Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts

375205

Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts

Go to Deal

Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 09:35 adanifacts.com.au (12249 clicks)
Last edited 25/05/2019 - 14:15 by 1 other user

I love coal almost as much as I love bargains.

Get your FREE Adani Supporter pack today!

Email [email protected] to request an Adani Supporter pack, including T-shirt and stickers.

Mod: A free T-shirt is a valid deal (as were the Free Stop Adani Sticker Packs). As always, negative voters are also free to express their opinion against the deal, as long as a reason/explanation is given. See guidelines, writing 'agree' is not valid. Debate is fine, but name calling, trolling or inflammatory comments will be punished. Thank you.

Fashion & Apparel Adani Coal Sticker T-Shirt

Freebie
27 May 2019 4:54pm

Related Stores

adanifacts.com.au

closed Comments

- - - knackers on 25/05/2019 - 19:35
      
      +3
      
      which policy are you referring to?
    - troyww on 25/05/2019 - 22:25
      
      One of the leaders was hypocritical ?
[Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 17:49

+2

What a reaction…I would think twice before wearing this shirt!
axlfan on 25/05/2019 - 17:56

+9

Of course. Now that he funded his friend Modi the Fuhrer's campaign in India, he has to open this mine and ship that coal to India to recoup costs.
No problem if there is any risk of hurting the Barrier Reef ecosystem or contribute more to Global warming. Who cares about such things?
- masaladosa on 25/05/2019 - 18:09
  
  +7
  
  Basically crony capitalism, exported.
  - axlfan on 28/05/2019 - 18:10
    
    Absolutely
Kaidra on 25/05/2019 - 18:09

+1

Free shirt! Jobs for Australia! More plant food released into the atmosphere! Adani FTW!!
- Yapapi on 25/05/2019 - 18:11
  
  Indeed, lets green the grasslands, give those cows something to chew on #RibEyesFTW
customundo on 25/05/2019 - 18:17

-5

Money is better spent on deporting feminists, vegans and anti-vaxxers
- JediJan on 25/05/2019 - 21:10
  
  +3
  
  Well … anti-vaxxers at least.
  
  Feminists and vegans don't cause any problems; only in your head.
  - customundo on 25/05/2019 - 22:17
    
    +1
    
    Keep telling yourself that
    - JediJan on 26/05/2019 - 04:03
      
      +1
      
      I don't have any need to.
Empiresearth on 25/05/2019 - 18:24

+8

STOP ADANI
Hoolio on 25/05/2019 - 18:24

+5

Lol you already stole the election please don't pollute ozbargain with your coal trash
straafe on 25/05/2019 - 18:26

+5

I'd sooner be naked than wear their tshirt
Wystri Warrick on 25/05/2019 - 18:26

+7

Negging as the Adani coal mine must be stopped.
It'll be many decades before investors even see a return on their investment, then the mine will continue for many more decades to deliver a profit.
There's only one planet in the universe that we know supports human life, let's not destroy humanity.

We have 12 years to limit climate change catastrophe, warns UN
Ocean temperature data shows warming is accelerating faster than we thought
Antarctic ice melting faster than ever, studies show
Report: Sea levels may rise much faster than previously estimated, swamping coastal cities
Human society under urgent threat from loss of Earth’s natural life

We need to stop listening to the fossil fuel corporations and they're lobbyist and start listening to scientists, to the data and to the facts!
- [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 18:50
  
  You said listen to the data and facts but your link contradicts that, it says their previous models may be wrong.
  
  "double the upper limit outlined by the UN climate science panel's last major report."
  
  Remind me, please, of the meaning of an upper limit.
  - Wystri Warrick on 25/05/2019 - 18:54
    
    +3
    
    That you Tony?
    
    Please show me your science that argues against the United Nations science.
    - [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 18:55
      
      -6
      
      That your only comeback, to everyone?
      
      Lol, The United Nations Climate Change Panel's other reports! US National Academy of Sciences in your own link.
      
      Your link: "Scientists are worried that the current models used to predict the influence of massive melting ice sheets have flaws"
      
      Your summary: "start listening to scientists, to the data and to the facts!"
      
      New definition for the word 'consensus': double the other half's upper limit.
- hippyhippy on 25/05/2019 - 21:28
  
  -2
  
  Quoting theguardian and abc like they actually credible … hahaha
  - Wystri Warrick on 25/05/2019 - 21:31
    
    -1
    
    That you Rupert Murdoch?
    - [Deactivated] on 25/05/2019 - 21:36
      
      -1
      
      Did I make you self-conscious? Thanks for at least changing the broken record.
    - Danstar on 29/05/2019 - 16:09
      
      -2
      
      That you Mr. unemployed vegan?
      - Wystri Warrick on 29/05/2019 - 22:50
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: That you Homer?
        Another hard day at the job huh?
        
        Danstar on 30/05/2019 - 07:04
        
        -2
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Better than being an unemployed vegan hipster protester who's just a drain on society.
        
        And since you love posting some links; heres some for you too
        
        https://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/11763272/How-Arctic-ice-…
        
        https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/antarctic-sea-ice-reach…
        
        But you won't see these ones advertised as much, as it doesn't suit your 'climate agenda'
        
        Wystri Warrick on 30/05/2019 - 18:00
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: I'm an employed omnivore, shocking!
        
        As is shown in the graphs (in the link below) the global temperatures are rising.
        Oh yes the graph line does go down but if we actually take a real look (not cherry picking) at the graph the global temperatures are going up!!!
        However if one focuses on a 'short specific period of time', or even worse in a 'specific location' of the world too, the data is altered!
        https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/world-of-change/DecadalTem…
        
        The fact is the world is very large, as the climate changes it is normal to see different things happening in different places and at different points of time!
        We need to look at the whole world and over a long period of time to see what is actually happening!
        
        Listening to the science, the data, the United Nations and global leaders is better than being a cherry picking bogan "who's just a drain on society", who only listens to the fossil fuel corporations, their lobbyist and their politicians who receive generous donations.
        
        Danstar on 30/05/2019 - 20:35
        
        -3
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Long
        Period ? Is 100 years long in your mind ?
        
        Data cannot
        Be judged on 100 years of “data” and be claimed as fact.
        
        Like
        I’ve always said, earth has been around for millions of years. Humans for thousands. Our minds can not comprehend that amount of time. That’s why when weather hits a high or extreme low. It’s automatically engrained now to think it’s relatwd to “climate change “
        
        Wystri Warrick on 30/05/2019 - 21:44
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: Seriously? seriously?
        The late 70s is what you call "But you won't see these ones advertised as much, as it doesn't suit your 'climate agenda'" seriously?
        
