Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "'Emotive' State of Environment report full of 'endless catastrophe'" video.

The report was conducted under the supervision of a conservative LNP government.
13
@benjaminfalzon4622 Numerous independent studies have shown fossil fuels kill millions more bird life than wind turbines. Do a little research and tell me what powers the HQ of the Royal Society for the protection of birds near Cambridge in England. Answer a 800 kW wind turbine.
2
@benjaminfalzon4622 Just pointing out your statement was factually incorrect. Al Gore is a ex journalist/politician, in what way would he be qualified to carry out a scientific study? A pithy comment about forests and trees does not hide the fact your comment about wind turbines was and remains demonstrably false.
2
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word "conservative" as it can be taken to mean different things to different people politically. Let's just revise the wording to Liberal/National Party government.
1
Hey people stay on subject!!! This was a comment on the mishandling of the environment under 9 years of Liberal/National government and there attempt to hide the effect their disastrous policies had on us. Any rudimentary understanding of LIz Cheneys political history shows she has always and remains a conservative Republican. It is only demagogue loving Trumpists who are blind to this fact.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 No they are independent peer reviewed scientific studies. You are just wrong in your assertion that wind turbine strikes kill more birdlife than fossil fuel pollution. You created a false and illogical argument for the protection of birdlife when in fact you have no interest protecting birds. You are protecting coal and other fossil fuels. Just be honest enough to admitt it.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Put your theories about CO2 into a paper. If you are right (which you are not) you will win the Nobel prize for Science and million dollars. Good luck.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Just because you don't understand how CO2 effects the atmosphere is an argument from ignorance and is fallacious nonsense. Mentioning Greta Thunberg who is a Swedish university student who has never submitted a scientific paper about anything is just vacuous gibberish.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 As I said put your work together and submit it to scientific examination and if you’re correct (which you aren’t) then you will be lauded as one of the greatest scientific minds of history. You will be up there with Newton and Einstein. The rest of us however have known exactly how greenhouse gases effect the atmosphere since the late 1860s.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 You fundamentally don’t even understand the term “Net zero emissions” which has never meant zero emissions. Eventually ships and aircraft will use cleaner fuels that don't emitt CO2.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Also you have been tricked into the carbon footprint line. This term was invented by the fossil fuel industry in the mid 90s (specifically BP) to move the responsibility for pollution from the polluters to the consumers. So effective was their PR you have taken the bait hook line and sinker.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Nonsensical gibberish, and we will leave it at that.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 You’re the one denying the science, and we will leave it at that.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 I have no idea what you are talking about. There have been tens of thousands of independent published peer reviewed scientific papers that show anthropogenic climate change. You have a conspiracy theory.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 You completely ignored or didn’t understand anthropogenic climate change, and we will leave it there.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 You need to read and understand the IPCC reports. Commonsense tells me they know better than you do.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Complete rubbish. The IPCC reports never said such a thing. You have created a strawman argument in an attempt to convince yourself to ignore scientific advice. Read the following; Observations: Changes in Snow, Ice and Frozen Ground Coordinating lead authors Peter Lemke, Jiawen Lead authors Richard Alley, Ian Alliison, Jorge Carrasco and six others Contributing authors: 44 climate scientists. Review editors: Roger Barry, Toshio Koike That should be enough info for you to find the report and educate yourself.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 To simplify things for you over the last 30 years Artic sea ice has declined at 13% per decade. Some of the oldest and thickest ice has declined by 95%. These are the facts not your fanciful imagination.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 And please don't respond by telling me Antarctica had record ice gains last year. This was social media telling you that, it has been totally debunked.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 OMG WTF, I debunked your argument even before you made it. Where to you get your information from “Instagram”?
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Put that in a scientific paper have it peer reviewed and published and walk away with your Nobel prize for science or get laughed out of town. I know where I’m putting my money.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Read the report. It is not predictions is is observed fact. I mean OMG this is year 7 science.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Actually I went back and read the first Report dated 1990 and paragraph 9.0.5 specifically says they don’t expect significant ice lose in the next 100 years. So I have no idea where you get your information from other than perhaps your imagination.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 So I demonstrated everything you said to be completely false and you have the chutzpah to tell me not to believe things I read and observe.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 WTF did you just quote a bible verse in a discussion on science. To prove your ignorance to then accused scientists of making data up for profit not realising that the 249 scientists who reviewed and edited the IPCC report do so out of their own time for no money. Your ignorance of the subject is astonishing.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 WTF I gave you precise references to the IPCC report that proved you just made stuff up in your imagination. The IPCC report never said the ice caps would have melted by 2022. You just made that up. Otherwise produce the evidence. Reference the scientific paper saying such.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 And your evidence is? Name the Nobel prize winner you think is a fool?
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 Your not listening I read the 1990 IPCC report and gave you a reference to the exact paragraph that completely refutes your assertion. You are just factually wrong.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 So called out, you have no evidence. I understand.
1
@benjaminfalzon4622 You have the chutzpah to call me fool because you do your own research. I assume then you do your own doctoring, represent yourself in court, do your own electrical work. I mean it is just a silly argument.
1