National News Extinction "Rebellion"

chuckbert said:
Pot kettle black.

Hello dear! I did used to reply fully but when I realised you didn't bother and avoided the bits you couldn't answer, I stopped wasting my time ?

I’ve addressed this point about your persistence in separating “natural” events and climate change as if they are not part of the same whole. Climate change is making weather worse.

Have never said that. The contention I have is not all bad weather = climate change. Something I presume people like you do?

No idea. How about you?

I dunno, you are the "scientist", not me. I thought you'd be all over it. It's just "science"

If the climate changes then 100% yes. Will it be man made climate change? 100% no.

Nice fudge.

Sure, but the worst effects would presumably be the knocking out of our communication systems immediately rather than climate change which we as a species have demonstrated takes decades to effect.

Agree on that.

I haven’t been flippant about it. You can’t just pile on lists of “whatabout this, whatabout that” and expect people to run off and do the thinking for you.
The only thing I have been flippant about is your reference to astrology. I’d expect better than that.

Yes you have! I've not whatabouted this, you've been doing it far more than me. I've avoided as much as possible it for the past month to ease your sensitives, but I do urge your stalking of other posters who do it otherwise I'll feel your attitude is a personal dislike and bullying! Not very left wing!

Why do you expect rational answers to bizarre “when did you stop beating your wife?” questions like this. The “climate moaners” are a striking consensus of climate scientists (probably not the 97% that gets bandied about), but well over 3/4 which is more consensus than most scientific issues). They know very well what a controlled experiment is, what an observation is, what the broader context and conflating issues are, what the parameters around correlation and causation are, how to accommodate confirmation and other biases in their analysis, how to place observations on a statistically-sound footing and how to incorporate uncertainty in their analysis. They aren’t just people with an opinion who use twitter as a source of ideas.

You proclaimed yourself to be a scientist in a quite big manner to talk down to me, so I asked science questions for a scientist to answer. Stop being so sensitive.

Can you please point me at a primary source describing how Australian policy on controlled burns, fire breaks and back burning have changed and when?

I will look it up - I believe I read an article on the SMH and report on the BBC news - are they suitably non-Murdochy for your sensitivities?

. I don’t. I have responded twice as to why your interpretation is fallacious and have referred to sources of first hand comment from experts.
Try this one (I’m on my phone and can’t link directly to the video - it is the one of Shane Fitzsimmonds half way down. The rest is interesting, but not primary source). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfire-prevention-explainer/11853366

Minimally. Like you are one Google search ahead of me.

This is pretty interesting viewing too, from the former fire chiefs (that I’ve referred to already):

Any I’ll say it one more time in new words: Some years are hotter than others in specific places. Man made climate change means that rising global and continental temperatures mean that the hotter years are hotter and the cooler years less cool. That allows ecosystems less time to recover from previous droughts and fires then previous ones, making future catastrophic events worse and more frequent. While ocean oscillations and other weather influencing climatic or other external patterns change year on year, the global temperature is constantly rising. The overwhelming majority of experts agree that evidence supports that man is causing that constant rise.

But not all bad weather is climate change right? You've wandered off on your regard to conflating what I've said to suit your personal biases of people who question that shrill narrative.

Really?
You said you are scientist to have a dig at me and invalidate my opinions as "mansplaining", so quite frankly science boy, it's valid. I've been called worse on here but nonetheless!
Click to expand...
 
(The way you interleaved your comments makes it pretty much impossible for me to quote your message without recourse to a word processor, But I’ve done my best on my phone).

Hello dear! I did used to reply fully but when I realised you didn't bother and avoided the bits you couldn't answer, I stopped wasting my time ?
Click to expand...
So are you the goose or the gander?

Have never said that. The contention I have is not all bad weather = climate change. Something I presume people like you do?
Click to expand...
No, that is what you’ve morphed your point into having started from the point that man made climate change is not responsible for the catastrophic fires in Australia. You have frequently, in your posts made a distinction between “natural events” and “climate change”.

I dunno, you are the "scientist", not me. I thought you'd be all over it. It's just "science"
Click to expand...
This kind of comment is why I asked you (with no response) a direct question about what you think a “scientist” (your choice of punctuation) is.

If the climate changes then 100% yes. Will it be man made climate change? 100% no.
Click to expand...

Nice fudge.
Click to expand...
I literally do not understand your problem here. That is and absolutely clear and unambiguous point. The fudge must be coming from elsewhere.

