Is it worth reporting on politics?

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
What if Trump order a war...
A scenario getting more likely as justice closes in on this incredibly corrupt and dishonest president.
History shows that when a leader is cornered they are most likely to distract opposition by manufacturing an external threat.
The signs are hopeful that cooler heads within the military will prevail and recognise that the most clear and present danger to the USA is its elected leader.
 

kgwilson

Active Member
The Washington Posts fact checker was up to 6420 false or misleading claims by 30 October, 640 days into his Presidency. The worst day was the 7th of September when he made 120 false or misleading claims.
 
US unemployment has been on a steady decline since 2010 (https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=us+unemployment+rate). So Trump hasn't reallydone anything other than have a marginal and probably short-term impact on umemployment. Although I think the trade wars also have only had a marginal impact on the economic cycle, he aint helping unemployement, even in the shorter term.

If you think the earth isn't heating, then NASA (US') own numbers would state otherwise: Global Temperature | Vital Signs – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet Extreme weather events are on the rise..

I am niot sure the value of all this employment if we are going to render the world uninhabitable.. Of course, human nature is such that the solutions - scientific and sociological to reduce, reuse and recyle - while managing population growth and general standard of living - are not going to happen until it's too late.. if it isn't already
 

octave

Well-Known Member
But how do argue against those who say that NASA itself is part of a conspiracy to lie about non-existent global warming?
Honestly, I would not bother arguing with someone who held those beliefs just like I don't argue with anti vaxers or moon landing conspiracists. Such a conspiracy would be of immense proportions. It is not just NASA it would be a conspiracy between just about every scientific body and stretching back many years

But if I did: I guess I would start by pointing out that this is not a new fad, scientists have been aware for quite some time

1859
Tyndall demonstrates that some gases block infrared radiation, and notes that changes in the concentration of the gases could bring climate change. =>Other gases

1879
International Meteorological Organization begins to compile and standardize global weather data, including temperature. =>International

1896
Arrhenius publishes first calculation of global warming from human emissions of CO2.=>Simple models

1897
Chamberlin produces a model for global carbon exchange including feedbacks. =>Simple models

Global Warming Timeline

To put forward to the idea that NASA is lying about non-existent warming can be proved or disproved by measuring average temperatures. Temperatures are measured via satellite as well as on land by many organisations as well as private individuals. Many farmers now understand that the climate is changing. We know that the average ocean temperature is increasing as well as it's chemical composition. The ocean absorbs much of the carbon that we are producing but its ability to do this is not infinite. I think the fact the earth is warming is not in doubt and easily provable.

But perhaps it is just a natural cycle the denier now says. The cycles of the sun are well understood and predictable. We do know and have known since the mid-1800s that the composition of the atmosphere is one of the things that determine how much solar radiation is absorbed. We know that whilst Mercury is closer to the sun Venus has higher surface temperatures. This is simple physics.

What if it is not true? Well, then we have fast-tracked new technology. The fossil fuel age will end eventually one way or the other. We know that there is no shortage of energy, enough sunlight falls on the earth to power the planet many times over, it is always windy somewhere, the movement of water (tides) has enormous energy to be harnessed, dig a hole deep enough and you can turn water into steam. We can split the atom to produce power, we eventually will be able to fuse atoms in a way that can generate power. We can use intermittent wind and solar to generate hydrogen cleanly. These technologies are at various levels of development, some will prove viable and others may not. Wright brothers to Apollo 11 - 66 years

If we actually are able to release carbon created over millions of years in a mere 200 years without any ill effects to the earth I would still argue that we need coal and oil for things other than burning, we need the raw materials for plastics chemicals, drugs etc.

But as to the conspiracy theorists, I usually ask them to explain to me how this is organised? How many individuals from all around the world would have to be in on it? Where are the whistleblowers? What is the goal of the conspiracists?
 

Old Koreelah

Well-Known Member
The biggest threat to Australia is the near-certainty that during this century hundreds of millions of people will be displaced by climate change. Where will they go?
Australia is globally known as a safe, prosperous destination and the world already realises this country is per capita, among the worst greenhouse polluters... and our government is digging us deeper into the coal hole.
 

spacesailor

Well-Known Member
Octave.
Re: conspirity :Only have to look at G4 get-together. Have YOU seen any report as to the proceeding's, from their closed to the public door !.
The ten wealthiest people make the rules for 75 % of the population.
Getting answers from ANY mp is nie impossible.
More often than not THEY LIE.
spacesailor
 

octave

Well-Known Member
Octave.
Re: conspirity :Only have to look at G4 get-together. Have YOU seen any report as to the proceeding's, from their closed to the public door !.
The ten wealthiest people make the rules for 75 % of the population.
Getting answers from ANY mp is nie impossible.
More often than not THEY LIE.
spacesailor

The scientific evidence is readily available through many sources worldwide

Getting answers from ANY mp is nie impossible.
Exactly what data or measurements do you not have access to?

Do you believe the conspiracy has been handed down through the generations from the mid-1800s?

Which part do you believe to be untrue, by which I mean do you question whether or not burning fossil fuels releases co2?
Perhaps you don't believe that different gases have different thermal absorption properties?
Maybe you don't believe that the composition of the atmosphere has any bearing on the climate?

My understanding of this comes from a lifelong interest in science and plenty of reading from reliable sources. I am happy to argue the evidence but so far your only debating point is you are unable to find out what is going in G4. By the what has G4 got to do with climate change? G4 is Brazil, Germany India and Japan and whose reason for being is to support each other in bids for the security council. Perhaps you mean G7 whose focus is the economy.
 
I didn't read Spacey's post as disagreeing with climate change - more that the conspiracy has been promulgated by those wealthy few who have most to lose (well, they perceive the most to lose in the short term) by addressing climate change - I don't think it meant to dispute climate change per se..

@Old Koreelah - I was not giving up - far from it. In fact, I now take my electricity from a renewable only supplier (or at least they claim to be). I minimise my reliance on cars and take public transport, or, heaven forbid, walk when I can. Our holidays tend to be local affairs rather than taking kerosene burners great distances (obviously exceptions - hence the word, tend). We also try and source our food locally and organically where we don't grow (and no longer rear) our own. I live in a grade 2 listed house, so things like solar panels on teh roof are a no-no and there are two trees with preservation orders on them - and they unf. block out the light to swathes on the ground so ground-mounted solar panels are also a no-no. Wind is not reliable enough as a source of power for the house. I am now looking at ways of replacing our oil/kero burning heating - we don't have an aga thankfully - outdated, but beautiful waste of space. In fact, we are apparently members of some listed building association and I am getting involved to see if we can pressure the government to relax some of the restrictions in order to modernise them to be more sustainable while preserving the essence of their character..

Although, I still fly.. but occasionally.. Thinking of taking a warrior or similar to an airfield near Gallipoli for Anzac day in 2019... I know flying - esp the older designs is polluting, so I have to offset it somehow.
 
Last edited:

spacesailor

Well-Known Member
I don't disagree with "global warming " per sa,.
No-one seems to acknowledge the warming coming out from the Ice-age caused by that meteor strike some 40 million year's ago, I would like to see some scientific report on the earth's temperature Before that meteore calamity.
I suspect it's about what were getting now. Lush vegetation, great storms and every thing were still getting.
And it'e still peeesing down again !. With a little bit of hail, heaps of thunder.
I cleaned my gutter's & replaced one tile today, (to stop a drip from the kitchen window), Am I pleases with myself.
Don't mention open fire's, they stink & cause respiratory problems.
spacesailor
 

Bruce

Well-Known Member
Space, global warming sure has happened before. It is a feature of the geological record.
The last times, global warming was caused by CO2 from volcanic stuff. This time, it is due to burning fossil carbon.
 
Top Bottom