Food for thought...

Aussie1 · Guru

RE: Food for thought...

Mike Harding · Guru

Gary and Barb wrote:
Mike Harding wrote:
Gary and Barb wrote:
Impressive comeback, Mike. Anything constructive?
In this thread!?
Oh but you're funny :)

You're not. Not in the least, mate.

Gary! I fully understand why you may take such an aggressive position towards me and, indeed, I do have much empathy for you.

All I can suggest is you try and relax a little more. There is more to life than the Grey Nomads forum Gary and I know you have the wherewithal to find it!

I feel for you mate, hang in there....

Cuppa · Guru

Cuppa wrote:
vince56 wrote:
which the woke and greens can't handle,
-----------------------------------------------------------------
If you want to be listened to, & I presume you do if you are genuine about the concerns you express for the future, then you need to consider those who you want to listen.
Using language as quoted does nothing to get you heard. It just places you in the disrespectful mob of folk willing to aggressively tell anyone who doesn't share your view that they are wrong.

Aussie1 wrote:

Does your comment /criticism include a fellow members referral to some as "fools parroting", above. Very important, in my opinion to demonstrate balance and fairness.

vince56 wrote:

Hi Cuppa,

I don't think my words are too cutting, unlike some on this thread, I think it is true that the woke and greens have no time at all for fossil fuel companies and they actively oppose anything they say or do. It is fact that they can't handle them, they just condemn.

I disagree there is any disrespect in what I said.

I agree with Aussie1's post, I think you are being picky with me and disregarding a pretty cutting remark by another.

Cheers Vince

________________________________

To answer both of you.

First I will rephrase my comment in the hope of being heard.

" If you want to be listened to, & I presume you do if you are genuine about the concerns you express for the future, then you need to consider those who you want to listen.

Using language as quoted does nothing to get you heard."

And then I will acknowledge that the part I have removed from above quote ("It just places you in the disrespectful mob of folk willing to aggressively tell anyone who doesn't share your view that they are wrong" ). It was a mistake on my part, that of responding by using language likely to cause me not to be listened to.

So what would have been more appropriate would have been ..... instead of an accusation, an acknowledgement of how your use of 'wokes & greens' makes me feel. ie. Me owning it as opposed to an accusation.

_______________________

So in it's entirety I think what I should have written was:

"If you want to be listened to, & I presume you do if you are genuine about the concerns you express for the future, then you need to consider those who you want to listen. Using language as quoted does nothing to get you heard." As soon as I read 'wokes & greens' or similar, I shut off because I believe the person using that language is claiming a 'side' in a battle I see as one I don't wish to have. It makes me feel that their focus is one of attack, rather than of debate about the issues" and an unnecessary barrier to needed change.

_______________________

Now to Aussie1's point which I read as another attempt at point scoring in an unnecessarily polarised battle of words. 'Battle' as in 'an attempt not to be heard or to put forward alternative viewpoints, but more simply trying to prevail'. That said Aussie1, you do have a point, but one which further serves to derail any debate about climate change.

I can see that the language of 'fools parroting' only adds to the polarised point scoring, & sadly just provides a point to hit back at, but I also find the self claimed knowledge & expertise of some, (frequently with little or no supporting evidence) to know better that the world's scientific community to be bizarre to the point of foolishness. Ignoring the combined expertise of the world's science community & claiming to have a better understanding is in the realm of conspiracy theories.

Parroting is a common term used to describe the repetition of statements & beliefs of others without displaying the comprehension associated. So whilst I accept that it was not the best choice of words in forwarding a debate, I nevertheless don't disagree with it's meaning in the context of this thread, particularly as I have seen no debate. Only point scoring argument, with what I consider to be disingenuous inferred claims of wanting to engage in genuine debate. Thus the use of 'Parroting was shorthand' which has not been helpful because it has provided opportunity for avoidance of debate about climate change & opportunity instead to revert to plain old argument about nothing in particular. Argument for the sake of argument, or argument to avoid debate?

Whilst I don't accept that folk on internet forums such as this one are very likely to have the comprehension to forward a cogent argument which flies in the face of scientific consensus when their argument relies primarily on being dismissive of people rather than engaging in debate about scientific knowledge, I do consider it quite reasonable to accept the conclusions of the scientific community as the best knowledge we have available to us at this point in time. I don't expect to have all that knowledge myself, but I can see no reason to not accept the conclusions drawn at a general level.

The most common arguments against climate change being real are rarely based upon debate of the science, & there is a very good reason for that I believe, & that is because there are none that stand up. Often a string of cherry picked facts or lies posing as facts, strung together in a way to suggest conclusions which under rigorous examination fail to stand up, but which continue to waste time we quite probably don't have. No one claims science to be mistake free but the combined knowledge of not just a handful, but virtually the world's entire scientific population from a myriad of learned backgrounds is by far the best we have. When we see video presentations like the one which was posted & read that some already consider it creditable, when it is clearly anything but, it is a clear sign of one of two things. Either those claiming it to be creditable don't understand what they have just watched, OR that they have understood & are prepared to continue to disseminate half truths, incomplete facts & deliberate misinformation as fact, or that they have decided what they want believe on the basis of nothing more that it's what they want to believe & are prepared to grab at anything which appears to support those beliefs.

Gundog · Guru

Cuppa remember this one

In 2007, Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery made this bizarre claim while hyping the threat to Australia from global warming:

Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems.

MICHAEL O'BRIEN: You know, Flannery reckoned that the dams weren't going to fill in Brisbane... MALCOLM TURNBULL: I have to say I think Tim Flannery's been verballed by the way about the dams but thats another issue.

As the soil warms up more of the rain that falls evaporates and less goes into the dams and the point that I was trying to make was that even the rain that was falling then previously that was able to fill the dams in future wouldn't do that.

Cuppa · Guru

Gundog wrote:
Cuppa remember this one
In 2007, Chief Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery made this bizarre claim while hyping the threat to Australia from global warming:
Even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems.
MICHAEL O'BRIEN: You know, Flannery reckoned that the dams weren't going to fill in Brisbane... MALCOLM TURNBULL: I have to say I think Tim Flannery's been verballed by the way about the dams but thats another issue.
As the soil warms up more of the rain that falls evaporates and less goes into the dams and the point that I was trying to make was that even the rain that was falling then previously that was able to fill the dams in future wouldn't do that.

Yup, sure do.

A front line activist trying to be heard made a prediction which got him heard but hasn't yet panned out, as you say hype.

Is that a reason to ignore all the science which has been done since & which has found a consensus around the world? Do you think that the world's scientific community are telling us we are in trouble because of a few folk who cried wolf, or because they've done the science & found the evidence? Or are you able to , in one fell swoop, dismiss the integrity of the scientists all around the world who have been testing, monitoring, measuring, evaluating etc using peer group review methods who tell us that climate change is man made & getting worse?

Are We Lost · Guru

A few people have rubbished the video posted by Aussie, and disbelieve the content. Let's have a look at the other side.

Following Gundog's reference to Tim Flannery here he is in a video making some pretty exaggerated claims, also mostly omitting the source of his comments. Cuppa, he wasn't a front line activist. He was Australia's "expert" on climate change paid by the Federal Government.

Tim Flannery interview 2007

Some highlights:

02:55 "In the next decade or so, if we are lucky enough to survive this period ...." (phew, we survived the decade)
04:30 "the fixes are so simple and won't cost anyone a great deal"

06:15 " ...we are on the brink of triggering a 25 metre rise in sea level .. So anyone with a coastal view is likely to lose their house .." (Says he with a waterfront property at Berowra)
06:30 (paraphrased) "we have already seen primary producers facing winter rainfall declines"
07:20 "... carbon tax is the way forward ..." (ealier he said there would be no cost) "most Australians wouldn't notice any impact from that"
09:00 "Australia is without doubt the most backward nation on the planet in terms of addressing this issue" (err ... what about China, the world leader in new coal power stations?).

But of course, more recently, the often quoted Greta Thunberg predicted that humanity would all be wiped out if we did not stop using fossil fuels by 2023 .. source not named. According to Newsweek this was originally from Harvard professor James Anderson. But his warnings were not as dire. It was Greta who misquoted him and added the part that said all humanity would die. Tweet since deleted.

Greta deletes her dire warning on the end of humanity

So, if the statements in the original video are a bit exaggerated, they are far from being alone.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 10:53:26 PM

smwhiskey · Senior Member

Are We Lost wrote:
He was Australia's "expert" on climate change paid by the Federal Government.

Lets face it, Government paid "experts" don't exactly have a great track record when it come to getting their predictions correct.

SImon

Cuppa · Guru

Are We Lost wrote:
A few people have rubbished the video posted by Aussie, and disbelieve the content. Let's have a look at the other side.
Following Gundog's reference to Tim Flannery here he is in a video making some pretty exaggerated claims, also mostly omitting the source of his comments. Cuppa, he wasn't a front line activist. He was Australia's "expert" on climate change paid by the Federal Government.
Tim Flannery interview 2007
Some highlights:

02:55 "In the next decade or so, if we are lucky enough to survive this period ...." (phew, we survived the decade)
04:30 "the fixes are so simple and won't cost anyone a great deal"
06:15 " ...we are on the brink of triggering a 25 metre rise in sea level .. So anyone with a coastal view is likely to lose their house .." (Says he with a waterfront property at Berowra)
06:30 (paraphrased) "we have already seen primary producers facing winter rainfall declines"
07:20 "... carbon tax is the way forward ..." (ealier he said there would be no cost) "most Australians wouldn't notice any impact from that"
09:00 "Australia is without doubt the most backward nation on the planet in terms of addressing this issue" (err ... what about China, the world leader in new coal power stations?).
But of course, more recently, the often quoted Greta Thunberg predicted that humanity would all be wiped out if we did not stop using fossil fuels by 2023 .. source not named. According to Newsweek this was originally from Harvard professor James Anderson. But his warnings were not as dire. It was Greta who misquoted him and added the part that said all humanity would die. Tweet since deleted.
Greta deletes her dire warning on the end of humanity
So, if the statements in the original video are a bit exaggerated, they are far from being alone.