Yes you have!
Click to expand...
Well, you’ll have to point it out to me.

I've not whatabouted this
Click to expand...
Apart from when we’re discussing climate change and Australian fires, you raise the IOD (which is a reasonable discussion point) and then subsequently throw in, in the space of a couple of sentences with no segue, sun spots, switching of magnetic poles and astrology, and complain when these completely unrelated or even irrelevant issues are not addressed in detail.

You proclaimed yourself to be a scientist in a quite big manner to talk down to me, so I asked science questions for a scientist to answer. Stop being so sensitive.
Click to expand...
I said I was a scientist because it is a plain fact. I also said in the same sentence that I had lived in Australia for 17 of the last 24 years, but I note you don’t call me “Australian resident boy”, so clearly the sensitivity is not a my end.
The reason for listing all of the knowledge that climate scientists apply is nothing to do with me, but about the experts you choose to disagree with by taking a climate change denial position. Argue with them not me.

I will look it up - I believe I read an article on the SMH and report on the BBC news - are they suitably non-Murdochy for your sensitivities?
Click to expand...
a primary source would be better (eg government policy statement or even press release). In its absence a clear reference to such a release in a news article would be fine.

Try this one (I’m on my phone and can’t link directly to the video - it is the one of Shane Fitzsimmonds half way down. The rest is interesting, but not primary source). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-10/hazard-reduction-burns-bushfire-prevention-explainer/11853366
Click to expand...

Minimally. Like you are one Google search ahead of me.
Click to expand...
No. That was a video of a statement I referred to a few posts ago. Being on my phone, that was the best way that I could access the video to provide a link to get the actual video to your eyeballs. I intended the video because it is a primary source from an expert and not subject to substantial editorial manipulation.

Did you watch the othe video from the former fire chiefs?

But not all bad weather is climate change right? You've wandered off on your regard to conflating what I've said to suit your personal biases of people who question that shrill narrative.
Click to expand...
You can try reductio ad absurdum as much as you like, but that is not how this conversation began.
Regarding wandering off, this all stemmed from your climate denialist position:
But in that, there is a kind of arrogance that they think they know what the biggest issue is based on their feelings and perhaps do not understand that others may not see it that way or other priorities are bigger - a big recession for example. So we have an epic bourgeoisie strop that is getting more and random as it goes on.

I can't help but feel environmentalists have fallen into a Boy Who Called Wolf scenario and do not understand that if you keep saying Wolf and nothing bad happens, people will stop listening to you. My feeling is a big majority of people understand we need to look after this planet a lot better, but are fed up of the every 10 years the ice caps will be gone, oil run out, etc etc. We aren't stupid.
Click to expand...
Then step one of your attempt to change tack and oversimplify:
Aren't bush fires a symptom of the climate in Australia, rather than a sudden new thing that has happened in the past few years? In part, blaming the fires on climate change is some of the problem we have.
Click to expand...
and now you’ve wrangled it round to “weather != climate durr” as I pointed out before. In fact all of your arguments have been founded on the position that “it is due to weather, not climate”, as if they are separable, and that this means that discussion of man made climate change is “hysterical”.

The temperatures that we are experiencing come from the conflation of local weather events, climate-influencing oscillations and man made climate change. Without decades of climate change resulting from the human preference to deal with concerns about recession (as you put it previously) rather than considering the longevity of our environment, we may have mitigated temperature rises and the current events would be less severe.

You said you are scientist to have a dig at me and invalidate my opinions as "mansplaining", so quite frankly science boy, it's valid. I've been called worse on here but nonetheless!
Click to expand...
It reminds me a bit of the Bill Hicks autobiographical bit where he is reading a book in a truck stop in Texas and two blokes come up to him and push him around saying “Hey, we got ourselves a ‘reader’ here. What are you ‘reading’ for?”
 
Last edited:
Essexyellows said:
Over population creating more consumers is the core.
I found this interesting especially for folk who think they are doing "well".
www.footprintcalculator.org

How many planets does it take to sustain your lifestyle?

Calculate your Ecological Footprint. Find out how many planets would be needed if everyone in the world lived like you?
www.footprintcalculator.org www.footprintcalculator.org
Click to expand...
Well yes human population is clearly a big issue.
But the way that everybody lives can also clearly make a difference.
I think it is probably too late when there are people like Trump around ( and Putin and the Brazilian president)
If the world had at last realised the huge mess we are in then maybe there would be a chance.
 
Foley said:
Well yes human population is clearly a big issue.
But the way that everybody lives can also clearly make a difference.
I think it is probably too late when there are people like Trump around ( and Putin and the Brazilian president)
If the world had at last realised the huge mess we are in then maybe there would be a chance.
Click to expand...

Consumerism is what is killing the planet. You, me and everyone else buying stuff we don`t need in the guise of improving our lives.
Simple choices like an an apple grown in Kent ...............or an avocado that has destroyed the environment its grown in, consumed water in an area where that is a valuable commodity, been grown and harvested by a peasant paid peanuts then been wrapped in plastic and shipped halfway around the planet.
 
Essexyellows said:
Consumerism is what is killing the planet. You, me and everyone else buying stuff we don`t need in the guise of improving our lives.
Simple choices like an an apple grown in Kent ...............or an avocado that has destroyed the environment its grown in, consumed water in an area where that is a valuable commodity, been grown and harvested by a peasant paid peanuts then been wrapped in plastic and shipped halfway around the planet.
Click to expand...


You really don't like avocados, do you?
 
m said:
You really don't like avocados, do you?
Click to expand...


Alongside coconut "milk" and almond "milk" there is a very long list of food stuffs I would be banning tomorrow and avocado`s would be top of the list.
Poncy, green slimy things where most of it gets thrown away.

? (y)
 
Essexyellows said:
Alongside coconut "milk" and almond "milk" there is a very long list of food stuffs I would be banning tomorrow and avocado`s would be top of the list.
Poncy, green slimy things where most of it gets thrown away.

? (y)
Click to expand...
They are dangerous things as well, if no checks are put in place, they could destroy the middle-classes...

www.bbc.co.uk

'Avocado hand' health warning

It's a real thing- if you live in Chelsea.
www.bbc.co.uk
 
chuckbert said:
(The way you interleaved your comments makes it pretty much impossible for me to quote your message without recourse to a word processor, But I’ve done my best on my phone).

So are you the goose or the gander?


No, that is what you’ve morphed your point into having started from the point that man made climate change is not responsible for the catastrophic fires in Australia. You have frequently, in your posts made a distinction between “natural events” and “climate change”.


This kind of comment is why I asked you (with no response) a direct question about what you think a “scientist” (your choice of punctuation) is.


I literally do not understand your problem here. That is and absolutely clear and unambiguous point. The fudge must be coming from elsewhere.


Well, you’ll have to point it out to me.


Apart from when we’re discussing climate change and Australian fires, you raise the IOD (which is a reasonable discussion point) and then subsequently throw in, in the space of a couple of sentences with no segue, sun spots, switching of magnetic poles and astrology, and complain when these completely unrelated or even irrelevant issues are not addressed in detail.


I said I was a scientist because it is a plain fact. I also said in the same sentence that I had lived in Australia for 17 of the last 24 years, but I note you don’t call me “Australian resident boy”, so clearly the sensitivity is not a my end.
The reason for listing all of the knowledge that climate scientists apply is nothing to do with me, but about the experts you choose to disagree with by taking a climate change denial position. Argue with them not me.

a primary source would be better (eg government policy statement or even press release). In its absence a clear reference to such a release in a news article would be fine.


No. That was a video of a statement I referred to a few posts ago. Being on my phone, that was the best way that I could access the video to provide a link to get the actual video to your eyeballs. I intended the video because it is a primary source from an expert and not subject to substantial editorial manipulation.

Did you watch the othe video from the former fire chiefs?


You can try reductio ad absurdum as much as you like, but that is not how this conversation began.
Regarding wandering off, this all stemmed from your climate denialist position:

Then step one of your attempt to change tack and oversimplify: and now you’ve wrangled it round to “weather != climate durr” as I pointed out before. In fact all of your arguments have been founded on the position that “it is due to weather, not climate”, as if they are separable, and that this means that discussion of man made climate change is “hysterical”.

The temperatures that we are experiencing come from the conflation of local weather events, climate-influencing oscillations and man made climate change. Without decades of climate change resulting from the human preference to deal with concerns about recession (as you put it previously) rather than considering the longevity of our environment, we may have mitigated temperature rises and the current events would be less severe.


