Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "People have 'every right' to question climate projections: Newman" video.

A full, total, complete, utter, absolute, and outright miss understanding of the science of anthropogenic climate change.
2
@MrDarwhite It also denies the effect too much CO2 has on the atmosphere.
2
By that simple logic an atomsphere comprised entirely of CO2 would be perfect for plants. You and I would be dead but your plants would be going great guns.
2
I assume you mean the massive tax and financial subsidies that the fossil fuel industry attracts
2
You don't understand the platform you are using. YouTube is a private company and although this may appear a public platform it is not. They have the right to censor and delete whatever they like. You are free to express your opinion publicly wherever you want, but this is not public forum. I would describe it more like a club and if you misbehave the bouncer kicks you out.
1
@allan8675 LMAO. I have had stuff deleted too, mostly when I attach a link that youtube don't like, it can be very frustrating.
1
@francescostello1377 And Time magazine is your source of information, not the over 40000 published scientific papers all peer reviewed that prove overwhelming anthropogenic climate change is real. Next thing you will be telling me everything MSNBC say about Trump is true.
1
@neils8443 There is being sceptical and there is being so open your brain falls out. My chain smoking father remained sceptical to his grave about the cause of the cancer that killed him.
1
@neils8443 It is quite simple really divert resources from burning fossils fuels to cleaner forms of producing electricity. There, solved in one sentence.
1
@francescostello1377 You believe you correctly indicated that Time magazine is a expert on climate change, and you tell me to grow up. LMFAO. I hope D White reads your reply to me because he'll get a laugh to. Your are right the nonsense coming from Campbell Newman, Matt Caravan, Craig Kelly, and other so called experts needs to be discounted for the total rubbish it is.
1
@francescostello1377 Ahhhh the standard and well worn Trump defence when caught saying something unbelievable stupid "I was being sarcastic". As others here have commented the expert scientific advice has not changed with the political climate it has been absolutely consistent. The politics has changed, your right about that, but you are confusing scientific evidence with sensational news media and political commentary and nutjob opinions.
1
@francescostello1377 concession accepted.
1
@marcwinkler The earths rotation coming to halt would be problematic but not unsurviable unless of course it was instant then yes that would be really bad. We would all need to live on the side facing the sun, there would be massive climate changes, sea level rises etc etc, but I see no reason for end of the human existence. Sleep tight.
1
@brianhillis3701 Planting trees is a potential remedy but not in the amount you quoted and will not have the dramatic effect you stated. A study has shown that plating half a trillion trees or 900 million hectares would capture 205 gigatons of carbon and reduce atmospheric carbon by 25%. That's about 20 years worth of human produced carbon emissions. Far more effective is to reduce and eventually stop burning fossil fuels to create electricity that cause the CO2 emissions in the first place and use more renewables like wind solar and hydro.
1
@brianhillis3701 Nope your solution is simplistic almost childlike in its naivety. There is enough additional land for vegetation planting to absorb 40 to 100 gigatonnes of CO2 after that there is no additional carbon storage available on land. Currently we are pouring 10 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere a year. Do the math your solution falls flat on your face. Other solutions and measures are required.
1
What a wonderful display of democratic liberal free speech values. Congratulations and accept my award as as winner of the "YouTube comment award of the month".
1
Numerous published scientific papers prove beyond doubt that the sea level has risen. It varies depending on location but it is a absolute fact. What you are referring to is sensationalist news outlets wanting to sell newspapers and advertising, you need to read widely to know the difference.
1
@calvinroyals6463 Bit of a gish gallop there but I will push on. Thanks for supporting my comment entirely even in a bit of a weird way. It would have been quicker for you to have said. Yes your right.
1
@calvinroyals6463 Just so we are clear the best case scenario taking into account the approx 22 centimetres the sea level has risen since 1880 from recorded data and with current projections the best case is a further rise of approx 30 centimetres by 2100 or worst case 2.5 metres above 2000 levels. I make no claim or have an opinion on anyone's choice of real estate purchase that's their personal choice. Issues relating to the barrier reef relate to sea temperatures and pollution not sea levels. Greenland volcanic activity causing ice melts has been throughly debunked. They rest of your reply is loaded with emotive terms and phrases that normally are used in sensationalist MSM.
1
It is wonderfully amusing to read your sensationalist replies full of language you accuse newspapers of, Cult religion, hoax. Aren't you embarrassed by the hypocrisy you have clearly displayed publicly on this forum.?
1
@calvinroyals6463 But it gets better you admit the Greenland ice is melting which logically means there is more water in the ocean hence it must logically rise however minimal that would be and then you deny any rise at all. This is like shooting rabbits in a barrel, keep em coming.
1
@calvinroyals6463 Or try this one. Tidally adjusted estimates of topographic vulnerability to sea level rise and flooding for contiguous US. Again a quick google search will find it online.
1
@calvinroyals6463 So a couple of fallacious arguments there. No 1 Red herring fallacy. Where Al Gore chooses to live is irrelevant to the argument. No 2 Personal incredulity. I believe the cycles of the earth and sun provide the conditions for an ice age. No 3 Anecdotal. Your repeated claims of your own experiences of storms and flooding. I could go on as there are more, but your entire comment was one fallacious argument after another rendering the entire substance of your comment a nonsensical piece of gobblygook.
1
@calvinroyals6463 You and your daughters experience is the exact definition of the anecdotal fallacy, and is a logical fallacy in argumentation repeating it does not make any less nonsensical. The same with Obamas and Gore choice of real estate. Neither is a qualified scientist with peer reviewed and published research papers on climate. As far as I'm aware Obama was a lawyer by trade and Gore a journalist. That argument is once again a classic definition of a Red herring fallacy and renders it nonsensical. Now if you can provide me with a scientist who owns property currently at sea level and has published a scientific paper on sea level rises well now you are talking serious otherwise your point is meaningless. Patrick Moores book has been debunked by the very scientists in it he quotes. It is not a peer reviewed scientific paper. I can send you references to over 40000 papers published by scientists that confirm Anthropogenic climate change. That is not belief that is trust in the scientific method.
1
@calvinroyals6463 No I'm not missing your point. Your point has nothing to do with the science of climate change. I do not care or am interested in what Obama or Gore say or do, they are not climate scientists. As I said, point to an actual climate scientist and their personal behaviour and I might listen. My personal experience is where I live the sea and land temperature has increased, the storms are more frequent and weather events more severe and i have data to show this. So my personal experience discounts your personal experience. Economists are certainly divided on the financial consequences, but there are many who say to not act we will have far more severe issues. I know exactly how the 97% figure came about which is accurate. Seven surveys were done as research. Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, Stuart Carton, and John Cook. The all had very similar results Oreskes survey for instance found 100% agreement. Verheggen was the lowest at 91%. Averaged they work out at 97%. These are all published peer reviewed scientific papers.
1
@calvinroyals6463 I made no claims about ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere only the observable fact that sea levels have been rising. As I said from coastal tide gauges from 1900 and from 1993 data from satellites clearly shows an average rise of 22 centimetres or 3.4mm a year. References "Projections of global-scale extreme sea levels and resulting episodix coastal flooding over the 21st century." published 30 July 20 "Is there Evidence Yet of Acceleration in Mean Sea Level Rise around Mainland Australia". PJ Watson published 2011. This second paper suggests that while sea levels have risen that rise is slowing. I am perfectly happy to discuss CO2 levels but it is completely pointless if you are unable to acknowledge despite the overwhelming observable evidence that sea levels have risen in the last 120 years.
1
Every word out of Tony Hellers mouth on climate change has been completely debunked. Check out Potholer54.
1
@Fredddytoo what's to lose. I have watched Tony Hellers stuff
1