A longer version of the discussion https://youtu.be/LxEGHW6Lbu8

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

what a doofus

Ughhhh that is just painful... There is no way i could stomach a longer version.

In case anyone is wondering, the ignorant douchenozzle belongs to Pauline Hanson's "One Nation" party.

So not only is he a complete moron, he's a racist asshole as well.

And he's a member of the Australian parliament with views that represent a significant minority of racist Australians. Views that are not particularly dissimilar to the mainstream racist majority who support the Liberals and Labor.

Why is it that bigotry and ignorance so often walk hand in hand...

I've only seen anti-immigration and anti-Islam platforms coming out of One Nation. As you would well know, racism, anti-immigration, anti-Islam (or anti-religion in general), nationalism, etc. are all different things.

Have you got a link to some racist policies, or sentiment?

Genuine question. I live in Australia and like to know who thinks what in the political world.

Global warming is not man made. Mans contribution is in significant.

Warming is occurring on earth due to Sun activities.

*lies

Like calling themselves One Nation but understanding that to mean only white Australians?

He's in Pauline Hanson's party, and there are plenty of examples of her racism (mostly against indigenous people and Asians).

As for One Nation, they want to abolish the Racial Discrimination Act (the one that makes it illegal to discriminate based on race). They want surveillance cameras installed in all mosques.

They also have a number of utterly pointless policies designed to "target Islam" by outlawing things THAT ARE ALREADY FUCKING ILLEGAL, like female genital mutilation (male genital mutilation is just dandy though) and not allowing face coverings on driving licences.

That might not meet a strict definition of a "racist" policy, but it's pretty clear where they're coming from.

and people like this are in charge of things...
NASA is corrupting the data.

Ummm MOTIVE?

alcom says...
@kingmob The right-wing conspiracy of convenience says that the data has been adjusted to heighten the urgency and panic and perpetuate their scientific fraud. This is a misunderstanding of flux adjustments that used to be made to climate models in the 90's and early in the 00's:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_circulation_model#Flux_buffering

Recent improvements in modelling equations mean that they no longer rely on flux adjustments, but hearing that they had to made adjustments at all sounds sketch.

Because the "hockey-stick" model was an overshoot based on the peak in 1998, deniers tend to either:

a) Argue that the "warming hiatus" between 1998 and 2013 disproves AGW theory. This fallacy disproved itself in the last 2+ years as global surface and ocean temperatures have exceeded the 1998 record year on year.
or:
b) Attempt to discredit scientists arguing that their own funding depends on the alarming data that they publish. Far-right conservatives continue to demonize scientists as a cabal of billionaires working in concert to sway public opinion. If that was true, then the whole hiatus period sure didn't help their cause, but the graph hasn't moved.

This is sound science, and denialism is collapsing under the weight of its own bullshit. At the time of posting, NOAA said that July 2016 also marked the 15th consecutive warmest month on record for the globe. That is the longest stretch of months in a row that a global temperature record has been set in their dataset.

Are you sure that 50 billion farm animals releasing methane would have no affect on the planet?

Are you sure that cutting down 80% of forests (trees absorb co2) would not have an effect?

You don't need know anything about maths or science to see that these huge numbers are significant regardless of what the sun is doing.

Just to make sure you can appreciate how much 50 billion is - it would take you 31 years to count 50 billion.

Human activity in the last 100 years (especially in the last 50) has drastically changed the earth.

They have shares in toyota prius brand. It's the ultimate get rich slow scheme.

Pauline Hanson and her party are completely bonkers don't get me wrong.

But they are also one of the only parties addressing the immigration issue, which is why they got some seats. No other party is really making as much of a fuss about immigration, so people that don't want Australia to turn into Germany/Sweden, have no sane person to vote for.

It's lose/lose unfortunately, until someone reasonable stands up and even addresses the concerns.

I'm all for multiculturalism, but not if some cultures don't reciprocate, which is what we are seeing throughout Europe.

What BS
You are implying that 80% of trees are gone. The # is more like 45%. Still enough to clean the air from any man activities.

50 billion farm animals really? the humane society puts it at 4.9 billion for 2016.
http://www.humanesociety.org/news/resources/research/stats_slaughter_totals.html

If not these eatable things then what ? lions tiger and bears?

Man made has trashed the planet ( plastics) sure but not one bit is attributable to global warming..

You are buying the Kool Aid of the left. The left want to TAX pollution . Its one big TAX Scheme!

If you read my other reply two posts up, it's clear that I'm not left leaning.

Your linked slaughter statistics are for the USA alone, and as far as I know GLOBAL warming affects the whole globe....so we should count the global amount of farmed animals.

Your statistics also only count slaughtered animals, and not farmed animals like dairy cows, which there are more of at any one time. Around 9 billion dairy cows in the USA. So already in the US alone we have 13.9 billion farmed animals(4.9b slaughtered + 9b dairy cows). It's not hard to see worldwide that figure reaching 50 billion.
And that's still not counting a bunch of animals (read the small print of your link).

The thing with methane too, it traps over 29 times more heat that co2....and most trees don't absorb methane. So even if we had enough trees to absorb co2 (which we don't) then all of methane from farmed animals would remain up there anyway.


80% of tree's aren't gone, 80 % of forests are gone:
https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=how%20much%20of%20the%20world%27s%20forests%20have%20been%20destroyed


How much renewable energy tax do you pay BTW? Where I live I pay $0. But the government does give some $4 billion of our tax money to the coal industry. So if anything the big tax scheme is from non-renewable.


EDIT:
Oh I forgot the most important bit. Scientists can tell between natural co2 and man-made co2. They have differing amounts of carbon. So it's actually really easy to tell between how much carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere vs naturally occurring carbon dioxide.


Also lions and bears are going to live in nature regardless of human activity - we've added 50 billion large, methane producing animals to the world that wouldn't be there otherwise. Granted the destruction of habitats might have reduced the lion and bear populations, but not by 50 billion. Perhaps a few million at most.

Global warming is not man made. End of story.

Only politicians who want to TAX more believe in it. Take the $ out of it and then see how quickly this issue goes away.


And lets say you are right. From the current "facts" we are doomed. So who the F cares. Eat cows and cut down trees and get on with life.

But if we're all going to die anyway, then what's the point of collecting more tax?

We are not dying anytime soon.
Bridges to nowhere still need to be built.

Well in that case, I'm happy pay a bit of extra tax to breath clean air and drink clean water whilst I wait for the planet to overheat

We will all enjoyed the freedom and comfort of fossil fuel since the industrial revolution. At some point, we all have to pay for the gigatons of mess that we're pumping in the air.

The smart money is on clean energy as oil bounces back above $40 per barrel after the global supply glut had it below $30. Coal investment has tanked since oil peaked in 2009 and solar plants and wind plants are often more cost effective over their lifetimes.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/average_crude_oil_spot_price
http://www.infomine.com/investment/metal-prices/coal/5-year/