It reminds me a bit of the Bill Hicks autobiographical bit where he is reading a book in a truck stop in Texas and two blokes come up to him and push him around saying “Hey, we got ourselves a ‘reader’ here. What are you ‘reading’ for?”
Click to expand...
My point right at the beginning was that not all bad weather/disasters = climate change and it's obtuse to think that as there is more nuance to be had. I very clearly stated this many times as a preface to my thoughts. I'm sorry (not sorry) you are unable to accept this. My feeling is you jumped in to have another dig at me because you cannot accept that I have a different view to yours on many subject areas - it's been your posting MO towards me for quite some time and it does make me laugh that the majority of your posts are directed at me, not OUFC!

Thus, the meandering is of your own doing and I'm on for the ride until I can't be arsed or get bored.

Some interesting links - not all perfect but a different perspective:
apnews.com

California to waive environmental rules for fire season prep

California Gov. Gavin Newsom is declaring a state of emergency to speed up forest management ahead of the next wildfire season.
apnews.com apnews.com
www.latimes.com

California makes it easier to thin vegetation fueling wildfires. Will it make a difference?

California regulators have streamlined the state's permit process to make it faster to approve tree-thinning projects intended to slow wildfires.
www.latimes.com www.latimes.com
thefederalist.com

Don't Blame Climate Change For Wildfires, Blame Bad Management

Despite common sense, history, and science, leftist environmentalists would rather fund climate change legislation than save the Earth from wildfires.
thefederalist.com thefederalist.com
thehill.com

An ounce of prevention: Australia and California could benefit from forest management

Thinning forests and removing underbrush are essential to maintaining a healthy forest and landscape that is safe for humans.
thehill.com thehill.com

We won't resolve this the climate issue if everyone trumps the same drumbeat as it excludes different points of views and perspectives. As such, your views on many things are the precise reason that nationalism and the like, has become more popular in the world - you cannot relate to other people's point of views. You persistent inability to accept other peoples views as legitimate or different is an indictment of you as person, than of anyone.

I happily agree to disagree with many people, but I also will not be shouted down to by people like yourself either. You'll note how I am careful with how and who I post with out of this section to ensure that stuff from here doesn't go wider. But at least I post out there!
 
m said:
I think Gary's had enough of experts.
Click to expand...
No... Just patient and not willing to spend my life on the internet disagreeing with people. I had a lovely workout and glass of wine yesterday instead of posting in this thread. I'm not that interested in Chuckles witterings!
 
m said:
How is that ironic?
Click to expand...

I think the suggestion is that those who make "better choices for the planet" in fact are making worse choices.
EG: Milk from a Cow in a British field........... or from a nut destroying another (larger) chunk of the planet.
And don`t get me started on "Vegans".....................
 
Essexyellows said:
I think the suggestion is that those who make "better choices for the planet" in fact are making worse choices.
EG: Milk from a Cow in a British field........... or from a nut destroying another (larger) chunk of the planet.
And don`t get me started on . " Vegans"...................
Click to expand...

yeah, pointy-eared, logic loving aliens !:cautious:

aha, Vulcans, not vegans, thats Vulcans ?
 
Gary Baldi said:
My point right at the beginning was that not all bad weather/disasters = climate change and it's obtuse to think that as there is more nuance to be had.
Click to expand...
That’s simply not true - your point was that bush fires are everyday business in Australia and so invoking climate change is hysterical, on the way throwing in (quickly discredited) references to arson and some as yet unsubstantiated references to changing Australian fire control policy.

You obviously don’t like it when people disagree with you and don’t roll over to your views. You then think people are ”having a dig” at you if they disagree when you post something contentious. If you don’t want that, then don’t post contentious things.

I’m quite good at accepting differences of opinion, but not very good at all at accepting differences of fact. Maybe that’s where the “science boy” in me kicks in.

I’ll read and digest the additional links you posted but refrain from commenting on them to avoid the interpretation that anything I disagree with is in order to have a go at you.
 
Pete Burrett said:
Attenborough, smattenborough. I see the old fella is saying we need action NOW or it will be too late. He's not even a scientist, just some bloke off the TV.
Click to expand...

However, you, me and everyone else seems "less willing" to give up their luxuries to make that happen "NOW". That`s the reality.
Meanwhile the 26th annual UN Conference of the Parties takes place in Glasgow, 30,000 delegates, 200 world leaders lasting for 2 weeks............ what`s the carbon footprint of that trade fair over the 26 years and what has it achieved?
Consumerism in a nutshell.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom