• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Australian PM lashes out after Greta Thunberg links infernos to climate

Professional work my butt. She's just another quack looking to get some grant money by proclaiming a coming apocalypse that will never happen.

You cultists love to do the argument from authority fallacy because you dont want to think, ah well thats you..


Speaking of cultists - WOW. Your words here tell us that you are simply unable to actually take the time to study Anthropogenic Global Warming and its causes. You have taken a belief in what might be seen as a religious manner, as a consequence you are now refusing to accept any knowledge that contradicts what you KNOW is the TRUTH.

Oh yeah, here's a few words about the "quack" you are attacking.

Dr Sarah Perkins-Kirkpatrick

Sarah is a senior research associate, 2014 DECRA, 2018 Future Fellow awardee in the Climate Change Research Centre at UNSW. Sarah has undertaken two postdocs at the CSIRO division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, as well as the ARC Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. Due to her research activities and communication profile, Sarah was named a 2013 NSW Young Tall Poppy. Her research interests reside in temperature extremes, namely heatwaves. Sarah has investigated trends in heatwaves both globally and over Australia, as well as exploring the role of human activity behind such changes. Her research program includes understanding future changes in heatwaves, and how they may be driven by humans, as well as meteorological systems and natural climate phenomena.

and here's info about the Climate Change Research Centre at the Univ. of New South Wales
About CCRC

UNSW CCRC is a multi-disciplinary research centre comprising one of the largest university research facilities of its kind in Australia, administered within the School of BEES in the Faculty of Science.

CCRC houses research expertise in the key areas of Earth's climate: atmospheric, oceanic and terrestrial processes. We apply basic scientific principles to pressing questions on climate dynamics, global climate change, and extremes of weather and climate.

Our atmosphere research includes studies of large scale dynamics, convection, radiation, climate feedbacks, and factors controlling precipitation changes and other meteorological impacts.

Our oceanographic research focuses on the ocean's role in the climate system: including large-scale physical oceanography, coupled climate modes and regional ocean circulation, palaeoclimate dynamics, the ocean's thermohaline circulation, global biogeochemical cycles and climate changes in Earth’s past.

On the land surface, we focus on modelling terrestrial processes in climate models, to develop our understanding of the effects of carbon dynamics, hydrology and vegetation processes on climate.

Scientists at CCRC employ a variety of research tools including global and regional models of the atmosphere, ocean and land surface, coastal domain simulations and process models. We also use a great variety of data collected from satellites, ships, weather stations, eddy-flux towers and aircraft from regions as diverse as the Great Barrier Reef, the tropics, urban surfaces, the Tasman Sea and Antarctica.

So who should people believe - those who are actually out there doing research OR those who deny reality? I know which I choose.
 
Speaking of cultists
Yup, you know yourself.

You have taken a belief in what might be seen as a religious manner, as a consequence you are now refusing to accept any knowledge that contradicts what you KNOW is the TRUTH.
Stop projecting.

So who should people believe - those who are actually out there doing research OR those who deny reality?

LOL as Ive said, she gave an opinion, and her wording was that she had no certainty as to whether the historical temps were accurate or not. It seems you cant tell fact from opinion- you think anything that comes out of a scientist's mouth is fact, but as usual youre wrong. Typical climate change fanatic.
 
Yup, you know yourself.


Stop projecting.



LOL as Ive said, she gave an opinion, and her wording was that she had no certainty as to whether the historical temps were accurate or not. It seems you cant tell fact from opinion- you think anything that comes out of a scientist's mouth is fact, but as usual youre wrong. Typical climate change fanatic.

Typical climate change denier. Still unable to admit that some of the words you attributed to the professor came from other people - why is that?
 
Typical climate change denier. Still unable to admit that some of the words you attributed to the professor came from other people - why is that?

I quoted from your exact wording on Post #26, so stop lying. Your silly little arguments wont work against those who can think for themselves.
 
I quoted from your exact wording on Post #26, so stop lying. Your silly little arguments wont work against those who can think for themselves.

Your silly little arguments won't work against those who can think for themselves, unlike you and others who deny the reality of human-caused global warming.
 
Your silly little arguments won't work against those who can think for themselves, unlike you and others who deny the reality of human-caused global warming.

LOL just more lies with no proof. Typical climate cultist nonsense.
 
Mapping average temperatures worldwide is not only a very complicated process, but it is young, it is limited by the insufficient number of collection points, and it relies too heavily on assumptions which are not verified scientific facts. That means global warming propagandists can make the data say anything they want it to say.

That ship has sailed. Climate science is subject to peer review and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming due to human activity and that this is causing climate change. It is irrational to assume that a tiny minority that denies the science are actually smarter than the majority.
 
A big orchid to the Australian prime minister for having the guts to say the truth.
He refuses to kowtow to woke activists who think that any criticism of their child leader is out of the question.

He's ****ed though because the Aussies who handle fire control warned of this possibility and this guy's govt cut their funding instead of increasing it.
In addition he went to Hawaii while his country literally burns.
So, no one in Australia is super happy with him at the moment.

Lashing out at a child seems unlikely to be helpful to his image in Australia despite however courageous you find it to be.
 
That ship has sailed. Climate science is subject to peer review and the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the earth is warming due to human activity and that this is causing climate change. It is irrational to assume that a tiny minority that denies the science are actually smarter than the majority.

Science is affected by mob-think public opinion, and not just by irrefutable facts. Global warming theories are especially affected by opinions over facts. Peer review is especially controlled by public and common opinion, even when those opinions are wrong.
 
These bushfires we are currently experiencing have nothing to do with climate change. The reason the fires are so bad, is because of damn Greens environmental policies and the governments, past and present, who were influenced by Green policy. The only people who should be making policies regarding back burning, etc etc, are the fireys who are on the ground and have a clue, not some idiot Green politician who has not clue at all. The bush fires came very close to where I live, but luckily, the town is okay. Not the surrounding area though.
 
Australian PM lashes out after Greta Thunberg links infernos to climate | World | The Times

The Australian prime minister has lashed out at Greta Thunberg after she urged his government to do more to stop global warming amid the bushfire crisis.

Declaring that he was not in the job to “impress people overseas”, Scott Morrison said that he would keep his focus on voters rather than on the 16-year-old Swedish activist, who was recently named Time magazine’s person of the year. “I’m here to do the right job for Australians and putting them first,” Mr Morrison, 51, said.
============================================
Let's see: extremely high temperatures, unusually arrid conditions, high winds. Climate change linked to wild fires? Wonder if this joker will get reelected if he runs. My hats off to this lady for standing up for what she believes.

You know that Thunberg is a walking-talking advertisement for leftist brainwashing, right? The fascist left abused this poor child by feeding her complete BS until she actually believed it, and now they parade her around demonstrating that they are absolutely no different from those who created the Hitlerjugend. She is a shameful reminder of how abusive the left truly are.
 
A big orchid to the Australian prime minister for having the guts to say the truth.

He refuses to kowtow to woke activists who think that any criticism of their child leader is out of the question.

You mean for the idiot in charge of Australia? The man who is presiding over the massacre of animals and forest? That guy? The man who went on holiday while the country was burning? He is an idiot and masses of Australians agree with Thurnberg about the global warming element to these fires and this whole scale destruction of cities and forests.

He should concentrate on doing his job rather than show how much of a petty loser this idiot is.
 
Science is affected by mob-think public opinion, and not just by irrefutable facts. Global warming theories are especially affected by opinions over facts. Peer review is especially controlled by public and common opinion, even when those opinions are wrong.

No it isn't. That's what makes it "science" instead of "faith."
 
Science based upon theory and bias is as much faith as it is science.

If it is based upon bias then it is not science. Science cannot be biased, only scientists can be biased. This is why we have peer review. Peer review protects against bias. When the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is causing climate change, we can be confident that their findings are unbiased and legitimate.
 
If it is based upon bias then it is not science. Science cannot be biased, only scientists can be biased. This is why we have peer review. Peer review protects against bias. When the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is causing climate change, we can be confident that their findings are unbiased and legitimate.

Biased peer reviewers cannot protect science from bias.
 
If it is based upon bias then it is not science. Science cannot be biased, only scientists can be biased. This is why we have peer review. Peer review protects against bias. When the vast majority of climate scientists agree that AGW is causing climate change, we can be confident that their findings are unbiased and legitimate.

Science cannot be biased? Are you truly that naive, or willfully ignorant?

Two large publishers of scientific journals, Sage and Springer, had to retract more than 100 papers just in the year 2015 because of bogus peer review. There are all kinds of peer review scams being played. From authors reviewing their own works, to intentional fraud where authors are so desperate to publish that they're paying reviewers to provide favorable feedback in order to have their work approved for publication. Peer review fraud is so bad today, in every scientific field, that estimates place the number of fraudulent peer reviewed papers between 10% and 15% of all the papers submitted for peer review, and it is only getting worse.

Sources:
Publishing: The peer-review scam - Nature, Issue 515, 2014, pp. 480-482
The Future of Peer Review - Scientific American, August 2017
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals - Journal for the Royal Society of Medicine, Volume 99, Issue 4, April 2006
Peer-Review Fraud — Hacking the Scientific Publication Process - New England Journal of Medicine, October 2015
China cracks down after investigation finds massive peer-review fraud - American Association for the Advancement of Science, July 2017
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom