Schoolgirl Thunberg has jumped on the Australian bushfires as she heads for home and oblivion, continuing to mewl about the need for "more action".

Just what form does this action take? What can be done that hasn't already been done: bring the entire country to a halt while the big emitters like China and India increase their emissions? Get rid of coal-powered electricity when renewables produce only about 14% of our energy - when they are working? Stop our PM from going on holiday until he stops bushfires?

Unless I missed it, this child and her acolytes - kiddies and adults - have not come up with 'more action' that is practical. Is that because there is nothing that can be done? There is no 'more action' available?

It's normal for children to kick over the traces. But it isn't normal for adults to take advice from children who have very little experience of life and who take the benefits they have for granted.

Scott Morrison, for all his faults - and daring to take a break - has made it clear that he will not beggar Australia's economic future with childish ratbaggery. To date, he has been the closest thing to a real adult in the room, despite his refusal to knock the whole silly business in the head a la Donald Trump.

In today's news, Scott Morrison responding to childish demands and urgings:

"Mr Morrison said he was squarely focused on Australia, rather than "trying to impress people overseas".

Greta Thunberg is simply the latest commodity for the hysteria media. Standard opportunistic exploitation by the integrity-devoid !

Greta Thunberg is the future;
(Whether we like it or not)

Struth, ttbn, if you really can't think of any more that can be done, I suggest you ask the kids - you'd probably learn a lot from them

But on the off chance that either they don't know or you're too lazy to ask them, I'll alert you to a few very obvious things that you really should have been able to work out yourself:

>Just what form does this action take? What can be done that hasn't already been done:
An enormous amount considering how little we've done so far.

>bring the entire country to a halt while the big emitters like China and India increase their emissions?
Getting international agreement to cut emissions is extremely important. But Australia's intransigence prevented any progress being made in the Madrid talks. Angus Taylor's insistence on carrying over our surplus from our soft Kyoto target in order to meet our Paris target meant that other countries were unwilling to commit to meaningful emissions reductions. Since then, he's hinted that we may meet our Paris target without relying on our Kyoto surplus. But meanwhile he's already set negotiations back a year.

>Get rid of coal-powered electricity when renewables produce only about 14% of our energy - when they are working?
When our use of renewables is that low, how can you still fail to comprehend that we must hugely increase it?

Greta Thunberg is the future;
Armchair Critic,
She's part of it !

AC,

You have a crystal ball that tells you that? The child is a freak, a passing fad, promoted by the media, dropped by the media. She has another nine years before her brain is fully developed. She might even miss out on full development, like the adults who lionise her have missed out.

Same old same old from you, Aidan. You come up with nothing new - ever.

And the word is strewth, not struth. Your anti-Australian attitude shows even in your misuse of the idiom.

ttbn,
Nothing new, yet you were still unable to think of the answer. Are you suffering from dementia?

Struth is the normal english spelling. Strewth is just the strine spelling.

Aidan,

What ttbn and most adults think is that a year 9/10 student with a learning disability is unlikely to have more than the most flimsy grasp of the science and is more likely to be simply regurgitating the dross her activist parents have indoctrinated her with.

The result is that most sentient humans while politely humouring her view her as no more than a teen having a tantrum. That left whinge activists laud her and treat her as the second coming leaves them with the same credibility deficit.

Secondly, trying to blame Australia for the world's increasing emissions is laughable. China and India who make up nearly 1/2 of world emissions have bugger all intention to reduce emissions and are building dozens of coal power stations.

Aidan,

"An enormous amount considering how little we've done so far."

That's no answer.

"When our use of renewables is that low, how can you still fail to comprehend that we must hugely increase it?"

Again. That's no answer. Investment in renewables is on a downward trend. Not enough taxpayer handouts for the crooks. You wouldn't know that because you are still locked into liars, and you never stop regurgitating lies.

Finally, you extremely unpleasant person, suggesting that someone whose views you don't like has dementia is really bottom of the barrel, low class stuff.

Worse still, you are a language ignoramus. Google 'struth' and 'strewth' comes up. Your incorrect spelling doesn't appear dictionaries either; nor in Roget's

ttbn,

You ask what can Scott Morrison do that he has not already done? One big thing he can do that will help immensely is publicly recognise that the environmental crisis we have in Australia is the consequence of global warming caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Until he can do that he might as well be on holiday in Hawaii PERMANENTLY.

PS When I watch TV broadcasts of someone reporting about the fires and he is standing in the background he always has a smirk on his face while all the others standing there look serious and sombre about the situation. But Scott Morrison has this great big smirk on his face. Sorry, I just don't get it! Must be a LNP thingy.

Hasbeen, I think you're confusing most adults with most right-wingers.

Most adults to not resort to false accusations to discredit the views of people they don't like.

Greta Thumberg is not regurgitating dross of activist parents; she's leading her family's activism. Nor does she have a learning disability. She has a communication disability, but she seems to have overcome those pretty well. And she has a MUCH stronger grasp of the science than you do. I base that claim on your holding the ludicrous belief that CO2 reduces the amount of water vapour the atmosphere can hold.

And your dismissing her justified expressions of genuine concern as "tantrums" is almost as bad.

And I'm not trying to blame Australia for the world's increasing emissions, but I am blaming Australia (and in particular Angus Taylor) for the failure of the latest attempt to do something about them. He seems to be taking the view that the most important thing in the world is that we avoid having to make an effort on this!

_______________________________________________________________________________

ttbn,
It appears you're half right regarding struth/strewth: the strine spelling is now in sufficiently widespread use to be listed in some dictionaries as well as the main spelling. BTW I'm surprised you're unaware Google treats all spelling variants the same.

My asking if you were suffering from dementia was NOT because I don't like your views – I'd never stoop that low. It's because your reply was displaying cognitive deficiencies (specifically, inability to think of anything Australia could do about it) and what appeared to be the effects of short term memory loss (when I suggested something that could be done, you said it was nothing new despite your inability to think of it yourself).

I'm still baffled as to how you could reach the conclusion that hugely increasing our use of renewables is not an answer! If investment is on a downward trend, we must address the causes of this trend and reverse it.

Dear Aidan,

It's interesting to hear that you picked up on ttbn's apparent dementia. I have noticed this with Hasbeen, individual and Loudmouth.

Very sad, very sad indeed. If they are suffering from dementia then I suggest we encourage them to keep participating in discussions as a way of helping them to maintain brain function.

Aidan,

"My asking if you were suffering from dementia was NOT because I don't like your views – I'd never stoop that low. It's because your reply was displaying cognitive deficiencies (specifically, inability to think of anything Australia could do about it) and what appeared to be the effects of short term memory loss (when I suggested something that could be done, you said it was nothing new despite your inability to think of it yourself)."

What a load of insulting, ignorant garbage! You wouldn't "stoop that low". Low is your default position. You disgust me.

Let's compare the thoughts of a 16 year old, immature and naive child, suffering from Asperger's, OCD and selective mutism (at least), bereft of any qualifications, with a 79 year old atmospheric physicist, Garth Paltridge.

The child has had lots of publicity, and everyone interested can find out what she has to say. Not so with Paltridge, an actual scientist, but well past the age to be put on the altar of youth. Paltridge says:

"The bottom line of politically correct thought on the matter—the thought that we must collectively do something drastic now to prevent climate change in the future—is so full of holes that it brings THE OVERALL SANITY OF MANKIND INTO QUESTION …..The beliefs are similar to those of the ESTABLISHED RELIGIONS in that they are more or less UNPROVABLE IN ANY STRICT SCIENTIFIC SENSE."

He goes on to say that the scientific establishment behind the climate change issue risks DESTROYING the unique and hard-won reputation for HONESTY, which is the basis for society's respect for scientific endeavour. Climate forecasts are "just nonsense".

If Aidan is interested in dementia, a good place would be to start with his own addressing of a post to Hasbeen, who hasn't posted in the thread.

ttbn,

Your overly sharp and irrational reaction to Aidan's comments might be indicative that you are in an advanced stage of dementia. Has your dementia been formally assessed?

Yep accused of something when I hadn't even posted. However I'll answer Aidans, "Hasbeen, I think you're confusing most adults with most right-wingers.

No confusion there Aidan. Once people become adults the automatically become right-wingers. It's called maturity, but doesn't come to some.

Dementia is a very serious condition and not to be taken lightly.

If you are showing apparent early signs please see your GP immediately.

Your grumpiness and irrational behaviour could be telltale signs.

Hasbeen,

This the second time he has done it, and he had a go at you the first time as well, even though you had not posted then either.

Strange behaviour for someone who has cast aspertions on the mental state of others. Keep your back to the wall, mate. There could be an obsession there.

Not a problem ttbn.

I have never had an allergic reaction to peanuts.

ttbn,
>If Aidan is interested in dementia, a good place would be to start with his own
>addressing of a post to Hasbeen, who hasn't posted in the thread.

Touché!

Apologies to Hasbeen and Shadow for conflating them.

A new depth in climate nuttiness has been reached by a Sydney academic writing for the ABC (where else!)

A Megan Mackenzie, Professor of 'Gender and War' (that's right; she also comes from Canada) has decided that "fragile masculinity" might be the "biggest obstacle to climate action".

Mackenzie raves on about 'truck nuts' - crafted testicles that are hung from the back of trucks in the weirdest country in the Commonwealth when it comes to Leftism - and she links them to Australian politicians and bush fires.

It's one of the craziest anti-male, Marxist pieces of crap you will read this year. You have to read it for yourself to believe it.

Type in 'fragile masculinity and climate' to get the ABC article.

ttbn,
I saw that & it almost made me weep with despair ! We must make stupidity a crime, it's the only way to free up seats for intelligent young people to get a good education !
Also, an online petition to stop paying such morons from OUR Tax dollars wouldn't be out of place !

Hey ttbn
"Greta Thunberg is the future";
- I never said I was pleased about it -

She's a marketable brand in her own right now,
Too valuable to the climate change cause to be set aside
She's not going anywhere unless she steps in a turd like Yassmin Abdul-Magied

You know kids these days can and do make millions just on youtube popularity.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieberg/2019/12/18/the-highest-paid-youtube-stars-of-2019-the-kids-are-killing-it/#7627301138cd

Hasbeen,
>No confusion there Aidan. Once people become adults the automatically
>become right-wingers. It's called maturity, but doesn't come to some.

No confusion? You're mistaking arrogance for maturity!

What (seemingly automatically) happens to most adults is that they learn of the flaws in the leftwing arguments they used to believe. It's what happens afterwards that's key: right-wingers just seem to keep assuming that's all there is to it, as if they'd switch their brains off! They won't even consider that most of the rightwing arguments are equally flawed, let alone that there are more sophisticated arguments on the left.

more sophisticated arguments on the left.

Aidan,
Then what do you think is the stumbling block for such sophistication to infiltrate Left Parties' policies & economic ability ?

individual,
That's a good question.
The right has controlled the economic narrative for decades. They've accused the left of having or wanting irresponsibly high levels of tax or interest rates or debt.