-- Edited by Are We Lost on Tuesday 14th of March 2023 10:53:26 PM

We may have to agree to disagree upon whether Tim Flannery was a 'front line 'activist' in getting climate change recognised in the public domain. However if you look it up you will find hew was speaking out about the issue long before he was ever employed by government in his role of Climate Commissioner. In fact the video you quote was recorded 4 years before that occurred.

I watched the video up to the 2:55 mark. Everything he said up to that point still holds true. The prediction of timeframe he then made was as you have pointed out was then overly pessimistic as it turned out. Note 'timeframe'. What is predicted not just by him or Greta Thunberg , & probably other high profile activists, continues to be a highly likely scenario according to all the science. Given that we have never been in this situation before we cannot know the actual timeframe with certainty, only that we are edging closer & closer to it daily, & that it also likely that we will reach a point where calamitous changes speed up dramatically.

The fearful predictions based upon the science have not changed, only a growing understanding that the timeframe is hard to know. We will be unlikely to recognise the 'tipping point' until it as passed, and when it will occur cannot be known, only predicted. It could be within the next decade, or the next 5 decades, or we may already have passed it.

The role that these activists play is to get the people to listen. Personally I think it far more responsible of them to 'over-do' the timeframe predictions than to under-do them.

Comparison of the timeframe predictions of activists who base their rhetoric upon the findings of per reviewed scientific research across the world with the deliberate partial truths, deliberate omissions calculated to disseminate misinformation to the benefit of a few & a danger to the rest of us is like comparing chalk & cheese.

In circumstances which are unprecedented predicting timeframe & being wrong cannot be construed as 'exaggeration' - only in hindsight can it be seen as incorrect. ie. it was wrong, but we were not being lied to.

Deliberate misinformation on the other hand can incorporate exaggeration of truths as part of it's strategy & often does, but deliberate misinformation cannot be waived as 'simply' exaggeration. It is deliberate lying for a purpose.

Some more comments on the parts of the video you have quoted, but which I didn't watch. So my thoughts, with no intention to interpret Tim Flannery's intention as he spoke

07:20 "... carbon tax is the way forward ..." (earlier he said there would be no cost) "most Australians wouldn't notice any impact from that"

One thing which climate deniers frequently omit when talking about costs, is the cost of doing nothing, which will increase exponentially as we get closer & closer to a 'tipping point'. In the unlikely scenario that science has it all wrong & that we have never been in any danger, then 'phew' we dodged a bullet, & spent money we didn't need to' .

09:00 "Australia is without doubt the most backward nation on the planet in terms of addressing this issue" (err ... what about China, the world leader in new coal power stations?).

I suspect you will find that the claim was based on a 'per capita' basis. A statistical argument that whilst correct does not tell the entire story, & therefore open to reasonable criticism as you have done. However it doesn't change the overall gist of Flannery's message & can only say that two wrongs don't make a right.

As an overall comment, I would say that trying to pick out a few 'bloopers' made over time is not a reason to ignore the world's scientific consensus on climate change, & in fact if they are the best argument against the existence of what is happening to our planet then really they are no argument at all.

RickJ · Senior Member

Mike Harding wrote:
Gary and Barb wrote:
As for seeking proof, try credible and actual universities for a start. Discern the difference between fact and opinion and interrogate your source's qualifications more closely.

Sounds like pretentious polemics to me.

We only have to follow the money trail from the source of the claims of doom ( climate scientists ) to who gains from the debacle.
We should include as to who pays those pseudo scientists.

TheHeaths · Guru

Aussie1 wrote:
Hi Simon, Thanks for your response however, I am yet to see proof of what he is presenting is incorrect. Most who disagree usually simply dismiss what is being presented but fail to give proof of the data included. Cheers Perhaps the Heaths will have the answers. I am always open to other views , provided they are backed up with proven facts.

Ray,

an interesting truth I have learned over the years is that those who believe what is presented, similar to this video, ask for proof it is wrong, while those is disbelieve ask for proof it is correct.

Based on that, and your previous posts on the different matters, I find it hard to believe you havent made your mind up whether you believe it or not.

Anyway, I wont comment further, or on the other thread on the same matter, as my original post was only to point out the source wasnt an unbiased source.

Unfortunately I dont have the answers, but I dont think this video does either.

-- Edited by TheHeaths on Wednesday 15th of March 2023 07:00:36 PM