        You selectively cherry pick a specific "exclusive little location and time", the Antarctic ice that has data only from the late 70s, the ice increased in 2013-2014 and you call it "But you won't see these ones advertised as much, as it doesn't suit your 'climate agenda'" seriously?
        I post data that isn't restricted to a "specific location", covers a far "greater period of time" and you say "Data cannot
        Be judged on 100 years of “data” and be claimed as fact."
        But you posted data from the late 70s and isolated to a specific location and say "But you won't see these ones advertised as much, as it doesn't suit your 'climate agenda'"
        My dear, dear boy what have you been smoking?
        
        Well you'd like to know carbon and temperature levels.
        Hers a graph of 400,000 years of temperatures and carbon!
        Notice the link between carbon and temperature levels?
        
        Air bubbles in Antarctic ice are time capsules
        Ice at the South Pole contains air bubbles that are up to 800 000 years old.
        The air bubbles in Antarctic ice can be hundreds of thousands of years old.
        Snow traps air bubbles when it falls and is compressed to form ice. Scientists have drilled 3200 metres into the ice to sample air from ancient times. They’ve tested the air in the bubbles to see how much of each gas (eg oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen) it contains. Carbon dioxide levels have gone up and down in cycles of about 100 000 years. The temperatures and carbon dioxide concentrations shown in the graph occurred at Vostok in Antarctica during the last 400 000 years. It seems that when carbon dioxide levels are high, the temperature goes up too.
        
        [Deactivated] on 30/05/2019 - 22:01
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: What do those scientists believe is the trigger of the Laschamp event?
        
        Danstar on 31/05/2019 - 08:51
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Honestly. I didn’t read your post. It’s too long.
        
        We have different opinions based on what we read and hear. Let’s leave it at that. Have a lovely day :)
        
        Wystri Warrick on 31/05/2019 - 09:32
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: Haha ok. You have a lovely day too Danstar. Cheers 🍺 :).
        
        [Deactivated] on 31/05/2019 - 11:58
        
        @Wystri Warrick: I'm still interested in how your climate scientists predict climate without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals. The last major ice age coincided with one.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 31/05/2019 - 23:50
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        "I'm still interested in how your climate scientists…"
        
        Some people actually work for a living!
        
        Earth's magnetic poles are constantly changing location relative to earth's geographic poles.
        To say that ”without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals” is false, they don't just suddenly reverse, there is no timing, it’s random and the magnetic poles are constantly moving all the time, even right now as we speak!
        In 2009 it was moving from the Canadian Arctic territorial claim towards Russia between 55 and 60 kilometres per year!
        the Laschamp event occurred 41,000 years ago during the last glacial period. That reversal lasted only about 440 years with the actual change of polarity lasting around 250 years.
        The last glacial period was the most recent glacial period within the Quaternary Ice Age, occurring in the Pleistocene epoch, which began about 110,000 years ago and ended about 15,000 years ago.
        ”without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals” where's the trigger? where's the timing? the last major ice age began about 70 thousand years before the Laschamp event!
        As you can clearly see the correlation between carbon and temperatures in the graph, in this link, you can also clearly see on the graph where the Laschamp event took place, temperatures continued on their downward trend!
        Look at the temperatures and carbon, as they go up and down, see the correlation, where's the rest of the Geomagnetic reversals?
        Geomagnetic reversals can't correlate, because they are random.
        Geomagnetic reversals don't increase global temperatures.
        Geomagnetic reversals have always been around and they do not explain the rapid change in global climate, the objective science says the rapid change in global climate is caused by the use of fossil fuels.
        
        Oh and they aren't my scientists, I don't own them, they are independent scientist and publish factual “objective scientific” data.
        Unlike the scientists who's funding is from the fossil fuel corporations and is supported by the likes of News Corp, Fox News and the politicians that receive generous donations from fossil fuel corporations.
        
        I'm interested in how “your scientist” explain climate change:
        https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/
        https://maas.museum/how-do-scientists-measure-climate-change…
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/06/2019 - 00:27
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: You struggle(I'm being kind) with plurals and don't know the difference between "whose" and "who's". I think someone who can understand the vast complexity of the Earth could deal with grammar a little more elegantly. It's abundantly clear you don't understand geologic time scale or geomagnetic reversals and simply attempted a wikiscramble. The position of the magnetic poles with respect to the sun is very important to solar wind absorption. You have admitted that climate scientists predict future climate and temperatures having ZERO idea about the future polarity of the Earth, the major mechanism that protects the Earth from Solar wind/radiation.
        
        Wystri Warwick:
        
        "they don't just suddenly reverse"
        
        Nature Magazine:
        
        "The most recent version of the model came out in 2015 and was supposed to last until 2020 — but the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now. “The error is increasing all the time,” says Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information."
        
        "By early 2018, the World Magnetic Model was in trouble. Researchers from NOAA and the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh had been doing their annual check of how well the model was capturing all the variations in Earth’s magnetic field. They realized that it was so inaccurate that it was about to exceed the acceptable limit for navigational errors."
        
        "In the meantime, scientists are working to understand why the magnetic field is changing so dramatically."
        
        bxpressiv on 01/06/2019 - 01:10
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: This is all beyond me…..so turn off our lights to stop CO2 and get same crazy magnets to stop the poles reversing? Got it! Humans are in control of all this.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 01/06/2019 - 15:09
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: On the bus coming home from work, keyboard swiping obviously doesn't help.
        Like I said some people work for a living!
        
        Wystri Warwick:
        "they don't just suddenly reverse"
        Nature Magazine:
        "The most recent version of the model came out in 2015 and was supposed to last until 2020 — but the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now. “The error is increasing all the time,” says Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information."
        "By early 2018, the World Magnetic Model was in trouble. Researchers from NOAA and the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh had been doing their annual check of how well the model was capturing all the variations in Earth’s magnetic field. They realized that it was so inaccurate that it was about to exceed the acceptable limit for navigational errors."
        "In the meantime, scientists are working to understand why the magnetic field is changing so dramatically."
        
        Do you even know what geomagnetic reversal is?
        Since you are using geomagnetic reversal and geomagnetic movement interchangeably, you obviously do not know what geomagnetic reversal is, so I'll tell you, A geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged
        You obviously have ZERO idea of what you're talking about!
        
        Seriously? You just contradicted your earlier post. You quoted nature magazine:
        
        ”the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now.”
        
        Seriously what happened to your ”without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals”.
        So according to your nature magazine quote, the geomagnetic pole is now random, the models can't predict it? Also where did I say that models can predict geomagnetic pole movement?
        Your whole quote from nature magazine only confirms what i said.
        Wystri Warrick:
        
        the magnetic poles are constantly moving all the time, even right now as we speak!
        
        If you're going to argue against the global scientific community that climate change isn't caused by the burning of fossil fuels, learn what geomagnetic reversals are and try not to contradict yourself!
        
        You have admitted that climate scientists predict future climate and temperatures having ZERO idea about the future polarity of the Earth, the major mechanism that protects the Earth from Solar wind/radiation.
        
        Where did I say that and where did I say I'm representing the global scientific community?
        
        I'm still interested in how your climate scientists predict climate without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals. The last major ice age coincided with one.
        
        I'm very interested for you to explain to me how geomagnetic reversals tie in with the cause of climate change and not fossil fuels?
        I'm sure the global scientific community and David Attenborough are dying to know too.
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/06/2019 - 01:22
        
        @Wystri Warrick: If, for a change, you like actual science, here is some. The deepest hole humans have dug into the Earth is about 12.25km deep. The mantle varies in temperature from about 200°C to 4000°C. The average radius of the Earth is 6371km. There's a ball with a radius of considerably more than 6000km of molten hot magma and super hot pressurised solidifed core that we have never, ever entered and know exceptionally little about. 99% of the Earth that we have come nowhere close to exploring, is supremely hot and that we do not understand and predict very badlyand. When David Attenborough tells you how unknown and unexplored the depths of the oceans are, they are infinitely more known than the mantle and core of the Earth. Part of science is admitting when you have no blimmin idea. We don't. It's insulting and hubristic for you to pretend you have an understanding, and mastery to the point of science, of the utterly unexplored Earth mantle and crust.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 01/06/2019 - 15:29
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        If, for a change, you like actual science, here is some. The deepest hole humans have dug into the Earth is about 12.25km deep. The mantle varies in temperature from about 200°C to 4000°C. The average radius of the Earth is 6371km. There's a ball with a radius of considerably more than 6000km of molten hot magma and super hot pressurised solidifed core that we have never, ever entered and know exceptionally little about. 99% of the Earth that we have come nowhere close to exploring, is supremely hot and that we do not understand and predict very badlyand. When David Attenborough tells you how unknown and unexplored the depths of the oceans are, they are infinitely more known than the mantle and core of the Earth. Part of science is admitting when you have no blimmin idea. We don't. It's insulting and hubristic for you to pretend you have an understanding, and mastery to the point of science, of the utterly unexplored Earth mantle and crust.
        
        That's your best defence?
        Humanity knows exceptionally little about the earth, and we have come nowhere near to exploring 99% of the earth is your best defence?
        First I'm doing a “wikiscramble”, essentially coping and pasting. Then you say:
        
        pretend you have an understanding, and mastery to the point of science, of the utterly unexplored Earth mantle and crust.
        
        You just said I'm doing a “wikiscramble”, knowledge from Wikipedia, now I'm pretending to have a understanding, and mastery to the point of science, of the utterly unexplored Earth mantle and crust.”
        How could I possibly know the “unexplored earth mantle and crust”, if it's all from Wikipedia then that means it isn't ” unexplored”!
        Oh look, David Attenborough believes the science too, climate change is real and humanity has no “blimmin idea” 🤣
        Also Googling trivia on earth only shows that your intellect is average.
        
        A link on the correlation between global temperatures and carbon over the past 800 thousand years. Can you see the correlation between carbon and temperatures?
        Here's a link explaining the causes of climate change and how humanity is driving it with its use of fossil fuels.
        It's insulting and hubristic of you to believe that you have a greater understanding of the earth than the global scientific community.
        
        Seriously why the climate change denial?
        Arguing against the United Nations, the global scientific community and David Attenborough isn't only unscientific it’s a lost war!
        
        [Deactivated] on 01/06/2019 - 16:36
        
        -3
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Coping? I think you mean 'copying', intellect. You keep tripping over the very basics. Pick the toilet paper off your shoe before lecturing others. You keep fixating over historic carbon dioxide when the climate change debate is over man-made climate change. The atmosphere has contained 10 times the present level of carbon dioxide entirely unrelated to man. No system as complicated as the Earth has ever in the history of mankind been modelled accurately and it isn't about to magically start here. It's not science and never will be, hence the self conscious term 'scientific concensus' it is given.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 02/06/2019 - 19:09
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Coping? I think you mean 'copying', intellect. You keep tripping over the very basics. Pick the toilet paper off your shoe before lecturing others.
        
        Lol that's the best you've got! 🤣
        You can't debate anymore so you reduce yourself to nitpicking English and grammar! 🤣
        Your intellect:
        
        What do those scientists believe is the trigger of the Laschamp event
        
        .
        
        I'm still interested in how your climate scientists predict climate without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals. The last major ice age coincided with one.
        
        There is no trigger, they are random.
        Statistical properties of reversals
        Several studies have analyzed the statistical properties of reversals in the hope of learning something about their underlying mechanism. The discriminating power of statistical tests is limited by the small number of polarity intervals. Nevertheless, some general features are well established. In particular, the pattern of reversals is random. There is no correlation between the lengths of polarity intervals.[14] There is no preference for either normal or reversed polarity, and no statistical difference between the distributions of these polarities. This lack of bias is also a robust prediction of dynamo theory.[10]
        There is no rate of reversals, as they are statistically random. The randomness of the reversals is inconsistent with periodicity, but several authors have claimed to find periodicity.[15] However, these results are probably artifacts of an analysis using sliding windows to attempt to determine reversal rates.
        
        You don't even know what geomagnetic reversals are, you're confusing geomagnetic reversals with the magnetic north pole movements 🤣
        I reply to you:
        To say that ”without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals” is false, they don't just suddenly reverse, there is no timing, it’s random
        You then reply here quoting me saying “they don't just suddenly reverse” and post a quote from nature magazine that only backs up what I said here ”the magnetic poles are constantly moving all the time, even right now as we speak!”🤣. )
        You have ZERO idea what geomagnetic reversals ARE! 🤣
        A geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged
        My dear, dear boy what have you been smoking? (I'm being kind!)
        
        Furthermore geomagnetic reversals are not causing increased carbon and temperatures.
        If you truly “believe” they are the cause of the climate change we are facing SHOW us the scientific evidence and the geomagnetic reversal, not your own unscientific thoughts and opinions!
        
        You keep fixating over historic carbon dioxide when the climate change debate is over man-made climate change.
        
        Wrong, I'm not fixating on historic, I’m “fixating” on the scientific evidence that shows the correlation between carbon and temperatures at present time and, and the past (”Historic”) levels of carbon and, and temperatures!
        Can't you see the carbon line on the graph at present time, the temperatures and the correlation, we know you can see the ‘past carbon'!
        It's you who is fixating on the historic carbon and not seeing the rest of the whole graph!
        
        The atmosphere has contained 10 times the present level of carbon dioxide entirely unrelated to man.
        
        You got scientific evidence to back that up?
        I've showed you the most comprehensive scientific graph of carbon over the past 800 thousand years, that's based on real hard scientific data!
        
        It's not science and never will be, hence the self conscious term 'scientific concensus' it is given.
        
        Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy!
        
        If you really still believe your beliefs to be correct, you should take your pretentious hubristic self and contact all the global leaders, global scientific community, the United Nations, David Attenborough and TELL THEM!
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 02/06/2019 - 12:07
        
        @[Deactivated]: Why focus on a single coincidence and yet deny the correlation between CO2 and climate?
        You might as well argue that a dinosaur farted and therefore climate science is wrong.
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/06/2019 - 12:59
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: Where is the denial? Quote it out. Thanks. What I have denied is the accuracy of the models and that you can generate precise and accurate figures from a complex system such as the Earth with many and varied sources of heat. Never in the history of mankind have models as complex as the Earth been modelled accurately, but you believe suddenly they are correct.
        
        If you had studied science, you'd probably remember the terms prevalent theory and dominant theory. Climate science skipped that stage because people don't change their behaviour due to just a theory so it was sexed up to consensus science at just the early theory stage. Darwin was writing about evolution 150 years ago and even that is termed a theory but you think climate change just waltzes straight into established science status in a few years? Climate change advocates think they can prostitute science simply because they think the goal is urgent or noble. They have tried to rush and bluff the scientific process to change people's behaviour. Who the heck averages predictions and calls that a science? When have scientific predictions ever been so far from reality? The models were clearly wrong. The origin and age of water on the Earth is not concrete established science itself, so pretending to understand CO2 levels throughout the history of Earth is equally not a science. Water. Dunno. Geomagnetism. Dunno. CO2. Nailed it. Sure. True sciences don't have this problem as they aren't hurriedly introduced to the public during their infancy, teething problems present, by shonks like Tim Flannery saying there won't be Artic ice in the now distant past.
        
        Please nominate the second most complex system modelled scientifically accurately by mankind, behind 80 years of Earth's sea levels and climate. Will be fun reading.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 02/06/2019 - 19:37
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        If you had studied science, you'd probably remember the terms prevalent theory and dominant theory.
        
        You certainly haven't, you don't even know what geomagnetic reversal is 🤣, yet you keep on bringing it up and showing absolutely no scientific evidence on geomagnetic reversal causing an increase in carbon and temperatures,
        I provide a scientific evidence on the correlation between carbon and temperatures over the past 800 thousand years, you can clearly see where the Laschamp event took place on the graph 40 thousand years ago, the temperatures continued on their downward trend, not up as we are experiencing NOW!
        
        Climate science skipped that stage because people don't change their behaviour due to just a theory so it was sexed up to consensus science at just the early theory stage.
        
        Nonsense, where's your evidence, do you not know anything about science? if you do I'm sure the United Nations and the GLOBAL scientific community would love to hear you, oh and David Attenborough!
        
        Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy!
        
        Darwin was writing about evolution 150 years ago and even that is termed a theory but you think climate change just waltzes straight into established science status in a few years? Climate change advocates think they can prostitute science simply because they think the goal is urgent or noble. They have tried to rush and bluff the scientific process to change people's behaviour.
        
        Nonsense, that's your own beliefs, opinions and thoughts, they do not stand up the real objective science.
        
        When Table of Elements was proposed, many elements were yet to be discovered. Using the theory behind the Periodic Table, the Russian chemist Dmitri Mendeleev was able to predict the properties of germanium, gallium and scandium, despite the fact they hadn’t been discovered.
        
        Who the heck averages predictions and calls that a science? When have scientific predictions ever been so far from reality? The models were clearly wrong.
        
        Nonsense, more personal opinions and thoughts, where’s your scientific evidence to backup your beliefs, opinions and thoughts.
        
        The origin and age of water on the Earth is not concrete established science itself, so pretending to understand CO2 levels throughout the history of Earth is equally not a science. Water. Dunno. Geomagnetism. Dunno. CO2. Nailed it. Sure. True sciences don't have this problem as they aren't hurriedly introduced to the public during their infancy, teething problems present, by shonks like Tim Flannery saying there won't be Artic ice in the now distant past.
        
        Nonsense, that's more of your own beliefs, opinions and thoughts.
        You keep on posting your own beliefs, opinions and thoughts, no scientific evidence whatsoever!
        
        so pretending to understand CO2 levels throughout the history of Earth is equally not a science. Water. Dunno. Geomagnetism. Dunno. CO2. Nailed it.
        
        Which one is it? Make up your mind!
        
        Please nominate the second most complex system modelled scientifically accurately by mankind, behind 80 years of Earth's sea levels and climate. Will be fun reading.
        
        Really? Do you not understand science at all?
        Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy!
        If humanity listened to you, where would we be? we’d have given up on every scientific theory and model developed, we'd be living in the dark ages!
        
        Gases in the atmosphere, such as carbon dioxide, trap heat just like the glass roof of a greenhouse. These heat-trapping gases are called greenhouse gases.
        During the day, the Sun shines through the atmosphere. Earth's surface warms up in the sunlight. At night, Earth's surface cools, releasing heat back into the air. But some of the heat is trapped by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. That's what keeps our Earth a warm and cozy 58 degrees Fahrenheit (14 degrees Celsius), on average.
        Human activities are changing Earth's natural greenhouse effect. Burning fossil fuels like coal and oil puts more carbon dioxide into our atmosphere.
        NASA has observed increases in the amount of carbon dioxide and some other greenhouse gases in our atmosphere. Too much of these greenhouse gases can cause Earth's atmosphere to trap more and more heat. This causes Earth to warm up.
        
        NASA releases eye-popping view of carbon dioxide
        
        Carbon Dioxide
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/06/2019 - 20:43
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Find a smoothstep polynomial of degree 31 or above. You like objective science. It's billions of times simpler than guessing the climate in 2100 correctly. I'm sure you'll ace it!
        
        Wystri Warrick on 02/06/2019 - 21:28
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Giving up the debate? :)
        
        Neg away all you like, still doesn't make you right and the global scientific community, United nations wrong, oh and David Attenborough too!
        
        Frugal Rock
        Lol you really do watch News Corp, you sound like Andrew Bolt🤣
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/06/2019 - 21:30
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: I knew you weren't smart enough. It's simple but takes more than google. :p
        
        Wystri Warrick on 02/06/2019 - 21:36
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Have no interest.
        I already know you got it from Google, you don't even know what geomagnetic reversal is!!!.
        You achieved two things in that post, embarrass yourself and post a nature quote proving that I'm right!!!
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/06/2019 - 21:38
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: If you don't believe it was lost due to solar wind, where did the majority of the Martian atmosphere go? (I'd better wait for your frenzied google search time/staircase wit sans wit.)
        
        Wystri Warrick on 02/06/2019 - 22:03
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Lost, if I don't believe what was lost?
        Where did I say I do not believe?
        I pointed out that you do not know what what a geomagnetic reversal is, how you think a geomagnetic reversal is the moving of the magnetic north pole and how you proved my point!
        Looks like you are now doing some desperate Googling on solar winds :P.
        
        Edit: hurry up if you want my answer today, I'm busy.
        You really are trying hard!
        
        [Deactivated] on 02/06/2019 - 23:20
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Marla, you're such a science tourist. Add atmospheric escape to your lengthy todo list. Please. Right after mathematics.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 17:58
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: Fight club? Lol really that's so cliche!
        
        The topic is climate change, why are you arguing my knowledge?
        Why the defensiveness?
        Why are you hiding?
        What is about this that makes you try so hard?
        Do you really believe that you are the first to ask the question does the earths magnetic field affect climate change?
        Here’s your answer on the magnetic field effect on climate change, Possible relationship to climate
        There is evidence that geomagnetic excursions may be associated with episodes of rapid short-term climatic cooling during periods of continental glaciation (ice ages).[5]
        Recent analysis of the geomagnetic reversal frequency, oxygen isotope record, and tectonic plate subduction rate, which are indicators of the changes in the heat flux at the core mantle boundary, climate and plate tectonic activity, shows that all these changes indicate similar rhythms on million years’ timescale in the Cenozoic Era occurring with the common fundamental periodicity of ∼13 Myr during most of the time.[6]
        No global warming, only “There is evidence that geomagnetic excursions may be associated with episodes of rapid short-term climatic cooling during periods of continental glaciation”
        
        You talk about objective science, yet you offer no scientific evidence that the earths magnetic field is the cause of the increase of global carbon, global temperatures. You just claim “we don’t know”. You dismiss the evidence from the global scientific community that points towards carbon being the cause of rising global temperatures, climate change.
        You claim that the earths magnetic field is the cause of rising global temperatures, climate change, yet you offer up no evidence that points towards this, only “we don’t know”.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:07
        
        @Wystri Warrick: I'm 73.48% convinced you are a chatbot that just googles every word in a comment and dumps the hits.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 20:14
        
        @[Deactivated]: Lol that's you best defence! 😂
        
        Your posts are getting smaller and smaller, you aren't debating!
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:30
        
        @Wystri Warrick: It's not a debate. You are selling kool-aid that I'm not drinking.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 20:35
        
        @[Deactivated]: Oh yeah sure, I'm selling kool-aid (science) and you're not drinking (don't understand)!
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:41
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Did you learn that at Heaven's Gate summer camp?
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 03/06/2019 - 17:47
        
        +2
        
        @[Deactivated]: With respect, your argument isn't self consistent.
        You say you don't deny a correlation between CO2 and climate, but then go on to say
        “…so pretending to understand CO2 levels… ", etc.
        So you are now essentially arguing with yourself.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 19:25
        
        -3
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: Where was your quote that I did deny it?
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 03/06/2019 - 19:30
        
        @[Deactivated]: OMG.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 19:31
        
        -1
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: Couldn't, huh? There's a difference between believing there may be a connection and pretending to know the value in year 2100. That is entirely lost on you. CO2 levels were 10 times present levels during the Cambrian period, unrelated to humans, with mean temperature of 21C, considerably hotter than now.
        
        How many climate scientists are CO2 auditing the illegal rainforest clearing in Brazil and Indonesia and why don't they report the illegal activity to authorities, or is that left to criminal logging gangs to document their CO2 output? You must know. Don't be shy. How much CO2 was released by Australian reduction burning in 2018 and what was the ratio of climate science auditors to acres of forest burnt?
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 03/06/2019 - 20:03
        
        @[Deactivated]: Why mount an extensive argument that attempts to relegate the CO2/Climate correlation to “not a science“ ← that's another quote, btw.
        That's denial. It's not scientific scepticism.
        If you feel there's a better explanation then cite data with a stronger correlation.
        
        How is illegal logging relevant?
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:06
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: OMG. "Illegal logging in nine forest producer countries is estimated to have released 190 million tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere in 2013 (Chatham House, 2015)." "Indonesian forest fires on track to emit more CO2 than UK"
        
        Get your googlebot friend to find you some links.
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 03/06/2019 - 20:25
        
        @[Deactivated]: Thanks for that info. I'll leave you to continue arguing with yourself about the veracity of the CO2/climate correlation.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:27
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: Thanks. At least it will now be an educated argument.
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 03/06/2019 - 20:29
        
        @[Deactivated]: I doubt it.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:31
        
        -2
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: I was 110% sure you weren't really leaving, Captain Consistency.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 20:33
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: You argue with yourself? Lol 😂
        
        You still haven't answered my past few comments!
        Googling are you?
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 20:35
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Your footnotes were out of sequence.
        
        Actually, I understand childhood psychology and how giving attention to recklessmonkeys would grind your gears, because slacktivists are also predictable attention seekers.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 21:40
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Actually, I understand childhood psychology and how giving attention to recklessmonkeys would grind your gears, because slacktivists are also predictable attention seekers.
        
        Is that as far as your intellect goes? 😂
        
        You haven't been answering my comments since I explained to you what geomagnetic reversals are.
        
        01/06/2019 - 14:39
        I asked you to explain to me how geomagnetic reversals are the cause of climate change and not fossil fuels.
        
        01/06/2019 - 14:59
        From the business insider link, you haven't given a scientific answer on the correlation between carbon and temperatures over the past 800 thousand years.
        From the NASA link, you haven't provided a counter argument to the scientific evidence on climate change on NASA’s site.
        
        02/06/2019 - 18:39
        I asked you to show us evidence on geomagnetic reversals causing the climate change we are facing
        If you truly “believe” they are the cause of the climate change we are facing SHOW us the scientific evidence and the geomagnetic reversal, not your own unscientific thoughts and opinions!
        
        02/06/2019 - 19:07
        I provided a link from NASA ‘easily’ explaining how the greenhouse effect works, to show you how carbon has and is increasing global temperatures, you won't accept that carbon causes global warming.
        You're always talking about models, well I provided a link to a video of one, what evidence do you have to prove it wrong?
        
        Also you haven't provided any scientific evidence to prove the global scientific community, the United nations and global leaders wrong.
        
        Since I explained it to you what geomagnetic reversals are you’ve only been providing pointless comments.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 21:45
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Intellect trigger warning: "Since I explained it to you what geomagnetic reversals are you’ve only been providing pointless comments."
        
        Can you please translate that into English. I can't speak Bogan, or is that a Jeff Fenech quote from Wikipedia?.
        
        All you have done is put keywords into google and wikipedia and copy and paste links. You don't even understand basic convection. You have no interest or ability in maths. You repeatedly cite wikipedia as a scientific source, famous for "The first law of thermodynamics is do not talk about thermodynamics".
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 22:09
        
        +1
        
        @[Deactivated]: You quote me here saying "they don't just suddenly reverse" and post a quote from nature magazine on the movements of the north magnetic pole.
        
        I reply posting a Wikipedia link explaining to you what geomagnetic reversals are A geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged
        
        All you have done is put keywords into google and wikipedia and copy and paste links. You don't even understand basic convection. You have no interest or ability in maths. You repeatedly cite wikipedia as a scientific source, famous for "The first law of thermodynamics is do not talk about thermodynamics
        
        Oh I'm certainly no expert, the global scientific community is, but I certainly know enough to prove your knowledge on geomagnetic reversals wrong, and explain to you what geomagnetic reversals! 🤣
        
        Can you try and keep on topic.
        We're discussing the climate change we are facing, I'm still waiting for you to provide scientific evidence that the global scientific community, United Nations and global leaders are all wrong.
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 22:12
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: "Oh I'm certainly no expert, the global scientific community is, but I certainly know enough to prove your knowledge on geomagnetic reversals wrong, and explain to you what geomagnetic reversals! 🤣"
        
        Do you read what you write? Does it look correct to you? No offence, but I won't be taking suggestions from a poster child for remedial English and veggie Maths.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 22:20
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Wystri Warwick:
        
        "they don't just suddenly reverse"
        
        Nature Magazine:
        
        "The most recent version of the model came out in 2015 and was supposed to last until 2020 — but the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now. “The error is increasing all the time,” says Arnaud Chulliat, a geomagnetist at the University of Colorado Boulder and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA’s) National Centers for Environmental Information."
        
        "By early 2018, the World Magnetic Model was in trouble. Researchers from NOAA and the British Geological Survey in Edinburgh had been doing their annual check of how well the model was capturing all the variations in Earth’s magnetic field. They realized that it was so inaccurate that it was about to exceed the acceptable limit for navigational errors."
        
        "In the meantime, scientists are working to understand why the magnetic field is changing so dramatically."
        
        My reply:
        
        Do you even know what geomagnetic reversal is?
        Since you are using geomagnetic reversal and geomagnetic movement interchangeably, you obviously do not know what geomagnetic reversal is, so I'll tell you, A geomagnetic reversal is a change in a planet's magnetic field such that the positions of magnetic north and magnetic south are interchanged(en.m.wikipedia.org)
        You obviously have ZERO idea of what you're talking about!
        
        Seriously? You just contradicted your earlier post. You quoted nature magazine:
        
        ”the magnetic field is changing so rapidly that researchers have to fix the model now.”
        
        Seriously what happened to your ”without understanding the trigger or timing of geomagnetic reversals”.
        So according to your nature magazine quote, the geomagnetic pole is now random, the models can't predict it? Also where did I say that models can predict geomagnetic pole movement?
        Your whole quote from nature magazine only confirms what i said.
        
        What have you been smoking! 🤣
        
        Edit:
        How do you know what I'm saying, how do you understand bogan, are you a bogan too? 🤣
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 22:29
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: It's telling that you don't even know the difference between the scientific standards of Nature Magazine and Wikipedia. Speaks volumes.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 03/06/2019 - 22:38
        
        @[Deactivated]: Can't defend your understanding of geomagnetic reversals is wrong, so your attacking the legitimacy of the Wikipedia articles. Ok. I'm not saying 100% of every Wikipedia article is correct, but seriously prove to me that the articles I linked to are wrong, show me your "real scientific evidence"! 🤣
        
        [Deactivated] on 03/06/2019 - 22:40
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: "so your attacking"
        
        That would be "you're", champ. If it's any consolation, many uneducated people make the same mistake. Are you a grammar denier?
        
        How do climate scientists predict Russia's oil and gas production and carbon output, given Putin/Gazprom and Russia will each benefit handsomely from rising global temperature? If they are so accurate, why haven't those scientists made trillions on oil and gas futures? Must be professional ethics! What are the scientifically reliable OPEC output forecasts all the way until 2100? How many climate scientists predicted Australia's climate policy for the next 3 years, as they must have known the election result in their crystal ball. Must be great being able to predict everything perfectly, or do they think all the mistakes will average themselves out. I am 83% confident of winning lotto next week. I averaged my usual numbers with a guy called lucky Phil to improve our prediction accuracy. I hope the 37.5 Powerball comes home!
        
        Wystri Warrick on 04/06/2019 - 19:49
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        How do climate scientists predict Russia's oil and gas production and carbon output, given Putin/Gazprom and Russia will each benefit handsomely from rising global temperature? If they are so accurate, why haven't those scientists made trillions on oil and gas futures? Must be professional ethics!
        
        Yes it does look that way (the professional ethics), though I wouldn't be surprised if there were some looking to make an easy buck.
        
        What are the scientifically reliable OPEC output forecasts all the way until 2100?
        
        I personally haven't looked at OPEC predictions, but based on past trends and if we don’t curb our consumption, IMO I’d say it's a pretty safe bet that demand will increase.
        
        How many climate scientists predicted Australia's climate policy for the next 3 years, as they must have known the election result in their crystal ball. Must be great being able to predict everything perfectly, or do they think all the mistakes will average themselves out.
        
        Predict a policy? I'm not sure, I don't have a way to ask all of them.
        Crystal ball?
        
        I am 83% confident of winning lotto next week. I averaged my usual numbers with a guy called lucky Phil to improve our prediction accuracy. I hope the 37.5 Powerball comes home!
        
        I don't believe your calculations for averages will work out, do you know the statistical odds of winning?
        
        You don't understand geomagnetic reversals, you believed they are the magnetic north pole moving and I've shown you what they really are.
        I showed you that geomagnetic reversals aren't responsible for the climate change we are facing, in fact the evidence points towards “There is evidence that geomagnetic excursions may be associated with episodes of rapid short-term climatic cooling during periods of continental glaciation (ice ages”.
        
        You've been trolling all over this whole post, and you have been trolling me since Friday.
        I have debated with you, you have provided to evidence to support your views, I have provided evidence to support my views, yet you continue to troll me.
        I have said my piece and I now no longer with to be led on by a troll.
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/06/2019 - 00:29
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: From CSIRO:
        
        "It should be noted that factors such as unforeseeable changes to the atmospheric composition and variability from influences such as specific El Niño and La Niña events mean that we can never make a forecast of the exact time series of Australian temperature, and that the projections will differ from observations over short to medium periods."
        
        I love that. If they didn't foresee something, it was unforeseeable. Do you know what you call projections differing from observations over the short and medium term? It's not science :). Oh look, it's too complicated.
        
        Call me back in the long term, but you might have to unfreeze me from cryogenic slumber first. :p Actually if you understand maths you'd know that the forces at play are not linear in nature, yet the CSIRO projection is linear. They are extrapolating the graph, not modelling the Earth.
        