And the left have a terrible dilemma there, because trying to explain the truth will make them seem even more irresponsible to those who don't believe it.

Worse still, many on the left have fallen for the economic narrative of the right. Kevin Rudd famously claimed to be an economic conservative. But Wayne Swan was far worse, promising a surplus "come hell or high water". I think that's the most economically irresponsible election promise from a major party that I've ever encountered in Australia! A sensible treasurer would instead have promised to never resort to false economies to meet arbitrary short term financial objectives.

Things have been even worse overseas, particularly in Britain with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown falling for the rightwing economic narrative hook line and sinker. Now they're gone, their party is caught up in a lot more leftist economic dogma (some good, some bad) that they're unable to convince the public to support.

because trying to explain the truth will make them seem even more irresponsible to those who don't believe it.
Aidan,
People vote with one hand on the wallet. Ideology comes second to need !

Aidan,

The reason that conservatives control the economic narrative is because their policies follow accepted economic practise and work, which is in complete contrast to the shambles frequently left by the left.

Secondly renewables do not have an unlimited life span for example wind turbines typically have a 20 year life span with the result is that the vast cost of renewables continues indefinitely.

And that does not even cover the cost of providing backup for when the wind does not blow.

Shadow Minister,

Your thesis that economic programs by the left are a shambles does not seem to fit the apparent success of the current global economic model being driven by the Chinese Communist Party.

If it wasn't for Donald Trump the Chinese Communist Party would by now more than likely be in control of the world economy.

If it wasn't for Donald Trump the Chinese Communist Party would by now more than likely be in control of the world economy.
Mr Opinion,
You're pretty close to the mark on that one !

individual,

Trump might be the weirdest president the US as ever had but his business acumen makes him ideally placed to see the danger that China is for the rest of the world.

One of China's greatest exports is environmental degradation, which we are now realising is part of the cause of our own environmental crisis. The Chinese are parasites consuming everything in their path and leaving devastation in their wake. And Australia has been allowing it to happen because people here think they can get rich on the backs of the new Chinese diaspora that is turning Australia into a Chinese colony.

I have to agree with Pauline Hanson when she says that the future for us is a Chinese Australia. But then I suppose if we can make some money out it then it should be alright. What do you think?

What do you think?
Mr opinion,
I think you're correct on that one ! The hunger for power of the Chinese works in perfect symbiosis with many Australians' hunger fo money !
I think there should be a massive Tax on the sale of Australian land to non-citizens to buyer AND seller !

individual,

i remember Tony Abbott proposing to sell Australian citizenship to mainland Chinese for about $25,000 each, telling us it would mean we would each get $600 more in our tax returns out of the deal. He said it was a good idea because we could all become rich.

All we have to do is give up our Australian identity and heritage and live in an Australia in which citizenship means nothing more than having your name stamped on a piece of paper titled 'Australian Citizenship'. What do you think about that?

Of course I'm sure the ScuMos and the Barnaby Joyces of the world would be getting a bit more than $600 in their tax returns out of the deal.

Mr Opinion,
That's why the onion muncher is now irrelevant !

individual,

Tony Abbott is now a non-entity because he failed to acknowledge the fact that Australia's environmental crisis is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels.

I think the likes of ScuMo, Barnaby Joyce, etc., are also destined for oblivion because of their failure to also acknowledge this fact. They were able to fool some of the people some of the time but cannot fool all of the people all of the time. The tide of opinion has turned against them as the people begin to come to terms with the reality of climate change.

PS did you see that article I posted elsewhere where a Chinese company has been give the rights to mine ground water in drought-ridden southern Queensland, which they will use to bottle and most likely sell to their own people in China. As one Chinese woman on Sydney's north shore was overheard saying 'Aren't the Australians dumb.' Lady, you sure are right about that!

Mr Opinionated,
Let me know when you have some proof that human action is the cause of climate change.

The recent minor incident at white Island should have made every thinking person more aware of just how little influence humans have on mother nature. Nature controls all the important stuff, like earthquakes , volcanos, continental drift, tides, snowfall and rain and there is nothing humans can do to alter that, which includes climate.

You must think humans are very special if you think nature allows us to influence the worlds climate. We are not that important.

HenryL,

I am an environmental sociologist and my research focuses on finding out what scholars and scientists are saying, primarily specialising in the planet's water but I also look at the big picture stuff as part of my research.

The scientific community has looked into all of the physical things that could be causing the planet to warm up over the past 240 years. They have looked at each probable cause in detail and gone through a process of elimination. They have been able to eliminate every possible cause except one, which is the burning of fossil fuels.

That is, they have found that only one of the possible causes could have caused the rise in mean global temperature over the past 240 years. This is the burning of fossil fuels; all other possible causes could not be substantiated and have been eliminated.

PS How does everyone like it knowing that a Chinese company is mining ground water in a drought-ridden part of Qld and bottling it for sale to Chinese back in their homeland while Australia's farmers go without and their farms become dustbowls.

As the Chinese would tell you: 'Suckers! We've got your politicians in our pockets and you can't do a thing about it. Suckers!'

So where is all that water in the drought-striken country ?

The recent minor incident at white Island should have made every thinking person more aware of just how little influence humans have on mother nature.
HenryL,
White Island only became a man-made human catastrophe because humans went there !

As the Chinese would tell you: 'Suckers! We've got your politicians in our pockets and you can't do a thing about it. Suckers!'
Mr Opinion,
Yes, agreed but at least the Chinese are paying for what they get, the Leftists don't, they just bludge their way through it with nothing but hypocrisy in return !

individual,

You just asked: 'So where is all that water in the drought-striken country?'

It's in the ground: aquifer, water table, well, bore hole. Do any of these terms ring a bell? That's why we call it ground water as opposed to surface water. It eventually makes its way back to the oceans but takes a long time to do so. A bit like the water in a glacier being a river of ice that takes a long time to get back to the oceans.

Any way the Chinese have been given the rights to suck it out of the ground for their own profit. What do you think about that? The article is on page 3 of 'Mahathir Mohamad: Australia will become'.

Mr Opinion,
Are you saying Australians aren't allowed to access the water beneath their feet ? Who stipulates such idiocy ?
I was led to believe the aquifers were depleted.

The White Island eruption wasn't the result of human activity.

Even a Hasbeen or an mhaze or a ttbn or a Loudmouth would not posit something like that. They're not that stupid!

The White Island eruption wasn't the result of human activity.
Mr Opinion,
Correct ! Had the humans stayed away there would not have been a human tragedy ! The volcano will happily blow its top humans or no humans !

Mr Opinionated,

As an environmental sociologist you carry the scientific clout of a preschooler.

To claim that anthropogenic warming is the only factor in climate change is ludicrous and much of IPCC scientists' efforts are spent in trying to separate out the different effects, and one of the greatest threats to their credibility is self appointed prophets crying wolf and posting dubious studies that predict apocalypse.

Shadow Minister,

The scientific community is not claiming that anthropogenic warming is the only factor in climate change. Scientists have been able to trace climate change back hundreds of millions of years ago and can describe the changes over these large expanse of time in amazing detail.

What the scientific community is saying is that the global warming recorded over the past 240 years since the start of the Industrial Revolution is being caused by the burning of fossil fuels. It is the only probable cause of global warming during this period that they cannot eliminate from their analyses.

Are you familiar with the scientific method and the concept of falsification? May I suggest you engage in formal studies at university before you start criticising the scientific community on their findings. You should understand the science before you open your mouth because the sorts of things you are coming out with makes you look like a real fool. Do you want to end up like Loudmouth and Hasbeen who go around pretending they have degrees.

Misopinionated,

Pot, kettle.

Joe

Loudmouth,

No, wrong again. Unlike you I don't have to lie about myself.

Indy,
You said, 'White island only became a man made human catastrope because humans went there'

True,and we still have idiots that think humans have some influence over natural events. After spending billions we still cannot make it rain, turn the tide or stop the wind from blowing or prevent a frost, yet some loonies think we can alter the world climate. Fools are born every day.

Fools will never learn that humans have no influence over nature

HenryL,

According to your definition above Bill Gates and Richard Branson are a couple of 'idiots that think humans have some influence over natural events' because both are spending billions of dollars on research and development into geoengineering projects that will remove CO2 from the atmosphere with the aim of cooling down the planet.

They intend to sell these schemes to world governments to make billions of dollars from the impact of anthropogenic global warming and its consequential climate change.

I believe they would think that you are the idiot, not them.

The reason so many people misunderstand so many issues is not that these issues are so complex, but that people do not want a factual or analytical explanation that leaves them emotionally unsatisfied. They want villains to hate and heroes to cheer — and they don’t want explanations that do not give them that. (Thomas Sowell).

The quasi-religious commitment of some Australians to climate change is a manifestation of what happens to a nation when it abandons its Judeo-Christian roots.

Henry L your scientific illiteracy is astounding. You don't need advanced degrees in physics to understand the basics of human generated climate change.
Think of a morning in winter. Which is the warmer morning? When there are clouds, or a clear day? The answer is obvious. The cloudy morning is a warmer one. This is because several gases are greenhouse gases. One of these is water vapour. Others include carbon dioxide, others include methane, nitrous oxide, etc. But these four are the main ones.
How do they work?
Basically, they act as a "blanket". For the temperature of the Earth to remain the same [on average], given a constant solar output [yes it does vary]the amount of energy absorbed by the planet must equal the energy escaping the planet.
The energy of the "light" [light is only the narrow, and visible part of the Electromagnetic spectrum], abbreviated EMR, depends on the energy and wavelength of the photons.
High energy photons are short wave high frequency, and low energy photons are long wavelength, low frequency.
When a photon hits something, like a molecule of gas in the atmosphere, it will be absorbed and then re-emitted, but at lower energy.
The higher the energy of the EMR, the less likely it will be absorbed by the atmosphere, and will hit the ground or the ocean, warming the seas and the ground.
There are three ways to get rid of heat: conduction, convection and radiation. Heat is radiated via long wave, low energy infra-red light.
If the greenhouse gases, which absorb more low energy photons than high energy ones accumulate faster than they can be removed [carbon dioxide and water are removed via the photosynthesis performed by plants], then more heat energy will be trapped faster than it can be removed.
You should be able to work out the rest from there. For example, because the atmosphere contains more energy, storms are more frequent and more severe. Anyway, if you are going to criticise something, at least learn some basics, lest people think of you as an ignorant fool.

So irrelevant spiritually is the non- conformist church, particularly the Left wing Uniting Church, that had to combine three denominations to take home a decent collection, that it's President put out a Christmas Day video message rabbiting on about climate change. Faith in God and nature has been replaced by faith in venal, lying rent-seekers, rogue scientists and assorted liars

Opinionated,
Without putting names to it, anyone who believes that climate change is brought about by human action is an idiot. The worlds climate has been changing since it was formed and that change will most likely continue, with human habitation or without. Those species that adapt to changes to their enviroment will survive and those that dont adapt will perish. all natural occurances.

As there is no proof that humans influence climate change, the believers are of a religous mindset as they believe without proof. They cannot accept that nature is more powerful than humans, dispite evidence of occuring earthquakes, vocanos, continental drift and even tides rising and falling, they continue to believe in their god of human influence.

One famous scientist once said, when the evidence changes I change my opinion, well so do I. So bring on the evidence and leave behind the theories and religous zest. Proof is what is needed.

HenryL,

The problem does not lie with the science. The problem lies with you.

You do not have the knowledge that allows you to make sense of the world in which you live.

You and people like you such as Hasbeen, Loudmouth, ttbn, etc., are forever consumed by your own states of irrationality that mask reality and substitute illusions of non-existence for factuality.

Hasbeen and Loudmouth try to compensate for their illusions by creating myths about their imaginary university degrees. ttbn does it by conflating religion, politics, science and common knowledge into an inarticulate paradigm that only he seems to be able to make sense of.

It's sad, so very sad. It's a warning to us all that our education system is failing people like you.

With reference to the topic, Where Are All The Adults?, the adults in this discussion have been in the majority: ttbn, individual, Armchair Critic, Hasbeen, Shadow Minister, Henry L, and Loudmouth.

Not adult yet, and never likely to be: Mr. Opinion and Aidan (as usual), supported by newcomer, Rob H.

ttbn,

The only thing that is adult about you and your group is that you are all senile.

Mr Opinionated,

Since I have 3 university degrees with the first one being a BSc Hons in Engineering followed by an MBA and a BCom, and spent a post grad year with the physics dept designing lasers to measure gas concentrations such as ozone and CO2, the last thing I need is a pretentious ignoramus (with a degree best suited for flipping burgers) trying to lecture me on the "scientific method".

Not only that, but I have also had an interest in the science and economics behind CO2 emissions and global warming. There are many factors in global warming, and the general consensus is that man's contributions greater part (>50%) in climate change not the only factor.

Shadow Minister,

It's good to see you have some training albeit vocational: your BSc(Eng) is just a 3 year engineering degree, not a science degree, and your BCom & MBA are pretty much useless outside of business and finance. None of them would have equipped you with critical thinking skills but at least it's better than having nothing.

i have a full 4 year BE and I can honestly say that it is the only one of my four degrees that has given me skills in flipping burgers. My Arts degrees are in all of that stuff you don't know anything about: history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, etc.

Most importantly, you state you have a working knowledge of climate change so I assume you are in a position to tell us what are the probable causes of global warming over the past 240 years i.e. the phenomena that have resulted in the 1 deg C rise above the preindustrial level c. 1780. Can you please list them for us? Don't be shy, we're all friends here.

Mr Opinionated,

Such ignorance in just one sentence! A BSc is a science degree, and engineering is almost always a 4 yr degree and is such a BSc Hons as I said above. Note that the prime factors running through all the eng courses is problem solving and critical thinking.

Secondly MBA are high level generalist courses that include marketing, economics, law, human resources (and motivation) along finance accounting etc all skills that are relevant to just about every endeavour on earth except maybe sociologists writing papers that no one will ever read.

As for your 4 year BE, I can't even find what it is which shows its relevant to the world, as for your arts degrees --> flipping burgers.

As for global warming you clearly have no clue and I don't have enough space to educated you, but here is a hint, over the past many millenia, the global temperature has swung up and down by 10s of degrees before man even walked the earth. So work it out.

You are being unkind SM.

He is probably qualified as a pen pusher in some totally irrelevant government department, like the Tiddlywinks bureau.

Shadow Minister,

You said explicitly that you did a BSc(Eng), which is a 3 year engineering degree. Usually completion of another year of study in engineering will lear to the award of a BE in lieu of the BSc(Eng). Your confusion on this matter leaves me questioning your claim.

I did an engineering degree and it definitely didn't equip graduates with critical thinking skills. It's only the Arts that can make that claim. The study of engineering emphasises rote learning skills, definitely not critical thinking. I'm starting to think you might be just another Loudmouth or Hasbeen.

Anyway, let's put that aside and get down to the really important point I raised, that of getting you to list the probable causes that have given rise to a 1 deg C warming of the planet over the past 240 years. You seem to be wanting to avoid this request which makes me think that you are unable to come up with anything convincing outside of the burning of fossil fuels.

We're waiting.

causes that have given rise to a 1 deg C warming of the planet over the past 240 years.
Mr Opinion,
Well, millions of Mr Opinions are a definite cause !

Dear individual smart ass,

Why don't you have a go? You are always saying that the global warming over the past 240 years is not due to the burning of fossil fuels. Okay, how about you identifying the probable causes outside of burning fossil fuels.

I bet you cannot come up with one probable cause outside of the burning of fossil fuels that will stand up to scrutiny.

1. Solar output 2. Earths axis and orbit 3. (distant 3) Humans

None of which matter too much when faced with the reality that human beings will continue to NEED to adapt and master their own environment, just as they have for the past several million years already.

All this climate crap is more about bankers and insurance investment stabilty and mitigating against acts of nature; and making the populace pay for changes the elites want

Armchair Critic,

Please define how each has caused a 1 deg C rise in temperature over the past 240 years.

1. Solar output

2. Earths axis and orbit

3. Humans

Why do I have to?
There's a whole entire internet at your fingertips, knock yourself out.
FYI I don't care about a 1 degree increase in 240 years.
I live with temperature fluctuations far in excess of this every 3 months commonly known as 'seasons'.
If your unfamiliar with this concept try wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Season
A season is a division of the year marked by changes in weather, ecology, and the amount of daylight. On Earth, seasons are the result of Earth's orbit around the Sun and Earth's axial tilt relative to the ecliptic plane.

Alternatively you can look up Maunder Minimum or Milankovitch Cycles etc.
They're on wikipedia too btw.
- I'm not a climate freak, that's your part to play.

Armchair Critic,

Simple fact is you are unable to competently define the probable causes for global warming over the past 240 years due to you lack of a scientific acumen.

You know that 1 and 2 are not probable causes because you already know that each has been shown not to be a cause and has been eliminated by the scientific community. I assume 3 'Humans' is fossil fuel burning for which you are correct. One out of three is not too bad,

I'll let you off the hook this time. Just be more careful how you respond to things in the future.

You are always saying that the global warming over the past 240 years is not due to the burning of fossil fuels.
Mr Opinion,
You are the Chief evader of questions. You're the one who doesn't tell us what you would do to prevent CC.
I have always said & always will say that CC is natural, not man-made. Man's contribution via pollution is merely making it worse than it needs to be. If you haven't got the sense to see the difference then you shouldn't throw silly quips around willy nilly as it makes you a silly Billy !
Today is your last chance to make a New Year's resolution, not being so silly next year.

I bet you cannot come up with one probable cause outside of the burning of fossil fuels that will stand up to scrutiny.
Mr Opinion,
Pollution caused by consumers such as yourself.

individual,

I assume you are referring to atmospheric pollution which gives rise to greenhouse gas emissions.

If not then could you please elaborate.

If not then could you please elaborate.
Mr Opinion,
Humans ARE polluting the Atmosphere, humans who want every thinkable commodity at their fingertips, travel everywhere in fact, they & particularly the modern "educated" then turn around & accuse those who pander to their every whim (for money of course) for warming the Planet. People like yourself. I'm confident that the likes of you will suffer the consequences more than those who, like I, don't require so many commodities & don't travel so much.
You are playing into the hands of GW way more than I.

individual,

I concur with what you are saying but would have put it in different words.

What you are describing as the root cause of anthropogenic global warming is CONSUMERISM. You are entirely correct.

Consumerism was invented by New York's Madison Street ad men in the early 1950s and has dramatically characterised globalism over the past 70 years, driving the exponential production and consumption of goods that rely heavily on the burning of fossil fuels for their existence. This has been correlated with measurements of rising atmospheric CO2 and corresponding increases in mean global temperature.

This is why I cannot see any way out of the global warming dilemma that was created by the industrial revolution 240 years ago which introduced the fossil fuels as a source of energy that could replace animal, human and natural sources of power. Our global civilisation is now dependent on fossil fuels for its existence and continuance in an economy that demands constant growth and development in the name of progress, whether it be under capitalism or socialism.

Basically, the human race is doomed simply because we dug up the carbon fossils of all of those plants and animals that were buried away in the earth for almost 300 million years after the end of the Carboniferous period.

Fascinating stuff. And that's why I decided to be an environmental sociologist so that I could explore the big picture things in terms of both the humanities and the sciences.

Thanks for reminding me how good it is to be an environmental sociologist.

Mr Opinionated.

Now you are just lying. My first post on the issue included: "I have 3 university degrees with the first one being a BSc Hons in Engineering."

As Engineering degrees are almost always 4 year degrees, and as the prime purpose of engineering is to solve multi faceted problems. If you relied on rote learning I am not surprised that you were a failure as an engineer.

As for contributing issues to global warming there are such things as Solar cycles, volcanic eruptions, the changes in the earth orbit etc that have contributed to the 0.7 degree change that has happened since the 1970s.

You have still failed to comment on the fact that the earth warmed prior to humans eg. 5 degrees over the past few millennia.

Shadow Minister,

No one is really interested in talking about a subject as dull as engineering. I have always regretted doing a degree in engineering because it is an intellectual dead end. I always recall sitting in a WC at uni and seeing a note just above the toilet roll holder which read 'Engineering degrees. Take one.'

I again invite you to define the probable causes of global warming over the past 240 years. Please identify each probable cause and then explain the reason each has resulted in a mean global temperature rise over the past 240 years. Let me start the ball rolling:

1. Burning of fossil fuels that started with the industrial revolution. Results in greenhouse gas emissions that collect in the atmosphere particularly CO2 triggering water vapour and in turn trapping heat from escaping into the cosmos. The resultant positive captured heat causing the planet to get warmer.

Your turn. Feel free to list and explain as many as you want. But please keep each to a couple of lines like I have done.

The retiring head of BP says that current fiddling and agonising about climate change will see fossil fuels still providing 73% of our energy by 2040; 56% even if the Paris Agreement were adhered to - which it isn't and won't be.

Battery storage is decades away.

As people like him have to keep pace with reality to earn the big bucks they do, we should be listening to him, and people like him, rather than no-nothing political activists and BS artists

ttbn, you just said:

'The retiring head of BP says that current fiddling and agonising about climate change will see fossil fuels still providing 73% of our energy by 2040.'

Could you please elaborate? Because I do not understand how the 'current fiddling and agonising about climate change' will result in the increasing use of fossil fuels to the point where they will provide '73% of our energy by 2040.'

Something in your claim just doesn't seem to make sense.

Mr O,

Your work and entire life makes accounting sound fun. I don't believe that you have ever done engineering as you wouldn't have offered up such moronic posts.

You asked for examples of factors that have contributed to global warming and I gave you several, that you haven't tried to refute any of these indicates that you can't, and until you at least try I will take it that you can't, and that the tedious and meaningless drivel that you and your bum chums produced is not worth the paper it is printed on.

It sounds like your report should have started with "once upon a time." and will never be read or cited by anyone.

Shadow Minister,

Stop beating around the bush. You haven't offered anything to the list I started.

I did my degree in mechanical engineering. Ask me a question about courses if you want to test me.

Shadow Minister,

How about we compoare notes and I ask you questions about the courses you completed for your engineering degree?

What were your Year 1 courses?

Mr O,

You are as slippery as any Labor weasel politician.

You made the claim that you have proved that all climate change over the past 240 yrs was entirely man made, a claim that is not supported by even the IPCC.

You challenged me to state one factor that could have contributed, so I offered 3 factors, and instead of trying to rebut this, you ask how these 3 factors raised temperatures by 1C which was completely moronic considering I have never claimed that. A blatant error that anyone other than a complete idiot would pick up.

You have still completely failed to indicate how you eliminated these factors from the past 240 years. As you made the claim the ball is in your court to prove that you are not simply lying.

P.S. Courses for 1st year are pretty much the same for all engineers Maths, physics and Chemistry.

What was your final year design thesis? Mine was in designing compact long range Rfid tags (radio frequency identity) more than 30yrs ago.

I still don't believe that you have an engineering degree.

Shadow Minister,

My first year courses were:

Calculus and Analytic Geometry
Multivariable Calculus and Differential Equations
Engineering Physics
Engineering Chemistry
Engineering Drawing
Mechanics 1 (Statics)
Mechanics 2 (Dynamics)

My final year research project (what you would call as a thesis) was on the design of mechanical building services.

What courses did you cover in Year 1?

OLO seems to have become a haven for liars and BS artists who think everything is about them and their super egos. It all means nothing, of course, because they cannot prove any of their claimed achievements or prowess. Pathetic!

ttbn,

One either has, or one doesn't have it.

And I'd rather have it than not have it.

Jealousy eats away at one and can be very destructive.

ttbn,

PS This is a personal discussion between me and Shadow Minister so butt out!

O,

As I said, you cannot prove that you "have it". And, as I started this thread - not for you to have "personal discussion" - I'll decide if and when I will butt out, Sonny Jim.

I, and I'm sure some other posters, think that you are all mouth and trousers,and that you don't have any of the qualifications you claim to have. I don't think you even have a job, given that you have so much time to argue the toss with older, mature people, mostly retired, and with a lot more experience than you have.

Formal qualifications are not the be all and end all, but it is very hard to believe that anyone with the education you claim to have could be so daft

ttbn,

I know this is going to be hard for you to take but everything about me is the real McCoy.

When I was eight I wanted to be someone who was highly educated and could talk on diverse subjects and I have spent the best part of my life achieving that goal.

So all I would like to say to you is EAT YOUR HEART OUT.

.highly educated and could talk on diverse subjects.
Mr Opinion,
That translates directly into having been of no use to Society at all !
Of course, I can only go by what I have personally witnessed from people in your category.

individual,

He can talk alright. All talk and no substance. It must be a terrible burden carrying such an ego about, particularly as he can't convince anyone of his brilliance. Walter Mitty hasn't got a thing on Mr.Bighead.

ttbn and individual,

It didn't come easy. It was a lot of hard work getting through four degrees, each in a different field. But I did it and I'll always be happy that I did.

It's a nice feeling knowing I'm one of the most educated people in the country, and one of the smartest according to people who are a lot smarter than I am.

It's a nice feeling knowing I'm one of the most educated people in the country,
Mr Opinion,
I applaud that but what I'd like to know how your qualifications for want of a better description make you a citizen of good use to this nation ?
Are you teaching beneficial knowledge ?
How is your education paying your way for your employer ? I'm utterly under educated but I can return to the places I spent my working life at & still see my efforts continuing to be of benefit to the communities. Even some of my inventions are still being used. I can confidently claim I was worth being paid by my employer.

It's tragic, really. He still doesn't deny that he doesn't have job. What an awful existence he must endure in his make-believe world.

Mr O,

Unfortunately, none of us believe that you are as smart as you claim, especially if you did 4 degrees to make you educated but economics which defines how the world works.

That you claim that you can show that man's activities are sole cause of global warming yet cannot account for a few simple long term contributions shows that there is less substance to you than you purport. That you make a series of simplistic logical blunders would indicate that your critical reasoning skills are feeble.

As for my first year Engineering studies, as I said before Maths Physics and Chemistry (and drawing) pretty much what you claimed to have done. However, I' am not sure that you didn't simply copy a syllabus from online and the title of your thesis is suspiciously vague and sounds BS.

He's probably just some kid trying to stir us up !

Dear ttbn, individual and Shadow Minister,

I am too honest to lie. Truth is I wish I had never done an engineering degree because when i did it in the 1970s it was just an exercise in applied mathematics and really had nothing to do with being an engineer.

Engineering courses today prepare graduates for working as engineers. I notice that classical mathematica has been dropped from some programs and the students are taught how to use software and numerical analysis to work things out. That sort of stuff was very limited when I was doing my course. We only had Fortran IV and Basic but mostly did everything by hand, with calculus, differential equations, Laplace transforms, etc. Shadow Minister will understand what I am talking about.

But my great love was in doing my three Arts degrees where I studied all those subjects you guys don't know anything about like history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, etc. Absolutely fascinating stuff! I feel sad that you guys don't know anything about that stuff.

I feel sad that you guys don't know anything about that stuff.
Mr Opinion,
I could surprise you on a couple of your list but, getting back to the base of the argument, what positive contribution do make to our society in return for your salary ? Is it even or just another one-way street as I assume it to be ?

I think Putin said it best. "Nobody explained to Greta that the modern world is complicated and complex." (I think he meant her parents forgot to tell her.)

Where are her parents? Hiding behind the curtains, pushing her on stage? Why are her parents using her like a windup marionette. The child has autism and Asperger syndrome. You can't tell me that her parents haven't be feeding her a rich diet of script lines like a child actor. It's appalling child abuse using a child to pedal your own leftist diatribe

Absolutely fascinating stuff! I feel sad that you guys don't know anything about that stuff.
Mr opinion,
I like common sense & pragmatism, fascinating stuff ! I feel sad that you don't know anything about that stuff !

As Shadow Minister suggests, anyone can look up the requirements for any course of study and pretend they did it.

The great polymath still can't admit that he is unemployed and contributes nothing to society. He has reached a very tedious stage, and has proved that he is incapable of rational discussion and behaviour. I note that he now claims history as part of his brilliance. That really shows him up for the fraud that he is. Like all misguided people who talk about 'record' heat, and 'record' this, that, and the other, he knows nothing about even recent history, on climate in particular.

Winston Churchill said, "The longer you can look back, the further you can look forward". Poor little Mr. Big Opinion Of Himself would be scratching to look forward to tomorrow.

I think that we all have better things to do than encourage this fellow to use OLO as therapy for his problems.

ttbn,

Sorry to disappoint you but I am working post-retirement. The reason you don't work post-retirement is simple: no one wants you.

There's a good reason why you, individual, Shadow Minister, etc., don't know anything about Arts subjects especially history, anthropology, sociology, archaeology, philosophy, etc. It's because you have poor reading and comprehension skills, restricting you to vocational tasks aimed at putting you to work as mindless drones.

PS Why would I lie about doing something as dull and mundane as an engineering degree? I would like to cover up for one of my life's big mistakes and lie about not doing an engineering degree, But I can't because I never lie; I always tell the truth.

Also, nowadays I look after myself and forget the rest. Especially in a country that has a Chinese future.

O,

You avoid the question, then, when you run out of BS and lies, you make up something else. Too late. You've done your dash. Hope it was worth it for you, because you haven't convinced anyone here.

ttbn,

One thing nobody is denying is that you are on a list of environmental criminals guilty of anthropogenic global warming denialism.

PS Just saw on TV that your mate Angus Taylor has been referred by the NSW police to the AFP for investigation into his alleged criminal activities. I assume ScuMo will be joining you soon on the list of environmental criminals for his denial of AGW resulting in the current environmental crisis in Australia.

PenDragon,

Good post; you got back to the actual subject, which is not the rantings of Mr. Self Opiniated, although there are similarities between him and the Thunberg child whose father tells us was close to 'dying of depression' before she took up her absurd crusade against common sense and adult experience.

I think it's time to ignore the moron !

So here we have it.

Mr 0 couldn't cut it as an engineer so did a couple of arts degrees so that he could look in a mirror while pleasuring himself.

I would guess that his "retirement" wasn't voluntary

That I am presently employed as a chief engineer in a multi $bn company building and testing plant to reduce emissions save energy consumption and generate power renewably apparently makes me a mindless vocational drone and an environmental criminal.

hadow minister,
The Australian Electorate consists of between 49 % to 51% of Mr Opinions. They're the backbone of Labor !

Shadow Minister,

And an engineer is all that you will ever be in life.

Shadow Minister said:

'Mr 0 couldn't cut it as an engineer so did a couple of arts degrees so that he could look in a mirror while pleasuring himself.'

Actually, I'm Mr O (for Opinion) not Mr 0.

Secondly I did three Arts degrees not just a couple (which I mentioned elsewhere but understandable given that you don't have good reading and comprehension skills, which I also mentioned elsewhere).

Thirdly, telling someone he is a narcissistic self-pleasurer is the sort of behaviour I have come to expect from engineers over the 50 years I have worked in the profession; I think it is easy for people to see why someone with my education would prefer to disassociate himself from members of the engineering profession when they display this sort of behaviour. Like I called you elsewhere: a mindless drone.

individual

You said: 'Mr Opinion, I could surprise you on a couple of your list ....... ' when I said that Shadow Minister doesn't know things like history, anthropology, archaeology, sociology, philosophy, etc.

Well, you've got my attention. You have the floor, so please enlighten me

so please enlighten me
Mr Opinion,
You're un-enlightenable ! I have been in events full of Academics & all I found that being educated beyond ability to absorb/digest/utilise knowledge invariably leads to people like yourself being of no use to society. They merely exceed in annoying the one who can & do think !

Mr 0 (mr zero not a mistake)

Your greatest error is believing that I care what you think of me.

In my 30 odd years of engineering, I have designed an overseen the construction of plant and equipment that not only delivered many $ms of shareholder value, but has vastly reduced pollution, saved power consumption, and improved the safety and working conditions of hundreds of working people.

I am proud of what I have achieved not only in a professional sense but a personal one too, and as such am immune to the barbs from supercilious parasites producing trivial reports that no one will read.

Finally, that you have a few pieces of paper to show qualifications in Archaeology, Anthropology, History etc does not mean that others are clueless or even less informed in their areas of interest.

Shadow Minister,
I'm giving that insipid thing a miss now, you'd save yourself a lot of frustration if you did the same. People like this thing are of no value to society, they're not interested in looking for solutions, they only seek division & sabotage any good will they come up against.

individual and Shadow Minister,

I see from the above that neither of you believe that historians, archaeologists, anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, etc., have a useful role to play in society.

Is that why you keep criticising people who are qualified in all the Arts things like history, archaeology, anthropology, sociology, philosophy, etc?

Mr 0

Not entirely true, there is a need for people to flip burgers.