Global Warming - don't wait up!

I believe in the ozone hole, I just never believed that it was man made, and latest figures would seem to be backing my belief. The hole that would continue to grow for at least another 50 years even if we stopped all use of CFCs is slowly closing, while the world use of CFCs in places like China is now greater than that portion of the market which we gave up. There were 6 X 100 pound bottles of it, on my last ship and the system needed every drop of it as system leaked everywhere,... until the Aussie crew fixed it. The name of the vessel was,..... wait for it,..... "All Green" :)

In Shanghai 4 years ago it was virtually impossible to buy refrigerants like R401, the replacement for R12 (Freon) we were sold some obviously re-branded bottles containing "approved refrigerant",.... Yeah,... I believed that, like I believe in Climate change being entirely man made.

Yet you drive, watch TV, take medical advice, use firearms, cook in ovens, grow or at least eat crops, use computers all with items devised and/or refined by the "egghead community" so are you sure they don't run your life?
I do not take all medical advice. In fact I rarely ever see a doctor. Other than to renew a prescription for blood pressure tablet annually, and treatment of a broken foot, I think it would be over 30 years since I have sought the advice of a doctor. I have never had a medical examination since I left the Navy 34 years ago, despite several doctors asking. I eat pretty much as I please without the benefit of all the crap told to us by various medical "experts", and I enjoy excellent health, I sleep well, and can read the finest print. I do voluntary work for nearly a dozen others no older than myself. Life is a blast.

The remainder of these things are all physical items that I evaluate and still have my preferences as to what I drive, use or consume, and the way in which I elect to do it.

My choice as to whether I believe climate change is being caused by man is still "out",... as there is ample and very basic evidence to show that something is very "off" about the whole issue.

I have great faith in my own judgement, and would never forgive myself if I were to allow someone else's poor judgement to cause me to change my life. If I make a poor judgement, I have only one person to blame and can live with it. Fortunately it rarely happens, In fact I can't think of the last time I made a seriously "poor" decision affecting my life. I think that I could say, that where it is legally allowable, I almost never allow others to make my decisions for me and thus far, it has never given me cause for regret.
 
Last edited:
Because they aren't. The Denialist industry is spinning it for those who don't look beyonds the edited statements! Imagine if every single Email you or you Company made was hacked, scrutinised and edited out of context for controversy and was made public and most of the Public with limited time and attention span wanted to believe these Emails were signs of corruption. This is the sort of situation these Scientists face.

The information is already there, there are perfectly acceptable explanations if you look beyond these isolated statements.

All I can suggest is that you are demonstrating you are not thinking for yourself. Have you read the reports to which these statements relate? It suddenly becomes clear. If you want a short option look at the last video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P70Sl...layer_embedded


Hehe I love the introduction of Bevis and Butthead, I think it is the best explanation to the situation I have seen yet.

My choice as to whether I believe climate change is being caused by man is still "out",... as there is ample and very basic evidence to show that something is very "off" about the whole issue.

Of course you have the choice to believe in anything you like and much like religion I have no intention of ever stopping people from believing in a deity of their choice but I can laugh at them for doing so especially once the argument ceases to be about fact and becomes a battle of wills as this one has.
 
Last edited:
Of course you have the choice to believe in anything you like and much like religion I have no intention of ever stopping people from believing in a deity of their choice but I can laugh at them for doing so especially once the argument ceases to be about fact and becomes a battle of wills as this one has.
Who's facts though? Deities of course are like climate change being man made, there is no proof of them. Those door knocking christians who call every six months or so have a case at least as good as the eggheads, and funnily enough, I don't believe them either.

They too, use fear tactics to panic those of us who are insecure into believing, whereas if there were any chance of either of them being right, they wouldn't have to, it would be obvious to all.
 
Last edited:
But as I have said this argument applies to everything from politics, religion to whether the earth is flat or not, if you are not prepared to accept any facts outside your (generic) own point of view then there is no point in continuing.

I really don't see any justification for classing the climate change argument as a "fear" based one any more than I would consider the long range weather forecast to be fear based if they tell me it will snow next week.

As it goes I find the lack of a counter argument against climate change to be very telling and I am not as sold on the process as Perseus is but I will always take traceable and repeatable science over personal attacks and people with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALAALAL until the argument goes away.
 
I have a stupid question that concerns global warming that I just saw tonight on teh Evening News, there's a glacier in Peru in the Andee's mountains, that has lost 40% of its mass in 13 years, which got the wheels in my head turning and I remember hearing on the news that all the worlds glaciers are melting along with the North and South polar caps, they say this will make the sea levels rise ok I won't argue that point, but my question is since they are all screaming about water, wouldn't that make way more rain too? Somewhere on the earth anyway?
 
But as I have said this argument applies to everything from politics, religion to whether the earth is flat or not, if you are not prepared to accept any facts outside your (generic) own point of view then there is no point in continuing.
There's an easy answer to that Monty. You know that that you can't change the evidence and you certainly can't change my mind. So rather than just casting sly aspersions on my credibility based on your own insecurities,... just give up and leave me in my ignorance. I'm certainly happy as I am, and you'll sleep a lot better without the worry.

I really don't see any justification for classing the climate change argument as a "fear" based one any more than I would consider the long range weather forecast to be fear based if they tell me it will snow next week.
I never used the word fear, but when a group tries to rush people into making huge and costly changes, based on unproven theories, I call it panic driven. One thing I have learned in life is that panic is the favoured method of scammers.

Also, In the right circumstances an unfavourable weather forecast can certainly be the cause of great fear and worry. Hurricanes, etc....

As it goes I find the lack of a counter argument against climate change to be very telling and I am not as sold on the process as Perseus is but I will always take traceable and repeatable science over personal attacks and people with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALAALAL until the argument goes away.
Did you ever stop to think that unlike yourself, perhaps some people don't see any point in arguing in support of the obvious. It all comes back to that time honoured quote you have used before Monty, "One should never argue with idiots,.... &etc". Conversely, I see your desperate attempts at changing my mind, as absolutely typical of those who are driving this panic. Ignoring advice of this type has saved my goose, on a number of occasions.

I don't have my fingers in my ears any more than yourself. Once we have proof of the theory, I'll support it, either way.
 
Last edited:
I don't have my fingers in my ears any more than yourself. Once we have proof of the theory, I'll support it, either way.

This is a fallacy as it is impossible to prove something to someone that will not accept any evidence.

I am happy to be blunt, I think you formulated your stance and are selectively creating your proof by ignoring everything that does not fit your stance.

I find it a somewhat ironic stance given that it is identical to the religion/faith argument that you ridicule at every opportunity.

In terms of arguing with idiots I don't understand this as it is you that is taking the word of a few whack jobs from Fox News while believing that Climate change is a conspiracy created by the "Liberals" and supported by tens of thousands of highly trained scientists worldwide.
 
This is a fallacy as it is impossible to prove something to someone that will not accept any evidence.
Rubbish!!! pure and simple. Maybe I don't accept the same ebvidence as you, but that makes the evidence I have accepted no less credible than your own.

I am happy to be blunt, I think you formulated your stance and are selectively creating your proof by ignoring everything that does not fit your stance.
Being blunt is of no consequence whatsoever, except perhaps as a lame excuse to try and ridicule my decision which other wise is as well (maybe better) founded than your own. What counts here is being honest in your assessment of the evidence available, in view of the circumstances.

I find it a somewhat ironic stance given that it is identical to the religion/faith argument that you ridicule at every opportunity.
Not at all,... Once again, it is made on the credibility of the evidence available.

In terms of arguing with idiots I don't understand this as it is you that is taking the word of a few whack jobs from Fox News while believing that Climate change is a conspiracy created by the "Liberals" and supported by tens of thousands of highly trained scientists worldwide.
What, My whack jobs are less credible than your whack jobs? 'Fraid not! it's just that their evidence lines up perfectly with all the other evidence that it's a con job. Hence the status quo remains regarding my earlier decisions.

P.S. The Sydney Herald Sun, quoted earlier, is not Fox News or a tabloid muck sheet.
 
Last edited:
Rubbish!!! pure and simple. Maybe I don't accept the same ebvidence as you, but that makes the evidence I have accepted no less credible than your own.

Being blunt is of no consequence whatsoever, except perhaps as a lame excuse to try and ridicule my decision which other wise is as well (maybe better) founded than your own. What counts here is being honest in your assessment of the evidence available, in view of the circumstances.

Not at all,... Once again, it is made on the credibility of the evidence available.

What, My whack jobs are less credible than your whack jobs? 'Fraid not! it's just that their evidence lines up perfectly with all the other evidence that it's a con job. Hence the status quo remains regarding my earlier decisions.

P.S. The Sydney Herald Sun, quoted earlier, is not Fox News or a tabloid muck sheet.

Well how about this?
Past decade set to be warmest ever

By Emma Alberici and Samantha Donovan
Posted Wed Dec 9, 2009 12:04am AEDT
Updated 5 hours 53 minutes ago
The past decade is set to be the warmest on record (Reuters: Will Burgess, file photo)




New research from the World Meteorological Organisation shows that the past decade has been the warmest since records began 160 years ago.
The United Nations weather agency and Britain's Met Office presented their findings at the Copenhagen climate change summit.
The figures show a steady rise in temperatures over the past four decades, with 2009 listed as likely to be the fifth warmest year since records began in 1850.
Doctor Vicky Pope is the head of climate change advice at the Met office.
"In the last decade we have seen that the temperatures haven't gone up very much, but they are clearly a lot warmer then they were in the previous decade," she said.
Some of the UN's weather data was provided by Britain's University of East Anglia which is at the centre of a row over leaked emails which appear to suggest that the theories around man-made climate change are not solid.
The secretary-general of the WMO, Michel Jarraud, also observed that Australia has so far had its third warmest year on record.
"There were above-normal temperatures in most parts of the continents, and only in USA and Canada there were significant areas with cooler-than-average conditions," he said.
"But in large parts of Southern Asia, Central Africa, these regions are likely to have the warmest year on record."
Mr Jarraud says the year has also been notable for extreme weather events.
"China with the third warmest year in the last 50 years, heat waves in Italy, UK, France, Belgium, Germany, an extreme heat wave in India, and Australia the third warmest year on record with three exceptional heat waves," he said.
Those heatwaves hit south-eastern Australia in January, February and November and the sub-tropical east in August.
El Nino returns?

A climatologist at the Bureau of Meteorology's National Climate Centre, Blair Trewin, is not surprised that the WMO has highlighted those events and the deadly February bushfires.
"It's not often you see long-term stations ... break monthly temperature records by two, three, four degrees, and to have it happen three times in the same year in the same continent is pretty significant," he said.
The WMO report also observes an El Nino weather pattern began mid-year. That pattern is dreaded by Australian farmers because it means lower-than-average rainfall, particularly in the east.
Mr Trewin says the El Nino pattern is well-established.
"So far the impacts in Australia have been a bit more modest than those of the last two in 02 and 06," he said.
"It's interesting to note that in the strongest El Nino years, what you tend to see is that the year in which the El Nino ends tends to be a particularly warm one.
"Globally we saw that in 1998 and it will be interesting to see if something similar happens in 2010."
The WMO will release a final report on 2009 next March and Mr Jarraud says at this stage, it is impossible to predict what global conditions will be like next year.
"On top of the trend there's a lot of variability, so we are in a warming trend, we have no doubt about that, but what will be the prediction for next year I would be very, very hesitant to tell you that," he said.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/12/09/2765726.htm?section=justin
 
No,.... wrong!!!!...... it is not the warmest ever.

Monty,.. if that is an example of what you base your decisions on, you've just convinced me that to go on about this is worse than stupid, it is positively insane.

I think what you meant was, it MAY be the warmest decade since 1850, a great difference to "ever", 160 years is not even worth consideration in the grand scheme of things and even if it were right, the eggheads are now stating that increased temperatures may reduce the Arctic ice cap, but it will increase the Antarctic icecap proportionately due to increased transpiration and precipitation.

Yes Monty,..... the weather is changing, we know that, we also know that it has changed many times before and that we have no more chance of stopping these cycles than we have of changing our day to day weather. Personally I find it very gratifying to go outside and yell at the weather, it doesn't seem to achieve much but I feel a lot better afterwards plus all of my neighbours tell their kids not to bother me either. It's great, you really should try it.

This is how climate change occurs. Not in days, weeks or months – but over years, decades and centuries. The relatively stable global temperature patterns since 1998 are just part of the natural cycle, in other words, but the overall trends are far more frightening. As Pearce cautions, “once natural cycles move back to a warming phase global warming will go into overdrive.”
Unsurprisingly, there are those who doubt the reliability of the Met Office’s data. I don’t entirely blame them – the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia (UEA) helped to put them together, and Climategate has undoubtedly damaged that outfit’s reputation.
You can pick and choose selected pieces of info to support your argument until the cows come home, and I can knock them @rse over head just as easily, (I'm not going to bother though). This is my whole point, you go on as if this is all fait accompli whereas in fact these wankers keep tripping over their own boot laces in their eagerness to convince those who are too insecure to make up their own minds.

Anyway,... I though you mentioned that I wasn't worth your time. Coz, I'm bloody sure that you are right there, as far as I'm concerned you are just piddling into the wind. If you think that I'm going to waste my time rehashing this all again, you are wrong, little if anything has changed, except perhaps a few more scandals involving the accuracy of collected data have been unearthed further supporting my views.
 
Last edited:
I didnt mean to say anything but I figured I would see if you actually read past the title since the second sentence says...
New research from the World Meteorological Organisation shows that the past decade has been the warmest since records began 160 years ago.
The United Nations weather agency and Britain's Met Office presented their findings at the Copenhagen climate change summit.

It would appear that my suspicion was not unfounded and of course it would be wrong it doesn't support your view.
 
I didnt mean to say anything but I figured I would see if you actually read past the title since the second sentence says...

It would appear that my suspicion was not unfounded and of course it would be wrong it doesn't support your view.
When I read the incorrect and sensationalist heading,

MontyB said:
Well how about this?
Past decade set to be warmest ever
there's little sense in reading further. This is a prime example of the crap being used to panic dullards into believing we are all on the verge of imminent extinction.

And as such it wholly supports exactly what I have been saying about using sensationalism to panic people.

Thank you Monty, I rest my case.
 
Last edited:
Personally I don't really believe in this global warming being such a huge deal. The Earth goes in processes.

I believe people are making it a big deal because it's making a looot of money right now.
 
somebody go look up professor Ian plimer and his speech in june 2009...
and he actually makes sense unlike this crap...
if it is anything it is human ego thinking that we mere mortals can change the planets climate

better yet read his book heaven and earth...
and you know what climate change believers have become?
they have become a part of an urban atheistic religion that disregards reality when they draw their conclusions...
oh and will some one tell me the largest green house gas is?
and how much c02 we actually contribute?
and what it is carbon Nazis are actually suggesting we are doing?
and how long it is speculated that carbon takes recycle?
and how much it is going to cost building economies and power systems that don't work?
 
Last edited:
Al Bore has done it again

AL BORE has done it again.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...to-be-off-target/story-e6frg6xf-1225810599409

Al Gore faces own inconvenient truth after Arctic ice estimates revealed to be off target

The Australian, December 15 2009.

AL Gore faced up to an inconvenient truth of his own yesterday when it was revealed the former US Vice-President misquoted an eminent climate scientist's work to suggest that the Arctic could be completely ice-free in five years.

Mr Gore stated: "These figures are fresh. Some of the models suggest to Dr [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75 per cent chance that the entire north polar ice cap, during the summer months, could be completely ice-free within five to seven years."

But the climatologist whose work Mr Gore was citing has rubbished these claims, a report in The Times says.
"It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at," Dr Maslowski said. "I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this."

Mr Gore's office later admitted that the 75 per cent figure was an estimate Dr Maslowksi used several years ago in conversation with Mr Gore.


This is the second embarrassing gaffe for Mr Gore in recent weeks. On December 4 Mr Gore was forced to cancel a 'golden handshake' speaking engagement at the conference in Copenhagen. Attendees were encouraged to part with $US1200 to meet the climate change spearhead and have their photograph taken with him.

Mr Gore's latest error came as hacked e-mails from a British University appeared to suggest that scientists had manipulated data to bolster their argument that humans were responsible for global warming.

Mr Gore, who became an unlikely champion of the green movement after narrating the Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth, was roundly castigated for his speech by members of the climate science community.

Professor Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said: "This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from sceptics. You really don't need to exaggerate the changes in the Arctic."


Others agreed, stating that even if quoted correctly, Dr Maslowski's six-year projection for near-ice-free conditions is an extreme prediction. Most climate scientists agree a 20 to 30-year timescale is more likely.

"Maslowski's work is very well respected, but he's a bit out on a limb," said Professor Peter Wadhams, an ocean physics specialist at the University of Cambridge.
Dr Maslowki, an associate research professor at the US Naval Postgraduate School in California, said his latest results projected that it would take six years for 80 per cent of the ice to melt, but he expected some to remain beyond 2020.

He added: "I was very explicit that we were talking about near-ice-free conditions and not completely ice-free conditions in the northern ocean. I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this," he said. "It's unclear to me how this figure was arrived at, based on the information I provided to Al Gore's office."
 
somebody go look up professor Ian plimer and his speech in june 2009...
and he actually makes sense unlike this crap...
if it is anything it is human ego thinking that we mere mortals can change the planets climate

better yet read his book heaven and earth...
and you know what climate change believers have become?
they have become a part of an urban atheistic religion that disregards reality when they draw their conclusions...
oh and will some one tell me the largest green house gas is?
and how much c02 we actually contribute?
and what it is carbon Nazis are actually suggesting we are doing?
and how long it is speculated that carbon takes recycle?
and how much it is going to cost building economies and power systems that don't work?

I've never read it, but outside the conservative press it is regarded as as unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent.

If he said that volcanoes emit 130 times more CO2 than humans as I heard, then it isn't worth the toilet paper value and is just mindless propaganda. Hasn't he got mining interests? There is so much rubbish out there, try reading this if you like real life conspiracies.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854
 
Last edited:
I've never read it, but outside the conservative press it is regarded as as unscientific, inaccurate, based on obsolete research, and internally inconsistent.

If he said that volcanoes emit 130 times more CO2 than humans as I heard, then it isn't worth the toilet paper value and is just mindless propaganda. Hasn't he got mining interests? There is so much rubbish out there, try reading this if you like real life conspiracies.

http://www.amazon.com/Climate-Cover-Up-Crusade-Global-Warming/dp/1553654854
the inaccuracy stuff isn't coming form the scientific community it comes from the uneducated masses jumping at shadows...
the scientific communities rebuttal has only came in the form of personal smear rather than attempting to logically reject his claims...
and if you wouldn't mind could actually outline what climate change actually is?

i would hate to have to answer my own questions from my previous post...
but here i go...

but the largest greenhouse gas is actually water vapor and i don't think any amount of inconclusive speculative studies and smooth talking would convince the oh so easily manipulated masses into excepting a tax on that...

we actually contribute the the large amount of four percent (4%) of green house gasses that is including all of them not just co2...

the climate peoples (cant think of anything appropriate to call them)are actually suggesting the gradual accumulation of so called greenhouse gasses (from us all 4%) of it will result in the change of the climate(which has been changing since the beginning of the earth)...

despite the fact that green house gasses actually take 6 months to 4 years to be redistrubeted back into the biosphere then from there into the soil or sea...

and when we mention the biosphere doesn't mean the rainforests or trees it actually is refering for the most part bacteria and other basic organism that make up the overwhelming majority

and you dare to try and make mention of possible conflicts of interest, you do know how much funding is involved in climate change mitigation and study?
it far out ways that of the mining and mineral industries...
 
Last edited:
The common myths and answers to global warming questions are widely available from reputable sources but are simply ignored by climate Deniers because their purpose is not to inform but confuse and mislead. Don’t be swindled by them. Here are the list of devious tricks and links that address their misinformation (including the ones you posted)

http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/cause/climate_sceptics/

Climate change: A guide for the perplexed – New scientist - http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Climate change myths – Met Office - http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/pressoffice/myths/

Misinformation about Climate Science – Union of concerned scientists - http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/climate-misinformation.html

A guide to facts and fictions about climate change – Royal Society
http://royalsociety.org/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630

TEN POPULAR MYTHS about Global Climate Change
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html

http://www-personal.buseco.monash.edu.au/~BParris/BPClimateChangeQ&As.html

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2008/07/how_to_talk_to_a_sceptic.php

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

How to answer the claims of a Climate Change Sceptic – World Wildlife Fund -
http://www.panda.org/about_our_earth/aboutcc/cause/climate_sceptics/

An index for debunking of various popular media occurrences of climate-related nonsense
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=RC_Wiki#By_Myth

There is no excuse of scientific ignorance of the issues and of being manipulated by unscrupulous people. These have been extensively documented by reputable people whose life it dedicated to criticism, genuine scepticism and establishing truth. If you wish to delude yourself I cannot really help, you need to help yourself.
 
Last edited:
The common myths and answers to global warming questions are widely available from reputable sources but are simply ignored by climate Deniers because their purpose is not to inform but confuse and mislead. Don’t be swindled by them. Here are the list of devious tricks and links that address their misinformation (including the ones you posted)
And of course the reverse is not true because it would not suit your case.

There is no excuse of scientific ignorance of the issues and of being manipulated by unscrupulous people. These have been extensively documented by reputable people whose life it dedicated to criticism, genuine scepticism and establishing truth. If you wish to delude yourself I cannot really help, you need to help yourself.
So you feel that these people whose careers are solely reliant on the availability of research money, are above and beyond having their heads turned by the chance of a lifetime on the gravy train.

Why is it that your info and sources are allegedly beyond reproach, whereas those of others are invariably false even when they emanate from other "learned" members of academia.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top