        Now let me get back to the BBC story today entitled: "Loch Ness monster 'might be real' after scientists make 'surprising' discovery". Not even kidding.
        
        Danstar on 04/06/2019 - 06:51
        
        -2
        
        @[Deactivated]: Let me ask all you 'pro climate change' people; what are you doing to help it?
        
        I'm assuming you're all still driving your cars, using electricity the same way everyone else is in their homes, etc.
        
        If you truly believed these theories, you would do more. You do nothing more than agree with an agenda to make yourself feel better.
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/06/2019 - 09:23
        
        @Danstar: You clearly haven't read the comments, TBH, and your assumptions are lazy, unresearched and wrong. Wystri Warrick is the preachy do-nothing slacktivist. They can tell you how they are saving the world.
        
        Danstar on 04/06/2019 - 09:46
        
        @[Deactivated]: I'm on your side, must've just clicked 'reply' on your last comment.
        
        I 100% agree with what you've been saying
        
        Wystri Warrick on 04/06/2019 - 19:54
        
        -1
        
        @Danstar:
        
        Let me ask all you 'pro climate change' people; what are you doing to help it?
        I'm assuming you're all still driving your cars, using electricity the same way everyone else is in their homes, etc.
        If you truly believed these theories, you would do more. You do nothing more than agree with an agenda to make yourself feel better.
        
        I recycle, I have insulation installed, I never use a heater (I just wear thermals and put on an extra jumper), I never use an air conditioner (I use fans), all my lights are LEDs, I buy energy efficient appliances, I never leave appliances unnecessarily running, I walk to work (about 35min, I'm lucky :), if it's too far to walk to somewhere I take the bus.
        Depending on the kind of electrical appliance I'll try to fix it or have it repaired, I try make things last as long as possible.
        I also don't take part in needless consumerism, I'm on Ozbargain because I'm a tight arse who likes to save my money.
        
        Cheers Danstar 🍺.
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 04/06/2019 - 22:27
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: Science doesn't really care about what you or I feel. It's about trying to understand what's going on.
        When a reasonable level of evidence supports theory, it becomes a moral or political issue.
        Is it possible to build an A-bomb?
        Can we vaccinate against polio or the flu?
        Can we convert sunlight into electricity?
        
        You're wrong about your assumptions, but science doesn't care about that either.
        
        If your doctor told you to stop smoking, would you accuse him of having an agenda?
        
        Danstar on 05/06/2019 - 05:11
        
        -1
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: What are my assumptions ?
        That we all live in the same way or there Abouts.
        
        Unless you preachers live in a totally different way to the norm, you really don’t have a right to tell me or anyone else that humans are destroying the world. When in theory, you’re part of the problem.
        
        If the doctor smoked and told me to quit smoking I would question that.
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 05/06/2019 - 12:52
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: A hypocritical doctor doesn't invalidate the science.
        Have you considered that the mining billionaires might be the ones with an agenda?
        
        Nobody's asking you to change your behaviour anyway, or at least not me.
        This is about how energy is generated , not consumed.
        
        Danstar on 05/06/2019 - 13:00
        
        -1
        
        @RecklessMonkeys: a doctors science is based on factual evidence and proof. Not assumptions. Or what might happen. Or possible trends.
        
        Climate change scientist, the media and pro climate change people claim these possibilities as fact and the ignorant agree blindly
        
        RecklessMonkeys on 05/06/2019 - 13:20
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: Medical science relies upon statistics too.
        How do you think they test the efficacy of a new drug?
        
        I'd agree with you that we still need to be cautious about statistics, regardless of the context.
        When it comes down to it though, if we don't use statistics, how else can we draw a conclusion?
        
        JohnHowardsEyebrows on 05/06/2019 - 08:10
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: If you don't understand the concept of dealing with big, systemic problems (which involve large groups of people behaving according to the rules and norms of the society), you really shouldn't be venturing opinions on this. Your attitude is nihilism without any of the intellectual underpinning.
        
        Danstar on 05/06/2019 - 08:15
        
        @JohnHowardsEyebrows: And what's your understanding of it? Other then what the media and certain political parties drive?
        
        Their's only one understanding of everything in this world. Money.
        
        JohnHowardsEyebrows on 05/06/2019 - 13:07
        
        +1
        
        @Danstar: The principal reason we're not still living in medieval slums is science, ie people whose job it is is to seek the truth of how the world works.
        
        If nearly all of them agree on the model, and almost none of them are making any money out of it, you'd have to question the intelligence or motive of anybody who sided with the people who stand to lose a lot of money from action being taken, ie fossil fuel vested interests, and the shills/sell outs who do their 'science' for them.
        
        Danstar on 05/06/2019 - 13:16
        
        @JohnHowardsEyebrows: I agree with you to an extent.
        
        Their's always motives behind everything. You can't 100% confirm what scientists are being paid (and nor can I).
        
        We all have different beliefs; I believe the Earth is capable of handling anything we can throw at it. In saying that, it doesn't mean I trash the environment. I do what the majority of people do in regards to recycling, saving power, etc.
        
        Ps. I like the fact how we can actually have a decent conversation without needing to insult or belittle each other :)
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/06/2019 - 13:43
        
        -2
        
        @JohnHowardsEyebrows: Almost none are making any money out of it? Source please. Tim Flannery was on $300K pro rate when he wrongly predicted no arctic ice. If you recall, IT salaries went up considerably around the Y2K bug hysteria estimated to have cost US$850 billion by Cap Gemini. A non-alarmist climate scientist has just talked themself out of a job. The number of private jets landing in Davos for the climate summit isn't really volunteer territory. Green building certification fees are ~$50,000. The 2018 Nobel prize won by William Nordhaus included a million bucks and you think that isn't any money? You also say 'the model' as though there is one, quite far from the truth.
        
        Wystri Warrick on 04/06/2019 - 19:46
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        From CSIRO:
        "It should be noted that factors such as unforeseeable changes to the atmospheric composition and variability from influences such as specific El Niño and La Niña events mean that we can never make a forecast of the exact time series of Australian temperature, and that the projections will differ from observations over short to medium periods."
        
        Hmm from the CSIRO too, looks interesting, I just wonder why you didn't include a link?
        I would have liked to read the full article, you know to get an understanding of it’s full context!
        
        Found it!:
        Climate change will continue in the decades ahead, superimposed on natural variability. Changes in the climate, particularly in weather and climate extremes, can have a very significant impact on our environment and wellbeing, including on ecosystems, agriculture and the built environment.
        Let's check out what key points the CSIRO makes!
        • Further increase in temperatures, with more extremely hot days and fewer extremely cool days.
        • Ongoing sea level rise.
        • Further warming and acidification of the oceans around Australia.
        • More frequent, extensive, intense and longer-lasting marine heatwaves, suggesting in turn more frequent and severe bleaching events on the Great Barrier Reef, and potentially the loss of many types of coral throughout the tropical reef systems of Australia and globally.
        • A decrease in cool-season rainfall across many regions of southern Australia, with more time spent in drought.
        • More intense heavy rainfall throughout Australia, particularly for short-duration extreme rainfall events.
        • An increase in the number of high fire weather danger days and a longer fire season for southern and eastern Australia.
        • Fewer tropical cyclones, but a greater proportion of high-intensity storms, with ongoing large variations from year to year.
        
        I'm curious, let's see what your CSIRO article says about climate models!
        It has now been almost 30 years since the first sets of climate model projections were published, providing the opportunity to compare those projections to observations of the actual climate. CSIRO (1992) produced projections of Australian temperature from 1990 to 2030 for Australia divided into three regions. Drawing the projections together as an Australian average, the linear trend in observed temperature has been tracking within this published range, and above ‘no change’. The fact that observations have been tracking within the envelope of projections builds confidence that climate models represent the key processes responsible for the warming trend and therefore these projections were a useful resource for future planning when they were released.
        
        Now we know the full context we can now fully understand your cherry picked quote!
        
        ”It should be noted that factors such as unforeseeable changes to the atmospheric composition and variability from influences such as specific El Niño and La Niña events mean that we can never make a forecast of the exact time series of Australian temperature, and that the projections will differ from observations over short to medium periods.”
        
        So due to unforeseeable abnormalities from influences such as geomagnetic reversal and ”atmospheric composition and variability from influences such as specific El Niño and La Niña events mean” climate models can be thrown off, as models are based on past data, past data can't predict future random unforeseeable abnormalities, armed with the past climate data and our scientific understanding of the earths climate (oh we also have a pretty good understanding of the universe too!) humanity is able to create quite accurate climate models/predictions!
        I think the CSIRO sums it up very well!
        Climate change will continue in the decades ahead, superimposed on natural variability. Changes in the climate, particularly in weather and climate extremes, can have a very significant impact on our environment and wellbeing, including on ecosystems, agriculture and the built environment.
        
        I love that. If they didn't foresee something, it was unforeseeable. Do you know what you call projections differing from observations over the short and medium term? It's not science :). Oh look, it's too complicated.
        Call me back in the long term, but you might have to unfreeze me from cryogenic slumber first. :p Actually if you understand maths you'd know that the forces at play are not linear in nature, yet the CSIRO projection is linear. They are extrapolating the graph, not modelling the Earth.
        Now let me get back to the BBC story today entitled: "Loch Ness monster 'might be real' after scientistsmake 'surprising' discovery". Not even kidding.
        
        You really are trolling.
        @futurePM sums it up perfectly here
        Group 1 -climate change deniers or coal lovers almost always cherry pick their "facts" and never bother to apply rational thought or solid research. I genuinely believe its because they are people of low intelligence and often work in jobs that aren't particularly intellectually taxing. They often lack empathy and this drives their short term self centered thinking. Worst thing is they're aren't able to recognise this about themselves so constantly engage with others who can resonate with their base level of logic, creating an eco chamber of false "facts", incorrect logic and pseudo scientific arguments. The net result in most circumstances is they see any push back against their narrative as a conspiracy or attack by people of lesser intelligence, easily dismissing them causing the echochamber to ring louder.
        
        Lol the whole article was in support of man made climate change, you cherry picked 🤣.
        
        [Deactivated] on 04/06/2019 - 22:19
        
        @Wystri Warrick: Wystri Warrick whilst questioning someone's intelligence: "you have provided to evidence to support your view".
        
        I think futurePM summed up that he can't even grasp three letter contractions: "I genuinely believe its because they are people of low intelligence".
        
        Cherry picked CSIRO: "The projections are based on up to 40 global climate models that were driven by four greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions scenarios."
        
        40 different models. 40. With observations differing from projections in the short and medium term, and the model changing before the long term. How many would there be if it was accurate? Hint: not 40. Hey Barry, can you go and make another 60 climate models, the current one's working great! Do you what Archimedes didn't do after he said Eureka? Invent 40 other displacement models, that's what. Why doesn't Broom Bridge have 40 different etchings of quaternions? Because the first one was right. That's why.
        
        Maybe you should wrap your head around the fact that Russia, the largest country in the world, couldn't care less about possible climate change. They have -40C winter temperatures. Will they care about having -38.5C winters instead? They'll be too busy partying with the billions they make from the thawed permafrost oilfields. Get one of your 40 CSIRO climate models and have a look at the benefits global temperature rise to Russia and Canada. Have a look at Putin's smirk while you volunteer to be held to ransom.
        
        Danstar on 05/06/2019 - 05:12
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: 30 years of data ….SMH
        
        [Deactivated] on 05/06/2019 - 06:26
        
        -1
        
        @Wystri Warrick: David Spratt, the research director for Breakthrough National Centre for Climate Restoration in Melbourne, and Ian Dunlop, chair of the Australian Greenhouse Office Experts Group on Emissions Trading, have just released their climate model that predicts by 2030 policy-makers will fail to act on evidence and prevent growing greenhouse gas emissions, and armageddon ensues.
        
        Now, with that as their projected model, are you going to accept that expert projection, or are you going to be the nay-saying skeptic and denier? Iff what they have produced is bona fide science and a reliable projection, with your documented history of just accepting science, you are duty bound to accept it. If it's not science, you've admitted climate models can be flawed, unscientific, ulterior motivated and wrong. Haha, I contend it's an alarmist, virtual, rhetorical, theatrical model designed to manipulate and motivate, but you don't have that option, because it's all hard, objective science, right. Observations will match projections. There can be no substantive policy action. You've painted yourself into a logical corner of artificial consensus. Are you going to accept their climate science, are you going to toe the 97% consensus line as future fact, accept their apocalyptic projection of policy inaction, or not?
        
        Fun fact: David Attenborough talks about reducing carbon emissions but is widely believed to be the most travelled person on planet Earth. It even says it's likely on his BBC bio and IMDB. For The Life of Birds documentary, he travelled 256,000 miles. He's a top 1% emitter!
- mickq on 29/05/2019 - 15:35
  
  They said the same thing 12 years ago, but it didn't happen so know they are saying another 12 years.Wake up
sash213 on 25/05/2019 - 18:30

+4

Will match the “Make ~~America~~ Australia Great ~~Again~~” caps.
consume on 25/05/2019 - 18:33

+5

Free shirt > environment
brendanm on 25/05/2019 - 18:45

Can someone make me a free #startnuclear t shirt?

This was posted 4 years 11 months ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Free #StartAdani T-Shirt and Stickers @ Adani Facts

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals