Liza,

Maybe I'm not too bright, but I struggle with the notion that, over the past couple of centuries, human economic and social activity has produced an enormous amount of heat, which may or may not have anything to do with temperature. And a co-requisite product of that heat production has been CO2.

So I'm puzzled how much of the temperature rise of 2 degrees in the last 200 years has been CO2-induced, and how much has been heat-induced ? Does heat raise temperature, in other words ? Sorry, I don't know any 12-year-olds well enough to ask them.

I suppose some Green authority would advise me: no, absolutely not, only CO2 does !

Joe

Dear Lizawilson11,

Welcome to the forum.

Just a heads up.

I'm not sure you can expect to secure a change in anyone's mind amongst the diehards here so don't be disappointed if that doesn't eventuate. For many here facts are just an excuse to increase the bombast. It is a defense mechanism that has become default for those denying AGW.

Guys like runner will often deploy words like 'religion' and 'cult' because they are rightly threatened by the loss of the moral high ground which is rapidly accelerating as fundamentalist Christians increasingly take denialist positions.

Where this forum is useful is advanced warning of some of the arguments that will be rolled out on a particular issue and for that reason deconstructing them can be fun and preparatory for later conversations.

I will admit though the quality of opposing views that made this place pretty special has been seriously diminished.

Anyway enjoy.

'Guys like runner will often deploy words like 'religion' and 'cult' because they are rightly threatened by the loss of the moral high ground which is rapidly accelerating as fundamentalist Christians increasingly take denialist positions.'

denialist says Steelie after months of fires and destruction largely caused by Greens ideology. Never could we have believed people could be so dumbed down while continuing to virtue signal their wares. I see Zali the latest prophetess in on the game.

Hi Liz,

SR is right: "For many here facts are just an excuse to increase the bombast. It is a defense mechanism that has become default for those denying AGW."

You have to be careful in selecting your facts: those which fit your ideology, yes, and those which don't, no. Facts are so crucial. But only the right facts.

For instance, if it turns out that fuel reduction programs have been down-graded by bureaucrats over the last five or ten years, you should ignore this and talk about climate change.

If anybody mentions the drought over the last three years, like so many droughts before it, you should ignore them and speak about never-before-droughts and never-before-temperatures induced by climate change.

I was born in a drought, the one after the Black Friday fires of 1939, and my mum was born in the early 1920s drought. My grand-dad worked through the 1890s drought and then the Federation drought, up in the Channel country before fleeing to Sydney. My father grew up during the 1910s drought when they planted wheat across the Murray River bed in SA's Riverland. But don't ever mention drought as some sort of common occurrence. Go on and on about CO2, you'll be right.

Mind you, I recall driving through central NSW, from Wilcannia to Ivanhoe and back, in 1994, dry as a bone, not a single vehicle in 180 km coming and going. A bit scary. One kangaroo, and one herd of goats, who all owned the road.

Of course, lived-through facts are hard to forget.

Best of luck,

Joe

Ha Joe you were obviously around before Maccas, kfc, hungry Jacks. Maybe fish and chips once a week. You know when we produced far less co2 then the current generation which needs 6 garbage bins to sort their rubbish. We fed our dogs left overs and washed nappies instead of mass production of disposables as the new generation feel they need. Lovely to have the likes of Greta preaching her 'how dare you'. I suppose to some degree we are to blame for the self entitled, virtue signalling hypocritical brainwahed generation of non thinkers. My deceased mother in law who had to clear land, live in shed without power and raise 6 kids including a hanicapped one was far 'greener' than any of these brats and yet always voted conservative. Never a thing wasted and everything reused several times.

Hi Runner,

Yes, well, chips once a week, sixpence a bag, at the pictures. I can't recall that rubbish was ever a problem, food-scraps went to the dog, maybe one unseparated bin each week or even fortnight, that was mum's problem. Yes, nappies washed over and over. Going barefoot to school was common in the fifties, along with raggedy old jumpers, and cuts on one's feet, and sores taking months to heal. Being the eldest of six kids, I don't recall any hand-me-downs.

Nothing much accumulated back then, it was used until it fell apart. So moving wasn't much of an issue. Two beds to a bedroom, with everything precious stowed underneath. Anyway, life was lived outside, on the street or down by the creek or river.

I feel for the kids of today, so deprived of those sorts of experiences.

Cheers,

Joe