Global Warming - don't wait up!

I know I shouldn't but

From Ben Goldacre - Bad science

Among all these, reigning supreme, is the "zombie argument": arguments which survive to be raised again, for eternity, no matter how many times they are shot down. "Homeopathy worked for me," and the rest.

Zombie arguments survive, immortal and resistant to all refutation, because they do not live or die by the normal standards of mortal arguments. There's a huge list of them at realclimate.org, with refutations. There are huge lists of them everywhere. It makes no difference.

"CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas", "Global warming is down to the sun", "what about the cooling in the 1940s?" says your party bore. "Well," you reply, "since the last time you raised this, I checked, and there were loads of sulphites in the air in the 1940s to block out the sun, made from the slightly different kind of industrial pollution we had then, and the odd volcano, so that's been answered already, ages ago."

And they knew that. And you know they knew you could find out, but they went ahead anyway and wasted your time, and worse than that, you both know they're going to do it again, to some other poor sap. And that is rude

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/12/bad-science-goldacre-climate-change
 
Last edited:
It's great proof of the lengths that the supporters will go to, to support an otherwise unproven argument. They feel this desperate need to convince others that "they" are right. Their main failing being that there are many of their own kind who disagree with them as to the causes.

"Bad Science",... Haha, it's a bit like "Bad art" isn't it? Until there is more that just subjective opinion, it's all moot.

All this garbage is a lot like the argument provided by christians to support "god". "But of course there is a god,... the bible says so". Idiots......

Repetition, ad infinitum, does not give added credibility.
 
Last edited:
"CO2 isn't an important greenhouse gas", "Global warming is down to the sun", "what about the cooling in the 1940s?" says your party bore. "Well," you reply, "since the last time you raised this, I checked, and there were loads of sulphites in the air in the 1940s to block out the sun, made from the slightly different kind of industrial pollution we had then, and the odd volcano, so that's been answered already, ages ago."

Hang on a second I am going to refute this and say that if we did not have a sun we would not have warming therefore the sun is the ultimate cause of the problem.

:)
 
Australia's hottest official daytime temperature was recorded at Cloncurry in 1886, (or thereabouts) it was 53.8 deg C or 126 deg F.

I guess we are in a mini ice age now.

Imagine the panic these Global Warming twits could have raised if they were about then..... Squarrrrk,.... squarrrk,.... quick there's gotta be a way we can squeeze some research grants out of this,....
 
Last edited:
Australia's hottest official daytime temperature was recorded at Cloncurry in 1886, (or thereabouts) it was 53.8 deg C or 126 deg F.

I guess we are in a mini ice age now.

Imagine the panic these Global Warming twits could have raised if they were about then..... Squarrrrk,.... squarrrk,.... quick there's gotta be a way we can squeeze some research grants out of this,....

I know this will illicit a negative response but do you have any idea what is being discussed here?
Individual hottest and coldest days are meaningless in this process (just because it is hot or cold today does not prove or disprove Climate Change), there will be hotter and colder days but all that really matters is the average temperature and how it compares to previous and future averages.
 
I know this will illicit a negative response but do you have any idea what is being discussed here?
Individual hottest and coldest days are meaningless in this process (just because it is hot or cold today does not prove or disprove Climate Change), there will be hotter and colder days but all that really matters is the average temperature and how it compares to previous and future averages.
I know exactly what is going on Monty, that's why I can't resist pointing out the anomalies, the exceptions that break the rule, because it is the inverse of the argument being presented by the panic merchants. They seize on individual events with the idea that a lot of individual events shows a trend and if i wished to be so pedantic, I could do the same. But because I know that it is pointless wasting my time on the converted I just point out the highlights.

It's quite simple really, surely these persons with their ever so analytical minds could connect the dots if they wanted to, but the fact is that they don't want to, so detail is pointless.

Is it not too much to assume that if we are in a "real" period of Global Warming, that the previous hottest recorded daytime temperature would have been exceeded in the intervening 120 odd years?

The fact is that it is all crap.
 
People

OK I give up if there is anything not addressed on here come back


OK - can someone please translate that into English for me?

Meanwhile - Here, from the thunderer, The Times, is another reason why strong scepticism exists, and again the IPCC is at the heart of the corruption:-

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece


How can such performance be trusted? The true equation is that the bandwagon rolls on, funded by taxes; here it is:-

GLOBAL WARMING = GLOBAL GOVERNANCE.

Check it out - just google - Global Governance; take a look at the other side of the coin; and there is a lot of it.
 
If you have any further arguments against global warming after checking the link Perseus provided, then post them, otherwise disperse. That's what I got out of it.

Translation: "Agree with me or go away"

Absolutely dead in line with the reasoning of the panic merchants.
 
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only reporting.
That was not my intention.

Anyway, I couldn't stop laughing long enough to get a steady shot. ;)

I just can't believe how much effort some people will go to to stop others from expressing the truth as they see it.

To me, this kind of desperation is truly indicative of their underlying lack of faith in their own view.
 
Don't shoot the messenger, I'm only reporting.


I thought that shooting the messenger was exactly what was being called for the crime of scepticism here.

Here's a message - check out google - Global Warming = Global Governance. It ain't hard -you just lift a finger and press. Just do that before you disperse.

On this issue, I will now do my best to fade away.
 
Last edited:
if things take a turn for the worse some environutters with out a clue will put us dissidents on trial for endangering our precious planet. wouldn't they get a shock when nothing happens...
 
if things take a turn for the worse some environutters with out a clue will put us dissidents on trial for endangering our precious planet. wouldn't they get a shock when nothing happens...
I think something will happen,... but nothing that you or I (or anyone else on this planet) could influence.
 
Back
Top