Israel Folau attempts to clarify bushfire comments

Seriously, it may stave off the inevitable for some time. As I said, the medication is definitely helping the mother-in-law. It may or may not help you but, based on your tenuous grasp on reality, it's worth a shot.

Roger, you didn't notice the date on that report, did you? You are in line for Luddite of the year.

Contact Dr Gerard Byrne. We’re seeing a quite good response, to his treatment, in my mother-in-law. https://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/6

RogerTA: Just for your education and what you have missed by not reading your history! The Cooling World Newsweek, April 28, 1975 There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon. The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

That’s lame! Man I hate humanity!

OK T-Man: Please tell me why Charlottes Pass, the coldest record in the Australian records was taken out of the system? Also, why did the Goulburn minimum temperature truncate and ‘lost’ several degrees of cold temperature? Another little error I suppose BTW it doesn’t matter a damn how many believers in CC there are or how authoritarian the science appears, science doesn’t give a damn about what you believe it is all about data that is credible. An example was when the Uni of E Anglia had their emails stolen and released, the code in the ‘Harry readme’ file was so bad that you could put telephone numbers in it and get a hockey stick. Still, ‘nothing to see here move on’ is the standard response and the denial of debate is a nail in this coffin of well-meant but ideologically driven science.

Stillmissit, please accept my apologies. Until reading your comments on this article I didn’t realise what you are dealing with (and still missing). Some words of succour if I may. I watched my mother suffer dreadfully for years as she fought against her fading grasp on reality. It was very difficult for her however once that grasp finally slipped away she lived a blissfully peaceful and unaware decade. Perhaps your God may deliver you the same fortune as she.

Given the lead time, how is nuclear energy a short term solution to anything?

EastFF: at last, you and I agree, now for the other 50 acolytes of climate change.

True Roger and I still am. It was stupid to go through the hoops over something this trivial. If you think this is one of the most important issues today you need to check yourself in.

Stillmissit, Agreed on that front. Fission is the best solution over the short to medium term, and the efficiency of that technology is only getting better and safer. That said, Fusuion tech is the holy grail of energy and if there's one benefit of a new cold war between east and west, it is the vast increase in R&D that the fear China will get there first is now driving. Indeed, this is perhaps one of those areas that another arms race - AI and quantum computing - could also help solve sooner than current expectations.

Roger: wrong go and have a look at European standards up to level 6 and there has never been reductions in SO2. Get your facts straight before you start an argument.

TWAS: The decisions made on this front will affect the western world dramatically, You make your side and I make mine. I suspect that the UN wants to tranfer massive amounts of money to developing nations and that is their aim, what is yours?

Enoughisenough, if your honestly making the claim here that quantities of a compound relative to total mass is clear evidence of there being no efficacy on the overall system, I can only assume your background in areas like chemistry or physics is virtually non existent. For instance, when it comes to toxicity of substances to the human body often tiny amounts can be dangerous. For lead, as little as 5 micrograms per decilitre are associated with compromised health in children. That’s a staggeringly small amount, but using your logic perhaps you would consider the risk to be acceptable and wouldn’t worry if your children were exposed to lead in even higher levels because you seem to think compounds and elements can only have effects on systems in large quantities. Your misunderstanding here seems to be driven by your reliance on intuitive logic over hard science. For instance, intuitive logic told ancient man that the sun revolves around the earth, whereas hard science demonstrated it was the other way around. The point is, intuitive logic may feel like common sense, but when it comes to highly complex matters it is very often the enemy of reason.

Gray and dead hand: Same old alarmist rubbish! what site did you drag this dead cat up from?

Sandbox: mostly true and if we concentrated on what you state then I would not be making these statements. Climate change has nothing to do with your second and best part of your post!

EastsFF: you said "ncreased spending delivers us reliable Nuclear Fusion" Now that would be a wonderful result but it is still almost a dream. Nuclear energy is the short term answer until we can drive the world on Fussion energy for next to nothing. Wonderful part of your post. I note that Bill Gates is developing a version TWR nuclear system that will burn nuclear waste. Currently on hold due to China trade war.

True enough - enough but the figure is 0.0004‬ ie 400 /1,000000. That is the amount of CO2 that the argument is about.

Ah, apologies for not saying something sooner then. But I was a little confused, as Tah-man was literally the only person who introduced extremist climate change science or policies like Extinction Rebellion into the discussion. I assumed it was part of some cross-conversation from elsewhere, as I was merely noting the general similarities in language and moralistic attitudes between Christianity and the carbon emissions/climate change debate, regardless of the content. Especially in the areas of past sins, judgement coming due and the need for atonement.

enoughisenough, all you've done here is post regurgitated talking points from disreputable sources. Indeed, above you demonstrated this by barging in with what you clearly assumed is an earth shattering fact when you informed us that water vapour is a green house gas. That you thought this was a clever point demonstrates how narrow your reading has been on the subject of climate science, as if you've ever made the effort to look beyond your ideological niche you'd know this has long been understood and is indeed an important factor in the negative feedback loops that higher emissions of things like CO2 and methane cause. The fact that you decided to randomly interject with culture war nonsense like the gender debate outs you as someone utterly disinterested in facts, and frankly one likely to be lacking the capacity for rational reasoning.