|Citizens Climate Lobby Australia26-09-2021 13:41|
|I have received an invite from this organisation to attend a meeting next Sunday morning.Their big deal is to harrass the government to do something about the climate emergency we are experiencing right now or we will all die.I will be meeting real live eco warriors and climate champions.How lucky am I and once I ask about sea levels how many milliseconds do you think I will be welcome for even though the mission statement declares that as part of integrity differing opinions are welcome.The event is at the newly constructed Elizabeth keys smack bang in the middle of Perth where there is a brew house.Shame it will all be under water next week and there has been billions spent.|
Being that Australia is basically a big island. Rising sea levels should be abundantly clear for all to see for themselves. The coastal cities should be all in dire need of help. People living on the surrounding small islands would have abandon them years ago.
Tropical storms are 'more frequent, and stronger'... Combined with rising sea levels, the storm surge should be completely destroying a lot of property. Don't know about how Australia does weather, but here, pretty much every storm gets a name. Most are Cat 4 at landfall, but quickly get downgraded to Tropical storms. In under an hour... I've been living in Florida for about 35 years or so. Survived many hurricanes. A major storm (Cat 3 or better), would only downgrade maybe one category, and continue on through the state as a hurricane. It would pass through a couple states, be for downgrading to tropical storm status. We don't have a storm-killer machine, or do anything but monitor storms. Why does a Cat 4 storm, suddenly loose most of it's power at landfall these days? Most east coast state have experienced the heavy rains from tropical storms for years. May not have had a hurricane in decades, but tropical storms still dump a lot of rain, and flood. Most of those states use to have mitigation, for storm waters. Storm water management is costly, labor intensive, and needs to be done the whole year in Florida. Most other states, only need to worry a few months each year. There is federal disaster relief money, and insurance, so why bother... Disaster is good for a local economy, when money from out of state comes in to clean up, and rebuild. Creates jobs. Everybody wins, and gets new stuff.
|I went to the meeting and it was great.Because it was posted on meetup there were a lot of new people who didn't care about climate issues and were just socialising.it was just an informal gathering and by pure fortune I ended up next to the organiser,They are not fanatical and have no intention of glueing themselves to the road just concerned about the propaganda they are being fed.I had my moment and challenged the warming claim and sea levels rising and no one screamed Heritic and tried to burn me at the stake.Darren admitted it is a feel good excersise|
Climate Change is a real concern. Purely political though. I'm not sure why people are actually buying into the scam. The politicians only profit from it, while the working man is getting screwed over. Solar panels and windmills aren't sustainable at all, less than a 20 year life span. Just long enough for proof of concept, before major failures. Both take up a lot of real estate. Nobody seems to question clearing all that land for them, and the ecological impact. Which, is just shocking, since the whole thing is about saving the planet, not destroying it.
The batteries used for everything, don't last forever. The high demand will keep them expensive to buy, and replace, frequently. Recycling is a little more involved and costly, than lead-acid batteries. Something that needs to be addressed, before shutting down the gas pumps. Recyclable batteries, cheap to refurbish, should be a requirement.
Even the IPCC will admit that it's not possible to stop, or reverse the course, they only hope to slow it down. Seem like the warming they are selling, is already at a very slow pace, in terms of human life expectancy. No one living today, is likely to see any of the scorched earth prophecies fulfilled. Nor any effect of the battle to alter the natural course. Nature has always thrown catastrophes at us, long before we learned to burn anything. Nature had been playing with fire, long before mankind. All the climate change crap, has always existed. Some years have been worse than others. Our species doesn't survive by changing natural forces, but by adapting, and harnessing them. We often fail, but we persist in trying. It's political nonsense to believe we can control the natural destructive forces.
|Into the Night★★★★★
HarveyH55 wrote:duncan61 wrote:
The whole religion stems from the Church of Green. It's goal of course stems from the Church of Karl Marx. It is to justify fascism...in this case that you are discussing, government manipulation of the energy markets.
It doesn't matter what is 'more efficient'. It doesn't matter what is 'more Green'. It doesn't matter what is 'better'. There is no better. People should be free to buy the energy in the form they want.
Such things as soot or acid rain can be easily dealt with as systems improve. Coal burning plants, for example, can easily deal with inefficient burns and easily remove sulfur dioxides from their emissions. What goes up the stack is nothing more than CO2 and water. Coal is also cheap. That means there is plenty of it.
Oil and methane are renewable fuels. They are cheap. That means there is plenty of it. Artificial shortages created by idiots like Biden's Handlers is why prices are so high right now. That is fascism. There is no other word for it.
Socialism always creates misery. Fascism is no exception to it. Socialism is theft.
The Parrot Killer
Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles
Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
|My CO2 meter was a hit and it sat under a tree bouncing around all morning but mostly around the 400 ppm.The big winner was the digital temperature gun as I shot a bunch of readings on the water and land and had differences over 5.C and gently asked what is the temperature right now and then said NASA claim to know the world average to .00 and then claim its gone up 0.01.I found what I was looking for.A coffee shop full of Warmazombies to play with.I would do it again if they let me|
IBD and I have held prior correspondence with the Citizens Climate Lobby Australia and have found it to be a complete sham.
|I have dragged this thread out of the dust as I have been invited to another CCL get together on 22 jan at Kalamunda which is a very nice town on the top of the darling scarp.There is a rifle range at Pickering brook that I have been to a few times before so I will make a day of it.More to follow|
duncan61 wrote:I have dragged this thread out of the dust as I have been invited to another CCL get together on 22 jan at Kalamunda which is a very nice town on the top of the darling scarp.There is a rifle range at Pickering brook that I have been to a few times before so I will make a day of it.More to follow
I'd appreciate it greatly if, while you are at the meeting, you were to tell them that you have a friend who has asked Why should I, as a rational adult, believe in Greenhouse Effect" but that you aren't quite sure how to articulate an appropriate answer so that you don't make it appear like a bizarre religion.
Then, when they point to other people and their opinions, regardless of labels (e.g. scientists, researchers, studies, etc) mention to them "He's just going to say that you are pointing to people and their opinions as though they are clergy spouting cherished religious dogma and that that is how religions work, i.e. he will say that it is irrational to pretend science is somehow subjectively based on consensus/opinion as it were a religion."
Then, when they say "All the science confirms Greenhouse Effect," tell them that he's just going to mention that science never confirms anything but that you would like to throw that science in his face ... and then ask them what that science is exactly so that you can proceed to throw it in my face.
If they start pressuring you to stop asking for science, assure them that you simply didn't get any formal science training after the eighth grade and that you would appreciate a basic overview of Greenhouse Effect science.
Then. after they give you a load of gibber-babble, clarify with them "So the temperature increases, yes?" When they say "Yes" ask them what creates the additional thermal energy and at what point. To any answer they give, respond "He's just going to say that you are violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing." If they say that the sun is the source of the additional energy, tell them "He's just going to say that the sun was already there prior to the introduction of greenhouse gas so the sun can't be the source of the new additional energy that is increasing the temperature.
Then, when they pivot to treating greenhouse gas like a warm, cumfy blanket that prevents thermal energy from escaping into space (i.e. reduces the earth's radiance) and therefore increases earth's temperature, tell them "He's just going to say that you are violating Stefan-Boltzmann because temperature and radiance must move in the same direction."
Then, when they pivot back to the atmosphere, tell them "I told you, he's just going to say that you are violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics by creating energy out of nothing."
Then, when they pivot back to the magick blanket routine, with radiance and temperature moving in opposite directions, tell them "I told you, he's just going to say that you are violating; temperature and radiance must move in the same direction."
Repeat as often as necessary.
Tell them that this is how "your friend" keeps tripping you up and that you don't know the science to throw it in his face, and that you were hoping and praying that someone here at the meeting could explain to you the science that you can throw in his face and be done with this mess once and for all.
It would be totally wonderful if you could run through this at your meeting.
Edited on 16-01-2022 22:23
As you know, i disagree with almost everything you say about climate change.
I don't feel like going down the list but one of them is so preposterous and so simple that i want to mention it.
You say that increasing temperature would be creating energy out of nothing. The energy came from the sun, not nothing. The co2 slows its return to space. EZ PZ.
It's a simple science experiment. The infrared radiation is of such a wavelength relative to the size of the co2 atom that the co2 absorbs the infrared energy effectively slowing the return of the infrared to space.
Edited on 16-01-2022 22:41
keepit wrote:ibd,As you know, i disagree with almost everything you say about climate change.
... and you don't even know what you mean by the term.
... and you don't get anything correct.
... and you can't figure out what letters should be written in upper case.
keepit wrote:I don't feel like going down the list
There is no "list."
You simply gibber. You simply get everything wrong.
keepit wrote: You say that increasing temperature would be creating energy out of nothing.
No, I don't say that. Your first clue should have been the absurd nature of the statement. When a statement is keepit-level absurd then your first thought is that it is either a keepit fabrication or a keepit misunderstanding.
You, on the other hand, believe that it is OK to believe that mystical, magical greenhouse gas somehow has the magickal superpower to create energy out of nothing. You are a moron.
keepit wrote: The energy came from the sun, not nothing.
Nope. The sun was already there before the introduction of your mystical, magickal greenhouse gas, therefore the sun cannot somehow be the source of any additional energy that thusly increases the temperature. Something else must be the source, and the only change in your scenario is the introduction of your mystical, magickal greenhouse gas. Ergo, you leave no wiggle room. You are claiming that your mystical, magickal greenhouse gas is the source of this additional energy that thusly increases the temperature.
Yes, this is what you are claiming. If you try to deny it, without altering your model, then you have a logical contradiction and your argument is immediately dismissed.
keepit wrote: The co2 slows its return to space.
Nope. Science says otherwise. Your religion gets it wrong.
I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles
Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris
Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit
If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles
Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles
Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn
You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.
The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank
:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude
IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
|you're confused ibd. You might read your post again.|
|Citizen's Climate Lobby Australia (CCLA)||19||04-08-2020 16:25|
|Citizens Climate Lobby Australia||48||27-07-2020 04:33|
|Climate change an 'existential security risk' to Australia, Senate inquiry says||1||19-05-2018 23:35|
|Australia looks set for drought||0||13-11-2014 18:46|