Heating up down under

[eclipsenow]

Yes, you should be concerned---we are all extinct 2 Years Ago !!

Several years ago, Greta posted a tweet which said humanity could become extinct if no action in fossil fuels was taken by 2023.

Please show me the tweet.

Please realise she was a young person on the ASD scale somewhere - and that this conversation is actually about the world's peer-reviewed climate scientists.

 

[Servus]

Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?


Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?



Oh do tell! What degree? What evidence? Where did you get this from? Who do you listen to? How do they know what they know? What about natural forcings? How did they eliminate those natural forcings? What forcings ARE working now, what ARE NOT - and how did they measure them?


Not true. I'll try again - see if it goes in this time.

There's this rumour that the term global warming was abandoned and climate change introduced because the warming isn't happening - or something. It's wrong on 3 counts:-

1. Global average temperatures are RIGHT ON TRACK (as even the Exxon climate change studies from the 1980's show!)

2. It was a REPUBLICAN that changed the language. George W Bush's speech writer was told to find a 'less scary' term than global warming. So he went with the more technical 'climate change' - as he later admitted in "The Denial Machine" by the CBC. Great doco!

3. Historically, it was always called climate science. (With more technical phrases for actual climate changes, many of which have their own unique names.)

First there was going to be another ice age. Then the polar ice caps were going to melt and create Water World. Now it's most any weather phenomenon or phenomenon related to weather is the end of the world because of oil and republicans.

 

[Servus]

Please show me the tweet.

Please realise she was a young person on the ASD scale somewhere - and that this conversation is actually about the world's peer-reviewed climate scientists.

She is/was the number one spokesperson for climate change panic. Which goes to show why it's not taken seriously.

 

[eclipsenow]

First there was going to be another ice age. Then the polar ice caps were going to melt and create Water World. Now it's most any weather phenomenon or phenomenon related to weather is the end of the world because of oil and republicans.

Ha ha ha! Without a SINGLE substantive response to the topics discussed above, you have just rotated into another subject yet again!

What's funnier - your rotating is accelerating!

I just asked you to provide evidence for your last assertion - that "But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be."

That's assertion 5. You could not be bothered - so you came back with assertion 6!


Fire 1! "Climate change has always happened - and it's exaggerated."
I ask for evidence, and I reply with evidence FOR climate change, and you just move on to....

Fire 2! "The bible says do not worry about the future!"
I reply with some quick biblical evidence for an environmental theory, and a link to the Undeceptions podcast that addresses that question in more detail, and point out about how even Calvin wrote about our duty to hand over our farmlands to the next generation in a better condition than we received them in... so you replied with...

Fire 3! "You're all hypocrites and do not believe it anyway."
Energy is a communal system with multi-trillions in investment that is GOING to take 25 years even if governments DO keep their Paris agreement targets!

Fire 4! "It's just all political - to get me to vote for the Democrats."
It's a tragedy that Republicans have abandoned science, as they might have contributed a unique set of solutions to the climate problem. The physics remains valid, despite the sad mixed motives behind MAGA's increasing hatred of science.

Fire 5! "But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be."
Based on what - exactly? Your expert opinion!??

Fire 6! "First there was going to be another ice age. Then the polar ice caps were going to melt and create Water World. Now it's most any weather phenomenon or phenomenon related to weather is the end of the world because of oil and republicans."

"The ice age cometh!?"​

Did the climate community AS A WHOLE predict another ice age? Nope. Only 10% of climate papers in the 1970's predicted global cooling. It was an honest error in calculating how much sulphur escaped coal stacks, and how high could this get? Would it behave the way large volcanic explosions do that inject sulphur up into the stratosphere - effectively putting sunglasses on the entire planet? ( Mt Pinatubo’s eruption cooled the planet by 0.5 degrees C for 2 years! )

The author of the paper recanted within a few years. Unfortunately the media hype about it is all sceptics remember. But they are not informed enough to know that the MAJORITY of climate papers from the 1970’s predicted warming!

Indeed, global warming was even in the popular culture.

