on โ02-05-2015 08:26 AM
Reposted from Facebook with permission from Steffen Pederson.
"The fact is, Climate change is real! Nobody can argue against that fact. Nobody actually does!
So what's the debate?
'Climate Change Deniers', as alarmists like to call us, are people that believe the climate is what it is. It has changed for 100's of millions of years, it will change for 100's of millions more!
'Climate Change Alarmists' as us deniers like to call them, are people that believe Man is the reason the climate is changing. Man has caused it, Man can stop it!
This is my Rant so this will be based solely on my view and opinion from what I have learned or at least think I have learned.
To me, it doesn't matter who is right or wrong!
Man currently pumps untold amounts of emissions into the air, untold amounts of pollution into our land/air and sea's, and does untold damage through mining, deforestation, urbanisation etc etc.
Whether this affects the climate or not is actually irrelevant. We MUST STOP! We MUST find better ways to fulfil our energy needs and we must find better ways to house and feed our growing populations. We must reduce this man made damage because even the simplest of minds can recognise it cant be good for us. Also, we must make things sustainable. Some of these things take time so time is what we will take.
Again, this in my opinion has nothing to do with climate change but if I am wrong, it's a win win situation. We will not be hurt by changing these things.
Creating a Tax to reduce these things and allowing governments to put this tax back into their general revenue is NOT, and never will be the answer.
If governments were serious in their beliefs of man made climate change and the imminent dangers they believe it imposes, they would simply legislate to reduce and or stop these things.
They do not! Infact, by government logic, the more emissions generated, the more money they make. It is a futile exercise about feeling good. They can look the people in the eye and say 'see, we are doing something about climate change' but the fact is they are not.
The problem is, The climate IS changing. Every dollar we waste trying to stop it, will be a dollar we will not have to spend on the actual damage climate change will cause. Small nations will suffer, sea levels will rise, draughts will be the norm in some places, flooding will be the norm in others. We will not be prepared.
While the battle goes on about who was right and who was wrong, people will die. I believe we can actually learn to live with these changes and relocate and or adapt accordingly. todays cities will be tomorrows farmlands, todays farmlands will be tomorrows cities.
We do need to impose a tarrif of sorts on man.
Not a carbon tax that hits some people here or there or makes business suffer but a small levy that each and every one of us should be prepared to pay.
It is our world. This money should be put into an international climate fund that should be used as the climate changes more and more.
The truth is, we don't know which way the world will change so is hard to plan ahead. This money would be needed more as reactionary measure. western nations could and should be preparing for what we believe will happen through future planning anyway so this money would not be needed by those that can prepare for it themselves.
There are, however many nations that do not stand a chance against whatever climate change brings. This is where this money will be needed. If the climate doesn't change dramatically for many years, this fund would grow to great proportions. We can help those that cannot help themselves.
I don't know all the answers to this but going on our current path of taxing emissions and putting the taxes into general revenue for me is NOT the answer. we are being played for suckers. My post is not trying to say I have the answers, it is trying to change the current climate debate questions. I have no doubt there are many other who have great ideas about how an ever changing world can be adapted to suit our wants and needs. We are a resilient lot."
_____________________________________________________________
I so agree with this post.
Yes, Earth's climate is in natural constant change. We know that.
Human industrial activity is causing a dramatic impact earth's climate and we need to sort what we need to take from earth to sustain ourselves (and there's plenty to go round) from what is just being gobbled up by insatiable and rapacious profiteers.
on โ04-05-2015 11:28 AM
@myoclon1cjerk wrote:
Deflection...again.Care to comment on the Libs great decision to give the desal plant away?
I'd be happy to, but I can only guess why. To free up funds, same as Mike Baird is planning to sell off poles and wires to fund infrastructure.
I don't like it, but seeing we've sold off or taxed off or got duped out of most of our revenue-making resources during the years of Labor government, all we have left to raise funds is sell off the family silver, so to speak.
on โ04-05-2015 12:32 PM
on โ04-05-2015 12:45 PM
tezza, did you happen to read just how the "97% consensus" was arrived at?
Time to do your own thinking, if you have ever had anything to do with committees or any other collective group you would know the that percentage of consensus is unatainable.
The "97% consensus" is nothing but a buzz word because it sounds impressive and cool. Research it
on โ04-05-2015 12:49 PM
I am staggered to see just how many have swallowed the 97%, it is a meaningless buzz word, think about it, chew it over before you swallow.
on โ04-05-2015 02:41 PM
@poddster wrote:
@icyfroth wrote:Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the rightExcept for poddy, like an obelisk he stands firm, unmoved by all the flying brown stuff ๐
An obelisk: an immobile, inarticulate, artificially manufactured and vaguely . . . ummm . . . phallic shaped lump of granite. Yes, that makes perfect sense.
on โ04-05-2015 02:58 PM
@poddster wrote:
The "97% consensus" is nothing but a buzz word because it sounds impressive and cool. Research it
I guess that means that just because pretty much 100% of scientists believe that Earth is round and orbits the Sun then it cannot be true, because it is not possible to get such a huge consensus?
on โ04-05-2015 03:22 PM
Is that what inhabits your dreams Ele? An upstanding rigid obelisk of mamoth proportions? ๐
on โ04-05-2015 03:24 PM
Your research skills leave a lot to be desired or you are being deliberately obtuse
on โ04-05-2015 03:51 PM
@i-need-a-martini wrote:
@poddster wrote:Timothy Fridtjof "Tim" Flannery is an Australian mammalogist, palaeontologist,
environmentalist and global warming activist
What qulifications are needed for that role ???
You obviously didn't read the rest of the wiki entry? His degree is a Masters in Science in Earth Science.
His entire careeer has been spent studying the impact of climate, ecology and the environment on species.
You ommitted that on purpose I presume?
How's that worked out for him...........lol....... I hope he's been studying the dam levels!
on โ04-05-2015 10:15 PM
@tezza2844 wrote:
97% of scientists is a lie perpetrated by the warmists. In that so called 97% there was everybody from jack the plumber to weather forecasters and economists. So please feel free to perpetrate the lie but it is old news and nobody is falling for it, just more warmist propaganda.