It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who is responsible for the Australian Bush fires - ITS NOT CLIMATE CHANGE...

page: 4
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 04:42 AM
link   

originally posted by: Flatcoat

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: harold223


We are causing it. The evidence that we are is no longer disputed by any credible climate scientist or scientific organisation world wide. Those who dispute this are on the same level as those who claim the earth is flat at this point, except those people are harmless, and somewhat entertaining.

Translation: everyone who agrees with me agrees with me. Everyone else doesn't and I don't care what they say.

Your opinion is duly noted and rejected.

TheRedneck


I'll believe the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists over your opinion. Your opinion is also noted and duly rejected.


Consensus is not science, it's politics. Einstein said "Why do you need 100 scientists to prove me wrong? One would do."


And the denial of the consensus is also political, it is deeply steeped in identity politics. Why has The Australian bushfires caused a proverbial culture war on a global scale to break out online hey?

I have a challenge for you people here. You say you only need one scientist to disprove the accepted consensus. Well show me. Show us. Show me the work of an actual Climate Scientist, not an expert in some other field, and one that is not being funded by an organisation with links to fossil fuel or mining interests, who has presented irrefutable proof of the extraordinary claim that the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. It better be extraordinary proof because at this point, it would be an extraordinary claim.




posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 04:45 AM
link   
And if we are talking about political motives, what are the motives behind this thread? Where is the OP?



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 05:10 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223



And the denial of the consensus is also political, it is deeply steeped in identity politics.


Then we should probably ignore consensus altogether.




I have a challenge for you people here. You say you only need one scientist to disprove the accepted consensus. Well show me. Show us. Show me the work of an actual Climate Scientist, not an expert in some other field, and one that is not being funded by an organisation with links to fossil fuel or mining interests


Can you show me one credible climate change believer who is not receiving enormous amounts of funding from the government or the U.N. ? In fact I'd say climate change skeptics have chosen the wrong side if they're in it for the money.
There is infinitely more money spent on proving AGW than disproving it. Now I could show you a few people, but I quite like the lectures of Patrick Moore, the co-founder of Greenpeace




posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 05:11 AM
link   
a reply to: harold223


Why has The Australian bushfires caused a proverbial culture war on a global scale to break out online hey?

Because politicians want your money, and they don't want to actually do anything to earn it. They prefer to confuse you and get you to willingly give it up under false pretenses than to actually fix the thing you are giving it up to have fixed.


I have a challenge for you people here. You say you only need one scientist to disprove the accepted consensus. Well show me. Show us.

I did. you rejected it.


Show me the work of an actual Climate Scientist, not an expert in some other field, and one that is not being funded by an organisation with links to fossil fuel or mining interests, who has presented irrefutable proof of the extraordinary claim that the conclusions of the vast majority of climate scientists is wrong. It better be extraordinary proof because at this point, it would be an extraordinary claim.

Translation again: Show me someone who agrees with me that disagrees with me.

Never mind.

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 05:56 AM
link   
a reply to: CthruU

Those must be some really intense fires if the smoke is obscuring the sky everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CthruU

Those must be some really intense fires if the smoke is obscuring the sky everywhere in the Southern Hemisphere.


Yep thats what im reading.

www.gizmodo.com.au...

Amoungst others.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 06:20 AM
link   
a reply to: CthruU

There are 32 countries located completely in the Southern Hemisphere. There's another 40 or so that are partially in the Southern Hemisphere. Your article names 3.5 countries (including Australia) that have been affected by the smoke. Why are the other 70 countries that have a view of the Southern sky not reporting anything?

It's because Nibiru is a fantasy created by a con man.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 06:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xcalibur254
a reply to: CthruU

There are 32 countries located completely in the Southern Hemisphere. There's another 40 or so that are partially in the Southern Hemisphere. Your article names 3.5 countries (including Australia) that have been affected by the smoke. Why are the other 70 countries that have a view of the Southern sky not reporting anything?

It's because Nibiru is a fantasy created by a con man.


Well okay then??
If their not hiding Nibiru their hiding something. Lets be realistic 186 arrested for arson????? Do that many strangers all of a sudden think - i think I'll start a fire.

And thats only the ones stupid enough to get caught.

I mentioned nibiru for conspiracy site flavour but I'm obviously only feeding the beast.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: harold223

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: harold223


We are causing it. The evidence that we are is no longer disputed by any credible climate scientist or scientific organisation world wide. Those who dispute this are on the same level as those who claim the earth is flat at this point, except those people are harmless, and somewhat entertaining.

Translation: everyone who agrees with me agrees with me. Everyone else doesn't and I don't care what they say.

Your opinion is duly noted and rejected.

TheRedneck


I'll believe the opinion of the vast majority of climate scientists over your opinion. Your opinion is also noted and duly rejected.


Do we need to explain to you how they derived that 97% number again? Because it was all smoke and mirrors from the start. The first rule of statistics in the media (an actual class I took when I was at university) is that you can make a statistic that will say anything you want so long as you know how to properly phrase the question and compose your data set.

"There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." should be a quote you're familiar with. In this case, it very much applies, just like it does with Mann's infamous hockey stick graph.

While climate scientists might have some kind of case in there somewhere, those two cases of gross statistical malpractice have done more damage to their cause than anything else they could have done.
edit on 9-1-2020 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 07:37 AM
link   
a reply to: maddy21

Link


And on Wednesday, Mr. Murdoch's New Corp, the largest media company in Australia, was found to be part of another wave of misinformation.

An independent study found online bots and trolls exaggerating the role of arson in the fires, at the same time that article in The Australian making similar assertions became the most popular offering on the newspaper's website.

It's all part of what critics see as relentless effort by the powerful media outlet to do what has been done in the United States and Britain - shift blame to the left, protect conservative leaders and divert attention from climate change


Looks like you've been suckered in by Rupert Murdoch!



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 07:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: maddy21

We have to find alternatives to fossil fuel. All the carbon being put into the atmosphere is raising global temperatures making deserts and dry areas dryer. Now these areas are very susceptible to massive fires. California has had raging fires for years. It's almost biblical.

Burning gasoline causes pollution. Pollution is bad. Simple logic.


But you have ZERO evidence to suggest man made Co2 is actually causing warming, there is ZERO data to prove otherwise ZERO, every single model based of the climate alarmists figures has FAILED not just a little bit but MASSIVELY FAIL and puts warning on levels were just not seeing

We’re seeing wildfires in parts of the world where they’re extremely common and likely every year

We’re NOT seeing them anywhere else

Even the Sahara was a lush green rainforest just 5,000 years ago, how are you explaining that?

The world come out of a deep ice age just 12,000 years ago where much of Europe and North America sat under two miles of thick ice, how are you explaining that?

We’re not seeing the upper atmosphere warm which should be the fastest warming, we’re seeing the complete opposite

It’s a farce, but we should move away, just the communists want to break the economy and do everything backwards
edit on 9-1-2020 by TritonTaranis because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 07:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
So this wasn't climate change - yay for those in denial.
The climate has been changed as a result of this event.
It doesn't matter. Our house is in disarray and it has been for a while, and it will get worse unless everyone can agree and make some real changes.

Here's is what I can't understand about climate change. Why are people so against it? I mean even if everything about climate change is false, isn't it still a great idea to take care of our environment? And yes, the Earth will always take care of itself that's true, but don't we want to at least try to keep our home clean and uncluttered while we are here? If we had taken good care of the Earth can you imagine how beautiful it would be and how awesome our relationship with it would be?

It's stupid. It's like people talking about how utterly devastated they are about the loss of over half a million animals and ordering steak for dinner. Wake the # up people.





You're spot on. Why be against making changes to better our planet and quality of life for many?

So far the only 'reasoning' I've seen is that it will cost too much money (the horror!) and that it will impact on people's comfortable lives, such as being asked to drive less (such unimaginable horror!). Usually the same people saying this are happy for governments to spend billions per year on wars...



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink

originally posted by: Skorpiogurl
So this wasn't climate change - yay for those in denial.
The climate has been changed as a result of this event.
It doesn't matter. Our house is in disarray and it has been for a while, and it will get worse unless everyone can agree and make some real changes.

Here's is what I can't understand about climate change. Why are people so against it? I mean even if everything about climate change is false, isn't it still a great idea to take care of our environment? And yes, the Earth will always take care of itself that's true, but don't we want to at least try to keep our home clean and uncluttered while we are here? If we had taken good care of the Earth can you imagine how beautiful it would be and how awesome our relationship with it would be?

It's stupid. It's like people talking about how utterly devastated they are about the loss of over half a million animals and ordering steak for dinner. Wake the # up people.





You're spot on. Why be against making changes to better our planet and quality of life for many?

So far the only 'reasoning' I've seen is that it will cost too much money (the horror!) and that it will impact on people's comfortable lives, such as being asked to drive less (such unimaginable horror!). Usually the same people saying this are happy for governments to spend billions per year on wars...


So, let me get this straight ... I end up being the responsible daughter. It's usually my job to be there when one of my aging parents has a medical difficulty and needs help. My parents live about 3 hours or so away by car. In my convention vehicle, I can do a there and back on less than one tank because my vehicle is fuel efficient. It also means that for us to visit them is a one-day trip.

With the very best electric vehicles, this becomes a nightmare because none of them have the range to handle any of this one a single charge. Visiting my parents becomes an overnight at best where we have to find an 8-hour charge station and book accommodations while we wait.

That's before we even get into the realities. Electric batteries necessitate the mining of toxic rare earth elements ... but only for some "icky" brown people in some other country on the other side of the world which, I guess, makes them clean to you people, and in my neck of the woods, they need to be charged with electricity mostly derived from coal although we do have lots of wind farms ... that have to be shut off a lot of the time because it's too windy for the mills to run on lots of days. But, hey, my personal tailpipe wouldn't be spewing, so that makes it clean too, right?

The forced electric vehicle crap is stupid.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:20 AM
link   
a reply to: daftpink


Why be against making changes to better our planet and quality of life for many?

Please explain to me how less carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is going to help anyone's quality of life? I'm confused about this. A slightly higher carbon dioxide level will mean more food being grown over a larger area... who is that going to hurt?


So far the only 'reasoning' I've seen is that it will cost too much money (the horror!) and that it will impact on people's comfortable lives, such as being asked to drive less (such unimaginable horror!).

What problem do you have with others being 'comfortable'? You just above said you wanted to improve the quality of life for people, but now you say they are too comfortable? Is being uncomfortable equal to a higher quality of life?

You do realize that not everyone is out for joyrides, right? Some people drive to work and town, and that's it. Gasoline prices have all but stopped the joyrides. So what should people give up to drive less? Their job? Food?

Not to mention some people's very lives are dependent on electrical power. There are people who use a CPAP machine because their sleep apnea is so bad they could die in their sleep should it fail. They usually have battery backup, but that's only good for one night. What happens if there's not enough "green" power? My own mother was dependent on heat; in her condition, at one point, exposure to cold could kill her. Should she have just gone ahead and died so you didn't have to breath a few extra molecules of something you can't see, smell, or taste?

Sorry, but you don't sound very concerned over anyone's "quality of life."

TheRedneck



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: maddy21

We have to find alternatives to fossil fuel. All the carbon being put into the atmosphere is raising global temperatures making deserts and dry areas dryer. Now these areas are very susceptible to massive fires. California has had raging fires for years. It's almost biblical.

Burning gasoline causes pollution. Pollution is bad. Simple logic.
You seem to be assuming the fires are caused by climate change ( warming).
The whole point of the OP is deliberate arson and potentially by radical eco terrorists. I’ve heard of a Earth Liberation Front before, and Earth First is notes to be radically activist.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

It's just like we are all supposed to be eating whole, locally sourced foods in order to better our health and quality of life, but the push is on to get us all eating this impossible beef and now impossible pork. Both of these products are highly processed foods which is completely counter to the prior narrative, but these things will also "improve our quality of life" too.

So many contradictions in the narrative, and they wonder why thinking folks are so highly suspicious of it all?



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:26 AM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't say electric vehicles was a solution. I understand your situation. How is public transport in your area? I'm lucky that we have plenty and a lot of the newer models have zero emissions.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:27 AM
link   

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't say electric vehicles was a solution. I understand your situation. How is public transport in your area? I'm lucky that we have plenty and a lot of the newer models have zero emissions.


Public transport?

Uh-huh ... yeah, we looked into it ... It stops at 5pm. Right when I get off work. I can get to work, but I wouldn't get home.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:30 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

I guess I'm referring to people I see taking a car to drive their kids to school when the 10 minute journey can be walked in 20. Or those who say that money spent on bettering our environment will just cost them more taxes. These people don't want to give up their comforts to benefit others.



posted on Jan, 9 2020 @ 08:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: daftpink
a reply to: ketsuko

I didn't say electric vehicles was a solution. I understand your situation. How is public transport in your area? I'm lucky that we have plenty and a lot of the newer models have zero emissions.


Public transport?

Uh-huh ... yeah, we looked into it ... It stops at 5pm. Right when I get off work. I can get to work, but I wouldn't get home.

Campaign for better public transport in your area.




top topics



 
36
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join