The scientific evidence in the 1950's was less clear, but even then the alarm bells were starting to sound. It featured in the 1958 Bell Science Hour.

By the 1970's they were making global warming movies like Soylent Green. (Shortages of food, failed crops, etc.)
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Global cooling - Wikipedia
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Now that you know the TRUTH you know not to repeat that lie ever again, OK? You’re welcome.

You have not dealt with the following basic facts:-

Without dealing with any of the evidence I have shown above!
It's 200 years since Fourier calculated that the earth's atmosphere keeps the earth warmer than the moon.
It's 169 years since Eunice Foote and her glass jars isolated the actual specific greenhouse gases.
It's 127 years since Nobel Prize winner Arrhenius developed the world's first model of what doubling CO2 would do to the earth's temperature.
It's 40-ish years since Exxon's own climate models predicted today's temperatures.

BASIC PHYSICS
The long-wave energy deflection of various greenhouse gases can be tested in Fourier devices.
They work in any physics lab on the planet!
Indeed - there isn't a National Academy of Science on the entire PLANET that disagrees with climate science!
Do some math if we double various greenhouse gases - and the models from decades ago are being confirmed before our very eyes today in real world temperatures.

Also in seasons changing, glaciers retreating, sea-levels rising, some crops failing, the atmosphere carrying more water, etc etc etc.

 

[Servus]

Ha ha ha! Without a SINGLE substantive response to the topics discussed above, you have just rotated into another subject yet again!

What's funnier - your rotating is accelerating!

I just asked you to provide evidence for your last assertion - that "But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be."

That's assertion 5. You could not be bothered - so you came back with assertion 6!


Fire 1! "Climate change has always happened - and it's exaggerated."
I ask for evidence, and I reply with evidence FOR climate change, and you just move on to....

Fire 2! "The bible says do not worry about the future!"
I reply with some quick biblical evidence for an environmental theory, and a link to the Undeceptions podcast that addresses that question in more detail, and point out about how even Calvin wrote about our duty to hand over our farmlands to the next generation in a better condition than we received them in... so you replied with...

Fire 3! "You're all hypocrites and do not believe it anyway."
Energy is a communal system with multi-trillions in investment that is GOING to take 25 years even if governments DO keep their Paris agreement targets!

Fire 4! "It's just all political - to get me to vote for the Democrats."
It's a tragedy that Republicans have abandoned science, as they might have contributed a unique set of solutions to the climate problem. The physics remains valid, despite the sad mixed motives behind MAGA's increasing hatred of science.

Fire 5! "But it's not as dire of a situation as climate change activists make it out to be."
Based on what - exactly? Your expert opinion!??

Fire 6! "First there was going to be another ice age. Then the polar ice caps were going to melt and create Water World. Now it's most any weather phenomenon or phenomenon related to weather is the end of the world because of oil and republicans."

"The ice age cometh!?"​

Did the climate community AS A WHOLE predict another ice age? Nope. Only 10% of climate papers in the 1970's predicted global cooling. It was an honest error in calculating how much sulphur escaped coal stacks, and how high could this get? Would it behave the way large volcanic explosions do that inject sulphur up into the stratosphere - effectively putting sunglasses on the entire planet? ( Mt Pinatubo’s eruption cooled the planet by 0.5 degrees C for 2 years! )

The author of the paper recanted within a few years. Unfortunately the media hype about it is all sceptics remember. But they are not informed enough to know that the MAJORITY of climate papers from the 1970’s predicted warming!

Indeed, global warming was even in the popular culture.

The scientific evidence in the 1950's was less clear, but even then the alarm bells were starting to sound. It featured in the 1958 Bell Science Hour.

By the 1970's they were making global warming movies like Soylent Green. (Shortages of food, failed crops, etc.)
What were climate scientists predicting in the 1970s?
Global cooling - Wikipedia
Climate myths: They predicted global cooling in the 1970s

Now that you know the TRUTH you know not to repeat that lie ever again, OK? You’re welcome.

You have not dealt with the following basic facts:-

Without dealing with any of the evidence I have shown above!
It's 200 years since Fourier calculated that the earth's atmosphere keeps the earth warmer than the moon.
It's 169 years since Eunice Foote and her glass jars isolated the actual specific greenhouse gases.
It's 127 years since Nobel Prize winner Arrhenius developed the world's first model of what doubling CO2 would do to the earth's temperature.
It's 40-ish years since Exxon's own climate models predicted today's temperatures.

BASIC PHYSICS
The long-wave energy deflection of various greenhouse gases can be tested in Fourier devices.
They work in any physics lab on the planet!
Indeed - there isn't a National Academy of Science on the entire PLANET that disagrees with climate science!
Do some math if we double various greenhouse gases - and the models from decades ago are being confirmed before our very eyes today in real world temperatures.

Also in seasons changing, glaciers retreating, sea-levels rising, some crops failing, the atmosphere carrying more water, etc etc etc.

And then there was all that hype about the ozone layer. They just keep backpeddling and moving the goalpost.

 

[AV1611VET]

And then there was all that hype about the ozone layer. They just keep backpeddling and moving the goalpost.

Remember the Club of Rome that used that Parable of the Lily Pad on us?

 

[Bob Crowley]

And then there was all that hype about the ozone layer. They just keep backpeddling and moving the goalpost.

There was a real problem with Ozone layer depletion but it's largely been repaired. It didn't happen by just sitting around and doing nothing.

Ozone Hole Continues Healing in 2024

The area of depleted ozone over the Antarctic ranked the seventh smallest since recovery began in 1992.

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Scientists were alarmed in the 1970s at the prospect that CFCs could eat away at atmospheric ozone. By the mid-1980s, the ozone layer had been depleted so much that a broad swath of the Antarctic stratosphere was essentially devoid of ozone by early October each year. Sources of damaging CFCs included coolants in refrigerators and air conditioners, as well as aerosols in hairspray, antiperspirant, and spray paint. Harmful chemicals were also released in the manufacture of insulating foams and as components of industrial fire suppression systems.

I remember it being discussed in a science class way back prior to 1971 when I left school, so they were aware of it then. Eventually a protocol was agreed and since then CFC based products and processes have been phased out. But some CFC's still remain in the atmosphere and will take decades to break down. But it's a lot better than it was.

The Montreal Protocol was signed in 1987 to phase out CFC-based products and processes. Countries worldwide agreed to replace the chemicals with more environmentally friendly alternatives by 2010. The release of CFC compounds has dramatically decreased following the Montreal Protocol. But CFCs already in the air will take many decades to break down. As existing CFC levels gradually decline, ozone in the upper atmosphere will rebound globally, and ozone holes will shrink.

I live in the southern hemisphere, so perhaps we're a bit more aware of the ozone layer. Also I live in Australia and two thirds of Australians are diagnosed with some form of skin cancer during their lifetime, including myself, due to overall British and European heritage and high UHF levls.

An Indian doctor who treated me for skin cancer said that for Indians the skin cancer rate drops almost to zero due to their darker skin. But even he noticed the difference when he went on a holiday to Europe in their summer. He said he didn't even darken despite being out in the sun all day while he was on vacation.

But if he spent all day in the sun in Australia his skin darkens due to the much higher UHF levels.

The ozone layer depletion was a real problem.

 

[AV1611VET]

There was a real problem with Ozone layer depletion but it's largely been repaired. It didn't happen by just sitting around and doing nothing.

Bob, this is from AI Overview:

Large volcanic eruptions can deplete the ozone layer by injecting aerosols and halogen gases into the stratosphere, which provide surfaces for ozone-destroying chemical reactions. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, for example, temporarily increased global ozone depletion because of the enhanced stratospheric aerosols and chemical reactions that released reactive chlorine.

What is your opinion of this thread:

Kilauea is spectacular today.

So while some are going gaga over Mother Nature contributing to the ozone problem and not saying one word about the damage it's doing to the atmosphere; others are complaining that we're using refrigerators and hairspray in a way that demonstrates an uncaring Christian attitude toward Mother Earth.

Yes, sir.

Heating up down under vs Kilauea volcano is spectacular today.

Which flows worse?

The lava? or the hypocrisy in academia?

 

[Ophiolite]

Bob, this is from AI Overview:

Large volcanic eruptions can deplete the ozone layer by injecting aerosols and halogen gases into the stratosphere, which provide surfaces for ozone-destroying chemical reactions. The eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, for example, temporarily increased global ozone depletion because of the enhanced stratospheric aerosols and chemical reactions that released reactive chlorine.

What is your opinion of this thread:

Kilauea is spectacular today.

So while some are going gaga over Mother Nature contributing to the ozone problem and not saying one word about the damage it's doing to the atmosphere; others are complaining that we're using refrigerators and hairspray in a way that demonstrates an uncaring Christian attitude toward Mother Earth.

Yes, sir.

Heating up down under vs Kilauea volcano is spectacular today.

Which flows worse?

The lava? or the hypocrisy in academia?

I think what is worse is your decision to quote an AI response (without revealing the prompt used to generate it), while lacking the background, technique, or desire to critically examine it.

Large volcanic eruptions do not, significantly, inject aerosols into the stratosphere. They inject sulphur dioxide which them forms aerosols. These then activate anthropogenic halogens that go on to attack the ozone. The contribution to ozone attack by any halogens accompanying the sulphur dioxide is insignificant. It is the atmospheric sulphur-dioxide aerosols that cause the reduction of ozone.

Tell me again where the hypocrisy is?

 

[eclipsenow]

And then there was all that hype about the ozone layer. They just keep backpeddling and moving the goalpost.

Sorry - what's the charge here? I don't think even you know what you are trying to say.
What exactly was / is the problem with the ozone layer campaign?

To those who know anything about the science of the ozone layer, what was happening, how the campaign unfolded, and what resulted... your 'objection' to it is as nonsensical as some luddite saying "Yeah, well industrialists are invalid because Henry Ford said the production line would speed up manufacturing!"

I mean - what?

 

[Bob Crowley]

Ozone is O3, an oxygen molecule with an extra atom. It absorbs very high energy UV rays by splitting back into O2 and O. The free O atom usually recombines with another O2 molecule to give ozone again.

Older refrigerants such as CFC's deplete O3 as they carry Chlorine into the upper atmostphere. The Chlorine breaks down the O3 into O2, and then goes on to break down more O3 molecules.

Volcanos have an effect but they primarily make existing Chlorine more effective at destroying Ozone.

Natural changes such as the sun's output and volcanic eruptions could be responsible for the changes in ozone - DEFRA UK Air - GOV.UK

uk-air.defra.gov.uk

Major, explosive volcanic eruptions can inject material directly into the ozone layer. Observations and model calculations show that volcanic particles cannot on their own deplete ozone. It is only the interaction of human-produced chlorine with particle surfaces that enhances ozone depletion in today's atmosphere.

Ozone depletion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The main causes of ozone depletion and the ozone hole are manufactured chemicals, especially manufactured halocarbon refrigerants, solvents, propellants, and foam-blowing agents (chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), HCFCs, halons), referred to as ozone-depleting substances (ODS).[2] These compounds are transported into the stratosphere by turbulent mixing after being emitted from the surface, mixing much faster than the molecules can settle.[3] Once in the stratosphere, they release atoms from the halogen group through photodissociation, which catalyze the breakdown of ozone (O3) into oxygen (O2).[4] Both types of ozone depletion were observed to increase as emissions of halocarbons increased.

From the same article -

Effects on animals​

A November 2011 report by scientists at the Institute of Zoology in London, England found that whales off the coast of California have shown a sharp rise in sun damage, and these scientists "fear that the thinning ozone layer is to blame".[74] The study photographed and took skin biopsies from over 150 whales in the Gulf of California and found "widespread evidence of epidermal damage commonly associated with acute and severe sunburn", having cells that form when the DNA is damaged by UV radiation. The findings suggest "rising UV levels as a result of ozone depletion are to blame for the observed skin damage, in the same way that human skin cancer rates have been on the increase in recent decades."[75] Apart from whales many other animals such as dogs, cats, sheep and terrestrial ecosystems also suffer the negative effects of increased UV-B radiations.[76]

 

[eclipsenow]

Exactly! The science was solid, the cause identified, the global community ACTED and just BANNED CFC's - and so the ozone crisis was averted. Servus seems to think we 'shifted the goalposts' but in reality we scored all the points we needed through those goalposts, defeated the enemy, and burned those goalposts down!

It's actually what keeps me going. It's a sign of what can be achieved when the global community gets together and ACTS!

Other than sceptics, I sometimes find myself debating Doomers. Those people who say there is no hope, we've already pushed the climate too far, and now the permafrost is about to melt and nature's about to take it from here. From the broader scientific analysis that does not seem to be correct - but there ARE scary feedback loops that are kicking in faster and harder the more we push this system.

It does seem to be like a car being pushed along the flat, and then is about to get into the downhill bit where it rolls away on its own - and falls over the cliff. If there's a horrible global shift to the hard right and too many ignorant, anti-science Trump's pop up in Europe and China etc, we could push the biosphere beyond the tipping points.

We would leave a planet to our great-grandchildren that we would hardly recognise! But there is hope.

Johan Rockstrom is a climatologist. He is also one of the world’s foremost experts on the many OTHER Planetary Boundaries the industrial modern world risks pushing up against. He featured on David Attenborough’s Netflix series “Breaking Boundaries.” If anyone knows how serious the combined challenges are - it’s Rockstrom. Planetary boundaries - Wikipedia

Rockstrom’s climate work has recently analysed how dangerous even going over 1.5 degrees is. Given current trends, he says we are GOING over 1.5 degrees by 2030! He says “Buckle up!”

But even he has optimism. Why? Because of the Montreal Protocol! Back when CFC’s were creating that hole in the ozone layer, the global community could just BAN CFC’s because there was a cheap alternative. Yet it has taken decades to scale up renewables production to get the price down.

Now check this out! Solar panels are now so cheap that total global installation is DOUBLING every 3 years. Also - every time it doubles - it gets 20% cheaper due to ‘learning rates’.
Johan says we are close to fossil fuel's "Montreal Moment".
I timed it to where Johan talks about this.
(The whole talk is worthwhile!)

Johan writes for "Earth 4 All" - a sister organisation to the Club of Rome. They have policies for every sector you can imagine. They have 5 great 'Turnarounds'. Here is a vastly simplified summary. Five extraordinary turnarounds | Earth4All

There is an enormous amount of research on this website. Just the Executive Summary is 29 pages long. More here. There is hope. Publications

 

[Bob Crowley]

I decided to investigate a bit further as I wondered why chlorine released in large quanities eg. during WWI was not harmful to ozone, but CFC's were.

Both answers were AI generated.

Chlorine disperses locally because its compounds, like hydrogen chloride, are soluble in water and react in the lower atmosphere, causing them to be removed from the air by precipitation. Conversely, CFCs rise to the stratosphere because they are unreactive in the lower atmosphere, do not dissolve in water, and are transported by winds, reaching the upper atmosphere where they are finally broken down by UV radiation.

It is the breaking down of CFC's in the upper atmosphere which releases the chlorine. It acts as a catalyst in breaking down ozone, and one atom or molecule can destroy many ozone molecules.

....chlorine acts as a catalyst for ozone decomposition, meaning it speeds up the breakdown of ozone molecules without being consumed in the process. A single chlorine atom can destroy tens of thousands of ozone molecules in a catalytic cycle before it is removed from the reaction.

 

[Bob Crowley]

At the risk of becoming repetitive, Chlorine takes a long time before it is "neutralised" in the upper atmosphere.

AI answer again.

Chlorine atoms will be neutralized when they are removed from the stratosphere, but the recovery of the ozone layer is expected to take until around 2066 for the Antarctic and 2040 for the rest of the world, depending on the region. This is because chlorine is a catalyst that can destroy thousands of ozone molecules before it is eventually removed from the atmosphere.

How chlorine interacts with ozone

• A chlorine atom reacts with an ozone molecule, forming chlorine monoxide and an oxygen molecule.
  
  
• Chlorine monoxide then reacts with a free oxygen atom, regenerating the chlorine atom and another oxygen molecule.
  
  
• This cycle repeats, with a single chlorine atom capable of destroying up to 100,000 ozone molecules.
  
  
• This process continues until the chlorine atom eventually combines with other molecules and is removed from the stratosphere.
  

How long it takes to recover

• The ozone layer is expected to recover to 1980 levels by approximately 2066 over the Antarctic, and by 2045 over the Arctic.
  
  
• For other parts of the world, recovery is predicted to be complete by 2040.
  
  
• These timelines are based on the continued compliance with the Montreal Protocol, which banned the production of ozone-depleting substances.

 

[eclipsenow]

Weather forecast for Sydney is 40 C on Wednesday.

It got me thinking about how few people understand one of the more fantastically deadly climate phenomenon that the media hardly seems to talk about! Ask the average citizen about climate risks - and they might mention something about heatwaves, rainfall changes, maybe even sea-level rise. These are all real - and will hit in different levels of severity in different parts of the planet.

But there’s a HUGE one that is under-reported - and that’s heatwaves! Huh? Didn’t I just mention heatwaves?

Ah, but I'm not talking about the normal heatwave that somewhere like my city of Sydney gets hit by. A few days of 40 degree C heatwave is nasty - and will kill some of our plants. If the old and frail do not have aircon, it could kill them. Some of our western suburbs hit 47 C! Ouch!
But I'm talking about a specific type of heatwave - a climate change super-heatwave that has a really weird name.

Have you heard of the Wet Bulb heatwave? This monster doesn't just finish off the sick and frail - it kills EVERYONE stuck in it!

EVERYONE!

The deadly difference? Humidity. Normally when we get too hot, we sweat. As moisture evaporates it cools. You can test this buy buying 2 identical old-fashioned mercury thermometers. Wet a rag, and put it around the glass bulb at the bottom of one thermometer. This is the Wet Bulb that will evaporate and cool that thermometer relative to the other one in the very same air.

But if that air is 100% humid - even the wet-bulb stays the same temperature. It cannot dry and cool!
In a heatwave, that’s the difference between life and death!

Wet bulb heatwaves at 100% humidity can be DEADLY at just 35 C (95 F)!
They are FATAL to anyone trapped in them for 4 to 6 hours.

Climate scientists say they are due to hit somewhere in the tropics across the next decade or so. 3 billion people live in the potential pathway of these deadly natural disasters. If the first “big One” hits the a super-city, we could see deaths in the tens of millions!

Here’s a PBS 10 minute summary (May 2023).

Britannica: Wet-bulb temperature | Description, Uses, Climate Change, & Facts | Britannica

NASA: Too Hot to Handle: How Climate Change May Make Some Places Too Hot to Live - NASA Science

Kim Stanley Robinson is the famous Sci-Fi and futurist who wrote the “Red Mars, Green Mars, Blue Mars” trilogy. He wrote a novel about the world’s first Wet Bulb heatwave - which is so horrendously awful UN creates a body called the “Ministry for the Future” (which is the title of the book.) I wish every politician was required to read this book before beginning office! The first chapter is free here - and describes one of these killer heatwaves settling over a region of India. It’s the stuff of nightmares - because it is so close to happening.
Orbit – Welcome

BUT WE’LL “JUST” USE AIR CONDITIONING, RIGHT?
Maybe - but don’t count on it. Don’t forget the 3 reasons heatwaves cause blackouts!

ONE: LESS POWER PRODUCTION
Thermal power plants like coal and nuclear produce less power during a heatwave. Even solar panels are less efficient when hot!

TWO: LESS POWER CARRIED
The physics of power-lines is such that hot powerlines carry less power.

THREE: MORE POWER DEMANDED
Right when there is less power produced and carried, consumers turn the aircon up to maximum power to survive the heat!
So get your own solar and batteries.
And prepare to welcome neighbours in!
And remember that as the city outside starts to cook, people will come knocking on neighbour’s doors for relief - and some may not be as peaceful and tolerant of competition for their cool space as others.
An El Niño looms over Australia’s stressed electricity system – and we must plan for the worst

THE HOBBITS HAD THE ANSWER!
Ecocity designers talk about thermal mass - basically living underground, or with thick walls with materials that store the average temperature. Position the windows and thicker walls in the right way, and homes can stay warm in winter and cool in baking summers, and without power! Or at least, radically reduced power requirements.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think what is worse is your decision to quote an AI response (without revealing the prompt used to generate it), while lacking the background, technique, or desire to critically examine it.

You want me to start including the question in with his answer?

 

[Learning always]

"Emergency!!! The oceans are rising, rising and rising!!"

The same people telling you the oceans are rising are the same people buying up all of the ocean front properties. The oceans -- did they mean the money in their pockets ?

(Also, the climate alarmists never dared take part in public debates)

 

[eclipsenow]

"Emergency!!! The oceans are rising, rising and rising!!"

They are - but deniers just get photos of Sydney harbour and ask "What's changed in the last few decades" and we're not even sure whether the photo is high tide or low tide. Tell me - how do they measure ocean height? You seem to know so much about it!?

In reality - that's way down my list of climate concerns. I don't think it's in my top 5. But then, I'm Australian. I'm not a Bangladeshi farmer who suddenly lost all their crops because a few centimetres of sea level rise can mean dozens of kilometres extra inland range when the wrong storm-surge gets together with that scientifically measurable higher sea-level rise - and thoroughly salts the land!

The same people telling you the oceans are rising are the same people buying up all of the ocean front properties.

Really? What facts have you got on this?

And what does it even MEAN? Like - so what?

EVEN IF a rich middle aged or even elderly climate activist like Al Gore happens to want to waste money on an ocean front property, what does that even have to SAY about the science of climate change? Maybe they know one day that property will be underwater one day - but they've only got 10 years before going into aged care anyway?

Can you see how utterly inconsequential and petty such an objection is?

The oceans -- did they mean the money in their pockets ?

Big Oil CEO's earn more in their lunch hour than a climatologist does in a year.

Who has the incentive to lie?

Oh - history has already answered that one! Exxon are currently being sued because their climate scientists CORRECTLY modelled today's climate crisis back in the late 1970's and early 1980's - over 40 years ago - and then signed their scientists to strong NDA's and fired them all.

(Also, the climate alarmists never dared take part in public debates)

Because people like you cheer on some dopey Nationals / Barnaby Joyce / Pauline Hanson sort when they say rubbish like your "points" above - and the meek and mild scientist - with all their years of training in academic research protocols - gets stomped on by silly memes.

But they do debate more serious and scientific objections online. But that requires reading academic scientific papers - not letting yourself be yelled at by silly "Social Influencers" after a click-baitey title.

But hey- if that's what you're into - just watch Trump. He's a very stable genius apparently.

 

[Fervent]

Unfortunately the Climate Change folks are total hypocrites in the matter as @AV1611VET pointed out.

I myself have challenged them to give up diving their cars, SUVs and trucks, and that of course is too much to ask. "But, but, I need to get to work, and go shopping, and pick up the kids from soccer practice...".

The impact that individuals could have through even drastically changing their lives the way you bring up would be a drop in the bucket since the primary producers of greenhouse gasses are industrial corporations. The issue is a societal one, not an individual one and activism and petitioning for policy changes is far more likely to have a positive impact than personal changes.

And this isn't a question of concern, or lack there of, for the future. It is a question of stewardship and prudence, fulfilling our God-given role as global administrators.

 

[Servus]

The impact that individuals could have through even drastically changing their lives the way you bring up would be a drop in the bucket since the primary producers of greenhouse gasses are industrial corporations. The issue is a societal one, not an individual one and activism and petitioning for policy changes is far more likely to have a positive impact than personal changes.

And this isn't a question of concern, or lack there of, for the future. It is a question of stewardship and prudence, fulfilling our God-given role as global administrators.

In Genesis 1:28 God said to fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over every living thing. And the globe is doing alright. There were many climate changes, uplevels and natural disasters way before the industrial revolution.