You’ve got it backwards. The 97% of scientists are telling you that water is wet, and you’re ignoring them.
Keep your mouth shut in Australia . . . or else. Australia Introduces Legislation to Outlaw Disagreeing With the Government Eric Worrall As Australia approaches its next cycle of state and federal elections, the radical Aussie Federal Government is pushing laws which could silence media criticism of their key policy positions. . . .
That’s not the title of the essay. Why wasn’t WUWT honest? It’s this —- SUBMISSION TO AUSTRALIAN CODE OF PRACTICE ON MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION (ACPDM) – 2022 REVIEW 3 August 2022 The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE)
If you don't read then you'll always be behind. ". . . But critics are already lining up to attack the bill, with the Institute of Public Affairs describing the legislation as “the single biggest attack on freedom of speech in Australia’s peacetime history”. “Misinformation legislation introduced into federal parliament today represents a chilling assault on every Australian’s right to free speech. The new Bill broadens provisions to censor speech, which even the government’s fatally flawed first draft did not include,” said John Storey, the Director of Law and Policy at the IPA. … Read more: https://www.skynews.com.au/australi...h/news-story/03f202bf41f4255fd0f7c4b4c05682fe . . . "
I’m not really concerned if Australia would vote for or against the MISINFORMATION bill. I’m more concerned that WUWT dishonestly misrepresents the Bill. They prove why misinformation legislation is needed.
Tsk tsk. That's just whining based on fear of free speech. Please note that within the post WUWT quoted the ATSE submission in full.
No, climate realists are clear that the actual 97% of scientists are likely right about what they are actually telling us -- while your side is claiming that what those scientists are telling us is that water is drowning us.
Huh? What essay? All I see is an article in WUWT about a submission to an Australian review panel. The article's title was obviously different from the title of the submission, because it was an article about the submission, not the submission itself. If I write an article about the US Constitution, I'm not going to call my article, "The Constitution of the United States of America," am I? Do you understand how absurd and off-base your objection is? Ahem. It was. Perfectly. The real question is, why didn't someone who styles himself Media_Truth try to be more truthful?
Oh, they are all for Fascism. So long as it enforces their viewpoints and beliefs. I still remember thinking the world had been turned upside down a decade or so ago when that was actually done in Venezuela, and they were all applauding what a win that was for "Democracy".
Denialism seems to be preventing you from seeing clearly—- SUBMISSION TO AUSTRALIAN CODE OF PRACTICE ON MISINFORMATION AND DISINFORMATION (ACPDM) – 2022 REVIEW 3 August 2022 The Australian Academy of Technology and Engineering (ATSE)
Hey guy, my goal here is to establish a dialogue based on our shared observations. If you're seeing something I'm not then please share. If your interest is in just saying you're right and I'm wrong then OK, I'm wrong and you're right. Now. Let's get on to shared observations.
Here is a very good observation. Notice how temperature is tracking increased atmospheric CO2 over time, especially from 1980 to present. That CO2 trajectory continues to rise. The deniers would likely you to believe that all of a sudden, this pattern will end. That’s a pipe-dream, and the effects are irreversible.
Ah. So you seem to be suggesting that you don't have the information and my guess is that you probably haven't even seen it. Thank you for you time.
What I'm looking for are temperatures, not differences. Also, I'm looking for info on just what is warming, is it the earth? is it the biosphere? Nobody seems to know and that speaks poorly for the climate advocates..
Not at all - explained here. This is one paragraph of an entire explanatory article. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature To calculate a global average temperature, scientists begin with temperature measurements taken at locations around the globe. Because their goal is to track changes in temperature, measurements are converted from absolute temperature readings to temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend. temperature anomalies—the difference between the observed temperature and the long-term average temperature for each location and date. Multiple independent research groups across the world perform their own analysis of the surface temperature data, and they all show a similar upward trend.