Chinese Women, Asian Women, Online Dating & Things Chinese and Asian
Comments to Thread
(Showing 43 to 49 of 49) Previous 1 2 3 4
From: Australia South Australia Adelaide @melcyan Time : 2020-06-25 17:28:38 #43

Thanks for waiting Imi, here are my replies to your words

 

"If you think the world is moving to the right direction, then you're part of the problem."

 

The moments that I thought human history was moving in the right direction have been few and far between. Solving the problem with the Ozone layer, was one of those rare moments. I never thought I would be longing for leaders like Margaret Thatcher but I am now.

 

"A free Press is necessary to hold a corrupted government accountable, but what holds a corrupted Press accountable?"

 

I am not happy with the press either. I lost trust in MSM (MainStream Media) in the 1970s mainly thanks to one man. This same man pulls the strings of Fox News. How ironic! I feel enormous contempt for this man.  The fact that he gave up his Australian citizenship to become an American citizen is a small mercy for me.  This man believes he can shape the world through his media empire. The name of this Media Scheming Marionettist is Rupert Murdoch. This Machiavellian Serial Manipulator not only developed some of the worst aspects of MSM, but he also had the gall to create its "nemesis", Fox News. He influences politicians around the world and makes the original Machiavelli look second rate. Two important things started in my home town of Adelaide in 1952. My life and the beginning of Rupert Murdoch's rise to a position of extraordinary power.

 

"I love science, but I don't like scientists who want to push down their agenda on everybody's throat. If you think all scientists are fair and can't be bought for saying and doing things that are in the realm of deception, then you are far from reality." When people like Al Gore, David Attenborough, Greta whatever-her-name-is, the Obama's with their newly-bought waterfront mansion, and all the virtue signalers of Hollywood and billionaires are going to put their money where their mouths are, I will believe in climate change."

 

The people you cited apart from David Attenborough are not the ones that I want speaking out.  I want leading research scientists from the front line speaking out much more than they do at present. Unfortunately, the media would rather print the words of a movie star before those of a leading research scientist. When it comes to Hollywood, frankly Imi, I don't give a damn. David Attenborough is 94 years old. He not only understands the change scientifically, he personally witnessed the enormous damage to the Earth taking place during seven decades of his professional life. His perspective is unique and we ignore it at our peril.

 

 " preaching about something that has always been a natural cycle of Earth?"

 

Are you suggesting that because climate change has occurred before humans existed that it is not possible for our current episode of climate change to be human-induced? Are you saying that no matter how large the biomass of Homo sapiens, its crops and farmed animals grow and how small left-over land is available for wildlife that there will be no effect on climate? The very same computer models that are predicting global warming also explain all the previous changes that occurred with Earth's climate prior to the existence of Homo sapiens.

 

"You want a change? Clean the education system from socialist nut jobs. They have no place there to teach their political propaganda to innocent minds." 

 

You must be glad that I am no longer teaching science. I mostly held back from talking to my students about the overpopulation of Homo sapiens. I was obligated to because it was not the consensus view in science. I did not hold back from talking about the consensus science view on climate change.

 

"So far the most effective measures to deal with overpopulation have been increasing the education of women and giving women the political power to have control of their own bodies.

 

Why do need women political power to have control of their bodies? You lost me."

 

Whenever women in overpopulated high-birth-rate areas of the world are given education, birth control, access to abortion, access to microloans or other work opportunities the birth rate drops dramatically. The move from women being oppressed to having a voice and a choice makes a huge difference.

 

From: Canada British Columbia Vancouver @Imi5922 Time : 2020-06-27 03:01:01 #44


@melcyan

You answered none of my real questions.

 

Why were there big swings of the climate in the past when there were no humans on Earth? Why was there a climate change when there were only 100,000 people in the world? Why people get rich by falsifying climate data? These were not hypothetical questions.

 

You can't put a piece of chicken in a pot with some water and call it chicken soup. You can't call homo sapiens the only cause of climate change. Let's say you could make humanity disappear in a day. I'm a hundred per cent sure the climate would keep on changing. Now let's say you could stop the natural cycles of the sun and Earth, continental drifts, pole shifting, major volcanic eruptions from happening and just leave people as they are, would you say there would still be changes in the climate? How much?

 

Computer models. People have to feed computers with data to have a model. It's like mixing the color white and red to get pink, right? You can't imagine anyone to falsify data by design, can you? Why not? I don't know. Perhaps, they don't want to lose their jobs or live under financial pressure anymore, and they mix green in the mixture and still get pink.

 

I know you believe in prominent scientists. They still humans with problems, though, and everybody can be pressured, no exception, to carry out some innocent mischief that puts money into someone's pocket. I pay carbon taxes. Every Canadian does. Does that mean Canada stopped climate change and have the perfect climate? Where does all this money go because the climate change doesn't seem to slow down? It gets even worse, I hear.

 

Your answers are book-smart. 95% of teachers are teaching what they don't practice every day. They are book-smart, and no one can convince them about the practical side of life.

 

Alternative media is not MSM. You lack the knowledge of everyday world events by not reading them. Therefore, climate change is the existent danger for you.  

 

 

 

 

From: Australia South Australia Adelaide @melcyan Time : 2020-06-28 16:28:31 #45

Imi, my responses follow your words in bold.

 

Why were there big swings of the climate in the past when there were no humans on Earth? The current computers models explain these changes. Climate change is complex but  big swings occur when one or more tipping points have been exceeded. For more detail go to the following - 

 https://www.britannica.com/science/climate-change/Abrupt-climate-changes-in-Earth-history

Why was there a climate change when there were only 100,000 people in the world? The Earth tilting on its axis. Why people get rich by falsifying climate data? I have no knowledge of this occurring. I searched for this in the scientific literature and found no evidence.

 

You can't call homo sapiens the only cause of climate change. I never have. I don't know any climate scientist who has made such a claim. I know this has been asserted on conspiracy sites but it is very misleading because it is attributing a position that has never been adopted by any climate scientist. Imagine two elephant perfectly balanced on a see-saw. A mouse jumps on  one end. What happens to the see-saw? What causes the change? The mouse caused the see-saw to move. The mouse moved the see-saw beyond its tipping point, not the elephants. Accumulated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere produced by humans and their activites are providing the tipping point for current climate change. That is an oversimplification but I hope it helps.

 

Let's say you could make humanity disappear in a day. I'm a hundred per cent sure the climate would keep on changing. I agree with you but what if you could remove all of humanity, its farm animals and its crops and all of its greenhouses gases that they have produced, all in just one day? The global warming would stop immediately. Now let's say you could stop the natural cycles of the sun and Earth, continental drifts, pole shifting, major volcanic eruptions from happening and just leave people as they are, would you say there would still be changes in the climate? How much?  If I interpret this as freeze framing the current trend in most of the above but allowing human activity to keep expanding then I would predict global warming would continue indefinitely.

 

Computer models. People have to feed computers with data to have a model. Correct. It's like mixing the color white and red to get pink, right?  Not quite. Getting the answer "pink" is not enough. A climate model only has value if it can predict future climate change and explain previous climate change. A model than does not have reliable predictive value is useless. You can't imagine anyone to falsify data by design, can you? I definitely can imagine falsification of a scientific result. I have studied the history of science. Deliberate falsification of scientific results is rare but it has been done before and will be done again in the future. It always gets found out and exposed in the scientific literature because science always tests and challenges new scientific research. The results of one person are never enough in science. Falsified thalidomide results got found out and exposed in the scientific literature. The falsifier always loses their status as a scientist. A fate worse than death to a true scientist.

 

 I pay carbon taxes. Every Canadian does. Does that mean Canada stopped climate change and have the perfect climate? Where does all this money go because the climate change doesn't seem to slow down? It gets even worse, I hear. Carbon tax works like a tax on tobacco. It will not stop everyone smoking. It will not stop people from getting lung cancer from smoking cigarettes but it is still reduces consumption enough to be  considered worthwhile. You can look up the detailed argument yourself but hopefully you get the general idea.

 

Your answers are book-smart. None of my answers come from a book. They come from reputable science web sites. To be a reputable scientific web site the site must stay consistent with the scientific literature. 95% of teachers are teaching what they don't practice every day. They are book-smart, and no one can convince them about the practical side of life. I try to make a practical difference in this world. I sometimes fail by leaving a light on unnecessarily or not recycling properly but it the main I try not to be the huge burden that most citizens of North America, U.K. and Australia are on the planet.

 

Alternative media is not MSM. You lack the knowledge of everyday world events by not reading them. I may not have read as much alternative media as you or Paul or John, but I have definitely read much more alternative media than the average person. I read all of your references and most of Paul's. None of the alternative media web sites that I visit convince me that we face a bigger danger than climate change. 

From: Canada British Columbia Vancouver @Imi5922 Time : 2020-06-30 03:02:57 #46


@melcyan

You can't call homo sapiens the only cause of climate change. I never have. I don't know any climate scientist who has made such a claim.

David Attenborough's position is closest to mine. He describes Homo sapiens "as the Earth's plague".

 

I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted your words? What else is plaguing Earth then?

 

Imagine two elephant perfectly balanced on a see-saw. A mouse jumps on one end. What happens to the see-saw? What causes the change? The mouse caused the see-saw to move. The mouse moved the see-saw beyond its tipping point, not the elephants.

 

I'm sorry, but this is rather a vague analogy. A climate can't perfectly be in balance. You agreed to that. Without humans (the mouse), the climate would still be changing. So, these two elephants on the see-saw have to be in an up-and-down motion. And the mouse is only running from one end to the other, accelerating the motion (the change). Once global warming triggers a new ice age, the mouse starts to run toward the other end of the see-saw. People all around the world begin to move, trying to escape from the advancing ice and creating a green belt around the equator. Half or 2/3 of the Earth's population dies of starvation and wars for lands, and because diversity doesn't work. People of different cultures can't live with each other within sniffing distance. The survivors cultivate the land to pull through and do what they know, which is creating greenhouse gasses, shortening the ice age and with their numbers under 3 billion—spreading all over the world again as the ice recedes—lengthening the habitable climate for continuing on.

 

Humans are part of nature. Earth always finds a way to cure itself. And you should be happy because it will kill many. My problem is, why do Canadians have to pay for their own demise and make rich a selected few. When is the entire world going to start paying carbon taxes? India, China, Africa, South America, USA? Do Australians pay? Smoking is a choice. If you smoke, you pay taxes. If you don't, you don't. A carbon tax is forced upon you to change the unavoidable and fill the pockets of greedy billionaires.

 

None of my answers come from a book. They come from reputable science web sites.

 

How dare you use computers? Don't you care about climate change? Books are recyclable, you know?

From: Australia South Australia Adelaide @melcyan Time : 2020-07-01 14:49:54 #47

"You can't call homo sapiens the only cause of climate change." I never have. I don't know any climate scientist who has made such a claim.

David Attenborough's position is closest to mine. He describes Homo sapiens "as the Earth's plague".

 

I'm sorry if I have misinterpreted your words? What else is plaguing Earth then?

 

Homo sapiens are the key driver of the climate change that is occurring right now. This statement may appear to be the same as " Homo sapiens are the only cause of current climate change." but it is not the same. It would be tedious and very time consuming to explain the difference.  Both David Attenborough and I are saying that overpopulation (or plague) of Homo sapiens is real but we only occupy a minority viewpoint in the science world. The majority view is the Earth's population will rise to 12 billion people and level out. However, that same majority science view says we cannot achieve that if we maintain our current level of consumption. Both Attenborough and I will immediately agree that at this precise moment in time overconsumption is our biggest problem. However, if you only focus on that then you are only postponing the eventual demise caused by the overpopulation of Homo sapiens to a later point in the future. There have been many periods of time in the Earth's history where climate has not been changing. Climate change does not happen perpetually. Sometimes it is static, sometimes it is gradual and sometimes it occurs in quantum leaps.

 

Imagine two elephants perfectly balanced on a see-saw. A mouse jumps on one end. What happens to the see-saw? What causes the change? The mouse caused the see-saw to move. The mouse moved the see-saw beyond its tipping point, not the elephants.

 

I'm sorry, but this is rather a vague analogy. A climate can't perfectly be in balance.

 

 Climate equilibria are dynamic at the micro-level but at the macro level, there have been many times in the history of the Earth where there has been no recorded change. Please ignore my over-simplistic "vague" analogy and just go to the scientific literature to get a clear picture of what "tipping points" really are and how they trigger quantum leaps in the state of climate equilibrium.

 

Humans are part of nature. Earth always finds a way to cure itself.

 

The Earth always finds a way to achieve a new balance, that is a new position of climate equilibrium. That new equilibrium may or may not include us. Extinctions are part of nature.

 

 My problem is, why do Canadians have to pay for their own demise and make rich a selected few. When is the entire world going to start paying carbon taxes?

 

The entire world should pay carbon taxes. However, the ruling right-wing party of Australia agrees with your position. Australia will only pay the minimum as required by the Paris accord and we will only pay extra like Canada when the rest of the world does so first. This blatantly ignores the fact that Australia rivals America for being the highest producer of greenhouse gases per capita in the world.

 

None of my answers come from a book. They come from reputable science web sites.

 

How dare you use computers? Don't you care about climate change? Books are recyclable, you know?

 

Electronic information does much less environmental damage than the number of books that I would need to provide the same information. My electronic library is now much larger than my library of books. I also get the latest edition without having to pay for a new copy.

From: Canada British Columbia Vancouver @Imi5922 Time : 2020-07-03 02:36:55 #48


@melcyan

https://realclimatescience.com/who-is-tony-heller/

This is a guy I'd like you to add to your electronic library. This is a link to his credentials. I know it's very important to you because you don't like to waste your time reading "conspiracy theories." 

His website called Real Climate Science. You can find articles about Failed Climate Models, Fraud In The National Climate Assessment (part 1 & 2), The Climate Crisis of 1936, Why Climate Science Peer Review Is Worthless, and many more. If he doesn't convince you about the Climate Hoax, no one will.  

From: Australia South Australia Adelaide @melcyan Time : 2020-07-03 22:49:42 #49

Interesting! We now have two sites to pit against one another.

 

 realclimatescience.com attacks the arguments of climate alarmists

 skepticalscience.com attacks the arguments of climate deniers

 

Who is better at getting the science right? I read through all the topics on realclimatescience.com and decided to start with -

 

The Five Top Arguments Against Climate Alarmism

 

1. Climate alarmism is based mainly around fear of extreme weather.

 

 2.  Climate alarmism is much like the story of the Emperor’s New Clothes. People may not see any evidence of catastrophic climate change or sea-level rise, but their opinion is irrelevant because 97% of scientists believe we are doomed due to global warming. 

 

3. Academics have been making apocalyptic predictions for decades.  All have failed miserably, yet they keep repeating the same misinformation over and over again.

 

4.  Climate alarmism is completely dependent on graphs and useless climate models generated by a small handful of people.  

 

5.   The most important argument against climate alarmism is that the proposed solutions are unworkable, dangerous and useless.

 

Heller's five arguments do little to engage the science and his support for these arguments is more media-based rather than science-based. Almost no science references are used.

 

Now let's look at the busting of the top 5 myths of Climate deniers on skepticalscience.com and the scientific challenge used to bust each myth.

 

 Five climate denier myths busted -

 

1. "Climate's changed before and we are in just in the midst of another one of those inevitable changes" myth

 challenged with

 "Scientific analysis of past climates shows that greenhouse gasses, principally CO2, have controlled most ancient climate changes. The evidence for that is spread throughout the geological record. This makes it clear that this time around humans are the cause, mainly by our CO2 emissions. "

 

2. "It's the sun" myth

challenged with

"The sun's energy has decreased since the 1980s but the Earth keeps warming faster than before."

 

3." It's not bad" myth

challenged with

"The consequences of climate change become increasingly bad after each additional degree of warming, with the consequences of 2°C being quite damaging and the consequences of 4°C being potentially catastrophic."

 

4. "There is no consensus" myth

challenged by

97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

 A consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. 

 

5. "Models are unreliable" myth

challenged by

Models successfully reproduce temperatures since 1900 globally, by land, in the air and the ocean. Climate models have to be tested to find out if they work. We can’t wait for 30 years to see if a model is any good or not; models are tested against the past, against what we know happened. If a model can correctly predict trends from a starting point somewhere in the past, we could expect it to predict with reasonable certainty what might happen in the future.

 

Skepticalscience.com only uses science references and the scientific literature to challenge each climate denier myth.

 

The opening paragraph on skepticalscience.com lays down the scientific gauntlet to sites like realclimatescience.com

 

"Scientific skepticism is healthy. Scientists should always challenge themselves to improve their understanding. Yet this isn't what happens with climate change denial. Skeptics vigorously criticise any evidence that supports man-made global warming and yet embrace any argument, op-ed, blog or study that purports to refute global warming. This website gets skeptical about global warming skepticism. Do their arguments have any scientific basis? What does the peer reviewed scientific literature say?"

 

It is clear that only one of these sites is committed to being science-based. Heller tries to counter this weakness of his site with his blog "Why climate science peer review is worthless."  He claims that the supporting science for climate change only comes from a handful of scientists. That's interesting news to me because there are many more than a handful of climate scientists in Australia alone and Australia contributes just a tiny fraction of all the climate scientists in the world.

 

skepticalscience.com is a little tedious to read but I recommend it. It successfully challenges a total of nearly 300 climate denier myths and it is widely used by most climate scientists when they have to prepare for a public talk on climate change.

 

 

 

 

Comments to Thread
(Showing 43 to 49 of 49) Previous 1 2 3 4
Comments
To respond to another member's comment type @ followed by their name before your comment, like this: @username Then leave a space.
Recent
Submit Thread