Changing water temperatures are affecting the fish that can be caught
in our seas, and in some areas warmer waters are leading to problems
for aquaculture, and warmer temperatures are changing the crops that
work best in different parts of New Zealand. Our new government
doesn't seem to care about our international agreements - not meeting
agreed targets may make it harder to sell our goods, but tax cuts will
help landlords get through the tough times. What are you panicking
about, Tony?
If we remove private landlords there will be less houses for people to live >>in. Shooting the messanger is not the way to go.
Gordon, just treating them consistently with other businesses for
taxation purposes. If they were removed however, the houses would
still be there to be lived in. In some countries private landlords are >required to provide long term leases, and rents are at least partially >controlled. Many New Zealand local authorities own some rental
properties, and there have been many houses built by the NZ government
in recent years, but high immigration (supported by successive
governments) have meant that we are still short of rental properties - >landlords do not need tax cuts at present, but they have received them >anyway.
In article <part1of1.1.yN1pEt1IbZOQBA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzOK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <oaj00jt7jlqu6iicamp9792e7ntf0la6im@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blahYou are missing the point with respect.
says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 21:58:36 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <pp9qvi5l5jj9olkbceisgq8bn98qlgmgii@4ax.com>, Rich80105
@hotmail.com says...
On Fri, 22 Mar 2024 00:15:12 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/cOXEcZUktzbv/
Well worth watching, the science is nowhere near settled.
Nice to see opinions that are not just fatalistic.
I watched for quite a while, then skipped through watching excerpts - >> >> >> there seemed to be a lot of assertions, and those assertions were
repeated a few times through the video, but I did not spot the science >> >> >> - can you give us a time to watch where actual evidence is talked
about?
I thought I recognised one of their experts!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjJCHQ_Igq4
Man made climate change is a fraud.
In more than 50 years of climate disaster prediction, not a single one
has ever eventuated.
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your
claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
But even if we accept your hypothesis is true with no evidence, who
cares? Why should we care? What harm is this supposed hoax doing? Why
are the things we're doing to reduce emissions bad? Should we not want
cleaner air? cheaper transport? more efficient technology? lower living
costs?
1. Those that believe in anthropogenic climate change should have the onus >>of
proof, not those that do not believe in it. If you belive something to be >>true
then prove it.
But it *has* been proven
, at least as well as we could reasonably askYou may not know it, I believe it.
for. There have been loads of alternative theories like the one one in
the video but so far none have stood up to scrutiny. At this stage the
best and only credible explanation we have is that we're the ones
causing it.
Of course this doesn't mean its impossible for some new information to
come along later changing our understanding. But until then the best
we've got to go on is that its our emissions. And the cost of doing
nothing if we are indeed the problem far outweigh the cost of action if
it turns out the cause was something else outside our control.
2. There is actual damage being done by the panic nonsense we are seeing. A >>mad
rush to EVs without yet understanding the real cost to the environment
etc.
I don't know about damage. We know whats *in* EVs, and where it comes
from. Nothing terribly exciting or that we weren't already mining for
other purposes. We *do* know that their lifetime emissions are also >substantially lower than that of regular combustion engined vehicles,
and they they do less to harm air quality and human health. The biggest >environmental concern really is microplastics from tires, but regular >vehicles have that problem too.
I don't think pursuing EVs as some kind of magic bullet solution is wise >though. Continuing down the car-only path as we have done is bad for
public finances as well as society in general.
And the real cost of many other things we are rushing into. Whilst
there is no
evidence that mankind is predominantly at fault here. Nobody is arguing that >> the climate is not changing.
I don't know that we're really rushing into anything much at the moment,
or deploying any particularly new or unproven technologies.
Things don't really get concerning for me until countries startThat is an unrelated subject and I agree that geoengineering is hideously dangerous.
seriously proposing geoengineering. I don't know the solution to "Oops,
we messed up the climate" is really to mess with it further.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:17:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are wrong. It is up to you to show that climate change is mostly man made. Unless you can do that there is nothing for me to disprove. Simple really.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this >>newsgroup,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>> >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that
its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you
said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove
them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously". >>>People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change
isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its >>>reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those >>>claims.
have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >>predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire >>predictions
have all failed to eventuate.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been demonstrated >>as even likely, let alone proven.
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
Try a simple Google search, Tony - for example "Is climate change
real?" or "Are humans causing climate change?" or "What are the Causes
of Climate Change?"
What do I have to search for to get articles confirming your opinion,
Tony?
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
land where endangered species are present ...
News flash: *We* are an endangered species now, thanks in no small
part to all the climate looniness.
Hearsay isn't exactly a good foundation to base an argument on so
perhaps we'll just ignore this for now.
Of course you will. I am reminded of an old Joe Walsh song: "Pow!
Right between the eyes! Oh how Nature loves her little surprises."
Or as Richard Feynman put it: You can't fool Mother Nature.
Wind turbines do not require more energy to manufacture than they
produce - if it were true then they would be uneconomic to buy
Cheap and polluting Chinese labour made them cheap, but now they are
much more expensive, and more and more by the day.
We dig stuff out of the ground, make a wind turbine, it
generates power for a few decades, and then we recycle what we can and
put the rest back in the ground where it came from.
What a sick joke! The huge massive turbines get buried for ever, they
never degrade. Spent nuclear fuel is far more useful.
for as long as [coal] it is running it produces air pollution that is
harmful to human health.
News flash: You *exhale* carbon dioxide -- so how can that be
harmful?
They do not reduce the reliability of the grid.
It is well known that they do, and furthermore the grid must always be capable of full production without wind or solar -- for when they are
not contributing. Therefore wind and solar only ever make the grid
more cumbersome, never less. And spare us your non-existent battery technology.
course wind generation tends to be deployed where there is fairy
consistent wind (they don't make money if they're not spinning), and if >generation is spread around the country its probable that any given time >some portion of wind turbines will be generating power (it is improbable >that all of the countries windiest locations will be windless at the
same time).
It is probable, indeed inevitable, that sometimes that will indeed be
the case.
And as I have also pointed out previously, wind generation is not >expensive, it and solar are actually the two *cheapest* ways of
generating electricity.
You are denying reality -- the fact is, grid electricity was much
cheaper before they starting building the wind turbines. You are
guilty of exactly that which you accuse others -- of believing your
own wordiness. Blah blah blah does not equal truth.
He seems to start out by
misunderstanding the Drake equation ...
The Drake Equation is nonsense built on nothing. It's missing all the essential coefficients because it does not know the value of any of
them. A trillion times zero is still zero. That we exist on this
Earth has absolutely no commentary on the chances for life anywhere
else. If you don't understand that, then you have no actual knowledge.
Anyway, I see little difference between your arguments and that put
out by some tedious AI. And I don't converse with AI's.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024, David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Things don't really get concerning for me until countries start
seriously proposing geoengineering. I don't know the solution to "Oops,
we messed up the climate" is really to mess with it further.
Well, you've answered your own question, haven't you? You asked:
"What harm is this supposed hoax doing?"
Geoengineering us to death would qualify, right?
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzYes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted - you cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven - it is illogicsl.
says...
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in >itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific >research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to
read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in >itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific >research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to >read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdfYes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted - you cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven - it is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe climate change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
In article <part1of1.1.yEQeYIRoF1tcqQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe IPCC report is not full of proof, indeed it has vey little or no proof and so how can I disprove the unproven. Impossible!
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzYes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted - >>you
says...
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof. >> >>
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in
itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific
research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to
read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven - >>it
is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe climate >> change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
If you won't accept that mountain of scientific research, what *are* you >looking for? Is that massive body of research inadequate in some way? Do
you have a list of peer-reviewed papers that disprove some portion of
those the IPCC report is based on?
You can't just wave away a bunch of scientific research as not goodYou are being a tad unfair to put it mildly.
enough because it clashes with your beliefs or you feel like it is
incorrect in some way. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence and claiming that a majority of research on a subject is
somehow wrong seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me. The burden
of proof really should lie with the person claiming all the experts have
got it wrong in some unspecified way.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.yEQeYIRoF1tcqQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzYes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted - >>you
says...
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof. >> >>
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in >> >itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific >> >research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to
read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven - >>it
is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe climate
change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
If you won't accept that mountain of scientific research, what *are* you >looking for? Is that massive body of research inadequate in some way? Do >you have a list of peer-reviewed papers that disprove some portion ofThe IPCC report is not full of proof, indeed it has vey little or no proof and
those the IPCC report is based on?
so how can I disprove the unproven. Impossible!
There is a growing mountain of research that supports my views also. And that should not be just waved away either.
You can't just wave away a bunch of scientific research as not goodYou are being a tad unfair to put it mildly.
enough because it clashes with your beliefs or you feel like it is >incorrect in some way. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence and claiming that a majority of research on a subject is
somehow wrong seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me. The burden
of proof really should lie with the person claiming all the experts have >got it wrong in some unspecified way.
Despite all of what you say and despite all of the predictions (and I mean all
of them) about the serious effects of climate change - none of those things have come to pass. That is sufficient for me to question whether the so-called
climate experts are in fact expert. They have got it wrong so often that I am entitled to question them. I have an appropriate background to do so. I am never satisfied with people who claim they "know" the truth without evidence, they almost certainly do not know. Neither do I say that I know - but I am entitled to question until I see proof - none seen yet.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:17:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are wrong. It is up to you to show that climate change is mostly man made. >Unless you can do that there is nothing for me to disprove. Simple really.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this >>>newsgroup,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>>> >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>>>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that >>>>its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>>>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>>>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you >>>>said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove >>>>them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously". >>>>People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change >>>>isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its >>>>reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those >>>>claims.
have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >>>predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire >>>predictions
have all failed to eventuate.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been demonstrated
as even likely, let alone proven.
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
Try a simple Google search, Tony - for example "Is climate change
real?" or "Are humans causing climate change?" or "What are the Causes
of Climate Change?"
What do I have to search for to get articles confirming your opinion,
Tony?
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:22:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony"affected climate change"? What? That is not the topic. It is about 'how much' we have affected it - you deliberately twist anything you don't like.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:17:29 -0000 (UTC), TonyYou are wrong. It is up to you to show that climate change is mostly man >>made.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them, >>>otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this >>>>newsgroup,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>>>> >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>>>> >something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>>>>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that >>>>>its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>>>>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>>>>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you >>>>>said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove >>>>>them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously". >>>>>People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change >>>>>isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its >>>>>reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those >>>>>claims.
have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >>>>predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire >>>>predictions
have all failed to eventuate.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been >>>>demonstrated
as even likely, let alone proven.
Try a simple Google search, Tony - for example "Is climate change
real?" or "Are humans causing climate change?" or "What are the Causes
of Climate Change?"
What do I have to search for to get articles confirming your opinion, >>>Tony?
Unless you can do that there is nothing for me to disprove. Simple really.
The articles I referred to give a lot of information and evidence
supporting that mankind has affected climate change, and that unless
we can reduce that effect we have more serious climate events ahead of
us.
In article <part1of1.1.Ya6KcTxgI58Edw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.yEQeYIRoF1tcqQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe IPCC report is not full of proof, indeed it has vey little or no proof >>and
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzYes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted - >> >>you
says...
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in >> >> >itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific >> >> >research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to >> >> >read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven >> >>-
it
is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe
climate
change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
If you won't accept that mountain of scientific research, what *are* you
looking for? Is that massive body of research inadequate in some way? Do
you have a list of peer-reviewed papers that disprove some portion of
those the IPCC report is based on?
so how can I disprove the unproven. Impossible!
There is a growing mountain of research that supports my views also. And >>that
should not be just waved away either.
You are being a tad unfair to put it mildly.
You can't just wave away a bunch of scientific research as not good
enough because it clashes with your beliefs or you feel like it is
incorrect in some way. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence and claiming that a majority of research on a subject is
somehow wrong seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me. The burden
of proof really should lie with the person claiming all the experts have
got it wrong in some unspecified way.
Despite all of what you say and despite all of the predictions (and I mean >>all
of them) about the serious effects of climate change - none of those things >> have come to pass. That is sufficient for me to question whether the >>so-called
climate experts are in fact expert. They have got it wrong so often that I >>am
entitled to question them. I have an appropriate background to do so. I am >> never satisfied with people who claim they "know" the truth without >>evidence,
they almost certainly do not know. Neither do I say that I know - but I am >> entitled to question until I see proof - none seen yet.
The IPCC report is full of references which should be sufficient to show
how the authors of the report arrived at their conclusions, though I >certainly don't blame you for not reading them - unless it was your job
I don't know how anyone could find the time.
But if all that is not sufficient I can't really see how anything could
be. To me it just seems like the bar is being set weirdly high, so high
that nothing could ever clear it. But that's fine; everyone is entitled
to their own beliefs and opinions, and I don't have a problem with that. Excellent - I agree. My beliefs are based on lack of proof and I have been clear about that. What concerns me are those that say they have posted proof but are quite simply lying because their agenda is political and no proof exists. My background requires me to differentiate between proof and evidence, the two are different and in this context barely related because of the fact that all of the dire predictions have all failed to eventuate.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have never made that claim, Tony. See if you can find anyone that
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:22:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony"affected climate change"? What? That is not the topic. It is about 'how much' >we have affected it - you deliberately twist anything you don't like.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The articles I referred to give a lot of information and evidence >>supporting that mankind has affected climate change, and that unless
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:17:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You are wrong. It is up to you to show that climate change is mostly man >>>made.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them, >>>>otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>>>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this >>>>>newsgroup,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your >>>>>>> >claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>>>>> >something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>>>>>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that >>>>>>its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>>>>>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>>>>>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you >>>>>>said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove >>>>>>them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously". >>>>>>People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change >>>>>>isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its >>>>>>reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those >>>>>>claims.
have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >>>>>predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire >>>>>predictions
have all failed to eventuate.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been >>>>>demonstrated
as even likely, let alone proven.
Try a simple Google search, Tony - for example "Is climate change >>>>real?" or "Are humans causing climate change?" or "What are the Causes >>>>of Climate Change?"
What do I have to search for to get articles confirming your opinion, >>>>Tony?
Unless you can do that there is nothing for me to disprove. Simple really. >>
we can reduce that effect we have more serious climate events ahead of
us.
Off topic removed.
Rudeness removed.
You are lying. You have never posted any proof that mankind is predominantly >responsible for climate change. Not one bit.
So stop your pontificating, lies
and innuendo and get off you fat chuff and provide proof of shut up.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Indeed - I have not seen any evidence that there is no potential
In article <part1of1.1.Ya6KcTxgI58Edw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.yEQeYIRoF1tcqQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nzThe IPCC report is not full of proof, indeed it has vey little or no proof >>>and
says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>> >> >says...Yes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted -
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific proof.
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not in >>> >> >itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the scientific >>> >> >research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to >>> >> >read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
you
cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been proven >>> >>-
it
is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe
climate
change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
If you won't accept that mountain of scientific research, what *are* you >>> >looking for? Is that massive body of research inadequate in some way? Do >>> >you have a list of peer-reviewed papers that disprove some portion of
those the IPCC report is based on?
so how can I disprove the unproven. Impossible!
There is a growing mountain of research that supports my views also. And >>>that
should not be just waved away either.
You can't just wave away a bunch of scientific research as not good
enough because it clashes with your beliefs or you feel like it is
incorrect in some way. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence and claiming that a majority of research on a subject is
somehow wrong seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me.
The burdenYou are being a tad unfair to put it mildly.
of proof really should lie with the person claiming all the experts have >>> >got it wrong in some unspecified way.
Despite all of what you say and despite all of the predictions (and I mean >>>all
of them) about the serious effects of climate change - none of those things >>> have come to pass. That is sufficient for me to question whether the >>>so-called
climate experts are in fact expert. They have got it wrong so often that I >>>am
entitled to question them. I have an appropriate background to do so. I am >>> never satisfied with people who claim they "know" the truth without >>>evidence,
they almost certainly do not know. Neither do I say that I know - but I am >>> entitled to question until I see proof - none seen yet.
The IPCC report is full of references which should be sufficient to show >>how the authors of the report arrived at their conclusions, though I >>certainly don't blame you for not reading them - unless it was your job
I don't know how anyone could find the time.
But if all that is not sufficient I can't really see how anything could
be. To me it just seems like the bar is being set weirdly high, so high >>that nothing could ever clear it. But that's fine; everyone is entitled
to their own beliefs and opinions, and I don't have a problem with that. >Excellent - I agree. My beliefs are based on lack of proof and I have been >clear about that. What concerns me are those that say they have posted proof >but are quite simply lying because their agenda is political and no proof >exists. My background requires me to differentiate between proof and evidence, >the two are different and in this context barely related because of the fact >that all of the dire predictions have all failed to eventuate.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:06:11 -0000 (UTC), TonyYes you have many times but I note that in recent times you have carefully pulled back from that as more intelligent people have become involved in this topic.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:I have never made that claim, Tony.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 03:22:04 -0000 (UTC), Tony"affected climate change"? What? That is not the topic. It is about 'how >>much'
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote:The articles I referred to give a lot of information and evidence >>>supporting that mankind has affected climate change, and that unless
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 02:17:29 -0000 (UTC), Tony >>>>><lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:You are wrong. It is up to you to show that climate change is mostly man >>>>made.
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:"It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them, >>>>>otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >>>>>>>says...You, together with I think all people with similar opinions in this >>>>>>newsgroup,
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up >>>>>>>> >your
claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by >>>>>>>> >something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them, >>>>>>>> otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >>>>>>>proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that >>>>>>>its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >>>>>>>because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >>>>>>>provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny. It is exactly how you >>>>>>>said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove >>>>>>>them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously". >>>>>>>People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change >>>>>>>isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its >>>>>>>reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those >>>>>>>claims.
have yet to provide any compelling evidence that climate change is >>>>>>predominantly man made. Also, what Bill wrote is correct, the dire >>>>>>predictions
have all failed to eventuate.
We cannot be expected to prove something wrong that has not been >>>>>>demonstrated
as even likely, let alone proven.
Try a simple Google search, Tony - for example "Is climate change >>>>>real?" or "Are humans causing climate change?" or "What are the Causes >>>>>of Climate Change?"
What do I have to search for to get articles confirming your opinion, >>>>>Tony?
Unless you can do that there is nothing for me to disprove. Simple really. >>>
we can reduce that effect we have more serious climate events ahead of >>>us.
we have affected it - you deliberately twist anything you don't like.
Off topic removed.
Rudeness removed.
You are lying. You have never posted any proof that mankind is predominantly >>responsible for climate change. Not one bit.
See if you can find anyone thatNot to an extent that justifies current actions and planned actions.
has . . . That is not to say that human actions have not induced small >changes to our climate that are significant in terms of aggregation
over a period, or in some specific instances. For example warming sea
levels affect a lot of things (habitat for many species, and some
weather patterns, for example). There is no doubt that over time,
mankind has affected our climate, and not for the better.
Having got through that misunderstanding, perhaps you will nowAbsolutely not, No I do not agree, that is a masive overreaction, typical of you and others that are politically motivated and don't actually care about real people.
acknowledge that mankind has affected our climate, has increased the
number of adverse weather events, and that it is desirable that we
mitigate the trend of those adverse indicators by reducing harmful
emissions and complying with the international treaty which the
National-led government signed us up to all that time ago.
Still no proof from Rich and there never has been, never will be - just distraction, lies and gueeswork.So stop your pontificating, lies
and innuendo and get off you fat chuff and provide proof of shut up.
On Tue, 26 Mar 2024 20:10:19 -0000 (UTC), TonyIf you answer the person you are addressing you might get an answer - and you will avoid this cowardly nonsense.
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:Indeed - I have not seen any evidence that there is no potential
In article <part1of1.1.Ya6KcTxgI58Edw@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>says...
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.yEQeYIRoF1tcqQ@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >says...The IPCC report is not full of proof, indeed it has vey little or no proof >>>>and
David Goodwin <david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
In article <part1of1.1.V54dQJVgEmcosA@ue.ph>, lizandtony@orcon.net.nz >>>> >> >says...Yes I have seen it some time ago. I paraphrase what I previously posted >>>> >>-
OK show me the proof. Not just some opinions - actual scientific >>>> >> >>proof.
This IPCC report is perhaps as good a starting point as any. Its not >>>> >> >in
itself "actual scientific proof", but it is a summary of the
scientific
research to date and has a mountain of references which you'll want to >>>> >> >read: https://report.ipcc.ch/ar6/wg1/IPCC_AR6_WGI_FullReport.pdf
you
cannot expect anybody to disprove something that has not yet been
proven
-
it
is illogicsl.
So until I see actual proof I will continue to ask those who believe >>>> >>climate
change is predominantly man-made to prove it.
If you won't accept that mountain of scientific research, what *are* you >>>> >looking for? Is that massive body of research inadequate in some way? Do >>>> >you have a list of peer-reviewed papers that disprove some portion of >>>> >those the IPCC report is based on?
so how can I disprove the unproven. Impossible!
There is a growing mountain of research that supports my views also. And >>>>that
should not be just waved away either.
You can't just wave away a bunch of scientific research as not good
enough because it clashes with your beliefs or you feel like it is
incorrect in some way. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary
evidence and claiming that a majority of research on a subject is
somehow wrong seems like a pretty extraordinary claim to me.
the two are different and in this context barely related because of the fact >>that all of the dire predictions have all failed to eventuate.The burdenYou are being a tad unfair to put it mildly.
of proof really should lie with the person claiming all the experts have >>>> >got it wrong in some unspecified way.
Despite all of what you say and despite all of the predictions (and I mean >>>>all
of them) about the serious effects of climate change - none of those >>>>things
have come to pass. That is sufficient for me to question whether the >>>>so-called
climate experts are in fact expert. They have got it wrong so often that I >>>>am
entitled to question them. I have an appropriate background to do so. I am >>>> never satisfied with people who claim they "know" the truth without >>>>evidence,
they almost certainly do not know. Neither do I say that I know - but I am >>>> entitled to question until I see proof - none seen yet.
The IPCC report is full of references which should be sufficient to show >>>how the authors of the report arrived at their conclusions, though I >>>certainly don't blame you for not reading them - unless it was your job
I don't know how anyone could find the time.
But if all that is not sufficient I can't really see how anything could >>>be. To me it just seems like the bar is being set weirdly high, so high >>>that nothing could ever clear it. But that's fine; everyone is entitled >>>to their own beliefs and opinions, and I don't have a problem with that. >>Excellent - I agree. My beliefs are based on lack of proof and I have been >>clear about that. What concerns me are those that say they have posted proof >>but are quite simply lying because their agenda is political and no proof >>exists. My background requires me to differentiate between proof and >>evidence,
The issue as to whether mankind is predominantly responsible for
climate change has been covered in a previous post - that would
certainly be a bar that was set far too high, but to say that mankind
has not affected climate in any way would be just as extreme in the
other direction. Some of the dire predictions have been made by those
that do not want to acknowledge that humans can influence climate to
at least some extent, and so have dreamt up prediction that are
nothing like those being made by scientists. I have seen someone claim
that climate scientists are predicting the end of the world if we do
not change what we are doing - that is as stupid hyperbole as
claiming that we cannot do anything to influence climate . . .
So we should all be careful - and in the meantime it cannot do any
harm to try to limit toxic emissions from burning petrol, diesel and
coal - do you agree?
In article <4s730jpuuth3lcogocngm58oamje911k9c@4ax.com>, blah@blah.blah >says...
On Mon, 25 Mar 2024 17:30:47 +1300, David Goodwin
<david+usenet@zx.net.nz> wrote:
Do you have any scientific studies you could link to that back up your
claims? Perhaps some proof that climate change is being caused by
something other than human activity?
I am not the one perpetuating the climate nonsense, you are.
It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove them,
otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously.
I would have thought that was obvious.
There has been a huge amount of research done over the last few decades >proving beyond reasonable doubt that the climate is changing and that
its us that's changing it.
You don't get to just say all that research is wrong or somehow invalid >because you don't like or understand the outcome. You've got to actually >provide some proof that stands up to scrutiny.
It is exactly how you
said it: "It is up to those who make such grotesque claims to prove
them, otherwise anyone could claim anything and be taken seriously".
People are making extraordinary claims ranging from "climate change
isn't real" to "climate change is real but its not us causing it its
reason x" and failing to provide any credible proof to backup those
claims.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 121:51:03 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,212 |
| Messages: | 5,334,491 |