You appear to be wanting to debate issues that have been...

First 7245 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
RedCedar

17,848 Posts.

14

03/10/23

17:51

Post #: 70153430
Share

Originally posted by Johilo returned: ↑

Its the point you missed.
You say Plimer isnt qualified
I say the imposter Flannery is absolutely not qualified.
Plimer's science is closer to the subject than Flannery's .
I am interested in geology and all that we believe it has exposed of the earth's history, so Plimer appeals to my understanding more than Gore, Gates, Trudeau, Flannery et. al nd the bais of their beliefs in a hand picked group to provide the bible on the subject.
Not dissimilar to the voice referendum really or a Royal Commission.
As far as your consideration of my belief in lies,
does it throw you at all that I believe you are susceptible to believing more blatant lies than I may?

And you miss a further point ....
A large volcanic event, a Krakatoa or commonly historically worse, would be a greater threat to humanity than your CO2 content..
Think of the bigger picture chief, the one you wouldn't be able to see, or travel by or communicate through, the effect on crop growing aside!

Interestingly there is now an (your) admittance that,

"climate models are much more sophisticated than those of the Flannery and Gore era who relied on the science from three decades ago"

As I pointed out to you science moves on, we learn, we realise yesterday's truth is today lie.
A bonus for your understanding and further contribution.

Expand

You appear to be wanting to debate issues that have been resolved long ago.

The emissions of CO2 from natural causes such as volcanoes is clearly understood.

Organisations such as NOAA give clear, readable and recent updates.

There is a lot of accurate information posted here by posters such as @bellcurve thats worth reading.

I assume you read such posts.
3 Upvote

Reply