Global Warming - don't wait up!

senojekips said:
And of course the reverse is not true because it would not suit your case.

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.
Click to expand...

The IPCC don't do research, they are not paid to review, the participating scientists have to divert resources from their main work to do it.

What learned members are these? Ian Plimer! Watch him against a non scientist as well.

There are always bad apples, but 97% who are active in climate research accept AGW is the dominant factor in warming. The other 3% generally accept some influence.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Someone is! Which learned members? Ian Plimer won't survive long in his University since he has clearly breached its terms.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php

Nearly all the Denierists are Cranks: Michaels, Monckton, Morano, gosh why do they all begin with M? now there's a conspiracy for you!
Click to expand...


really a period of stability, evidence says that it was a couple of degrees warmer just a thousand years ago, that was called the medivel warm period, were parts of GREENLAND was farmable, then the little ice age came, and it was a couple of degrees colder than it was now, that ending the mid 1800's, temperatures flaucuate massively, if you look at the evidence its there, but you dont here about that becuase it doesnt sell, and doesnt get scientific grants, also the debate isnt over, unlike alot of people think.
These are quite long, but VERY good, with real scientist interviews to show evidence

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpWa7VW-OME
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BJrd...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rf6C0...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkSmd...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlSSw...eature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=efxToyX5cPw&fe
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGZ1b...dature=related

watch the videos really watch, then you can make a case, im bombarded by co2 propaganda everyday, so heres the other side
 
perseus said:
Someone is! Which learned members? Ian Plimer won't survive long in his University since he has clearly breached its terms.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php

Nearly all the Denierists are Cranks: Michaels, Monckton, Morano, gosh why do they all begin with M? now there's a conspiracy for you!
Click to expand...
I'll make you a bet that he not only survives, but will go on in his present or better position until his retirement.

Quoting some crank's Blog, counts for nothing in the real world.
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Captiva

This may interest you Ian Plimer V George Monbiot

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2009/s2772906.htm
Click to expand...
it is most interesting...
Originally Posted by perseus
Climate change: A guide for the perplexed – New scientist - http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
Click to expand...

problem with the logic in this link for the most part they contradict them selves by firstly enlightening me that climate science is very complicated (no sh!t) then they go on to oversimplify everything to the point of being ridiculous

have now read most of the content on this link i feel as though i could write for years on this subject refuting most of its claims just by pointing out how they have put on a front. by making it sound that they are saying something of substance but really it is all a load of crap. eg you don't prove your unproven theory by using un proven evidence from your numerous other unproven theories...

i don't want you to you to link me to places that say they have evidence, i want to see the evidence!!!!
Originally Posted by perseus
Misinformation about Climate Science – Union of concerned scientists - http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/archive/cl...formation.html
Click to expand...

looks to me they have provided us with the outline of a disinformation campaign...
there very own in fact...
Originally Posted by perseus
TEN POPULAR MYTHS about Global Climate Change
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/pr...ten-myths.html
Click to expand...
umm who ever said science was democratic?

if it were: radios are useless, the earth is flat, the sun goes round the earth, radioactivity is an unimportant discovery having little relevance to our daily life...
im sure i could of found better example as i am sure you could of aswell for your links(atleast i hope you could of becuase i hope tat is not what you call proof)oh and half of yourb links didnt work...)

and just because someone takes your position on what you believe, doesn't give them credibility...




but on a separate note i don't necessarily deny climate change the climate has never been stable in the first place...
and if you want proof of this...
why is it that the Romans were able to tax vineyards in the Scottish boarder regions?
 
i don't want you to you to link me to places that say they have evidence, i want to see the evidence!!!!
Click to expand...

What sort of evidence do you want? The temperature record, sea ice and glaciers retreating, you will just dismiss it as a conspiracy. You rather believe front groups paid by the oil industry, or some non-specialist scientist who obviously has his fingers in the till than the 97% of climate scientists. How obvious does it have to be? It's amazing how successful the Deniers industry has been. I really wouldn't give then a chance based on the scientific evidence, but they are experts at lying and marketing. They specifically target older uneducated males with propaganda. And yes they believe it, Volcanoes emit more than humans, Medieval warm period, water is a forcing, Sunspots, absolute bollocks, what happens after you present the peer reviewed evidence which refutes it, wait a few months and repeat it, keep repeating it, until the brainless accept it. Like Hitlers speeches. Honestly it beggars belief do you realise how stupid they must think you are? Laughing all the way to the bank. Being a scientist/engineer is soul destroying, watching hard work being destroyed by mindless propaganda, it really is.

This is the sort of logic Deniers have

Someone, comes in the pub saying,

'there's a group of youth's hanging around your house with some gasoline and matches.' You say,

'No, just alarmist nonsense. Just theories, everyone blames the young for everything, how do you know they are going to set it alight?'

'I don't for sure but...,'

'there you are then'

'Well there has been a concentration of arson incidents around this area.'

'Statistics and lies, I can show you an area where its worse!'

'Well it's a good job your house is insured anyway.'

'I don't have it insured!'
 
Last edited:
perseus said:
Someone is! Which learned members? Ian Plimer won't survive long in his University since he has clearly breached its terms.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/12/plimer_exposed_as_a_fraud.php

Nearly all the Denierists are Cranks: Michaels, Monckton, Morano, gosh why do they all begin with M? now there's a conspiracy for you!
Click to expand...
\
regardless of his inability to admit error he still made many valid pionts... and what have they have managed to find? minimal discrepancies in a 230000 word 500 page book ...
i must congratulate these people for actually reading the book before making comment on it.but as for the interview, it is what happens when you get two skilled journos with an agenda who have chosen fixate on the more obscure and insignificant parts of his proposals...

Originally Posted by perseus
What sort of evidence do you want? The temperature record, sea ice and glaciers retreating, you will just dismiss it as a conspiracy. yes that would be nice!!! You rather believe front groups paid by the oil industry no i do not... you would rather accept the front put up by a group of people seeking to profit from the altering of the global economy... , or some non-specialist scientist who obviously has his fingers in the till than the 97% of climate scientists as i would like to repeat science is not based on consensus but evidence and this is actual evidence rather than based on the assumption that you are already correct and then modeling and making predictions from there.... How obvious does it have to be ? umm it does not have to be obvious it needs to be true It's amazing how successful the Deniers industry has been. I really wouldn't give them a chance based on the scientific evidence, but they are experts at lying and marketing as are the climate groups who have gone from relative obscurity to now being inundated with funding. so tell me this if your lively hood depended on slanting evidence to suit your needs would you?. They specifically target older uneducated males with propaganda which i am not. i am a young educated male . And yes they believe it, Volcanoes emit more than humans, Medieval warm period the world has been here for a lot longer than this, water is a forcing???, Sunspots, absolute bollocks i think i you have got me confused with someone else, what happens after you present the peer reviewed evidence which refutes it, wait a few months and repeat it, keep repeating it, until the brainless accept it. Like Hitlers speeches . Honestly it beggars belief do you realise how stupid they must think you are? Laughing all the way to the bank. Being a scientist/engineer is soul destroying, watching hard work being destroyed by mindless propaganda, it really is.i know the feeling...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
the public has in recent times taken an absolutist attitude to science( an attitude driven by the media because it makes reporting much simpler and easier to sell), without considering that it is not possible for science to factor in all possible variables. so what used to happen when scientists made their conclusions is that it would be understood that their conclusions would be the best conclusions that the scientists could come up with, with the available infomation. unfortunately the pubic longer holds these sentiments (for reasons stated in the opening sentence).

when considering climate change one must understand this. as this has (or should have)a great effect on understanding the publics reaction to climate change...
 
perseus said:
Well watch the video especially the last half and tell me what you think of him now

Be honest!

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...9/s2772906.htm
Click to expand...


Surely by now you have realised you are dealing with people who are not looking to change their mind and as such are just picking words at random from arguments to justify an untenable stance which is why I stopped responding in this thread a while ago.

You are not getting any counter argument just a couple of guys with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALAALALALA and responding to each post because they feel the need to have the last word as a justification.

My suggestion is save yourself the headache and wait for a sensible response from someone before getting involved it really is a lot easier.
 
so your suggestion is to not debate this, accept it as a fact, and ignore all attempts to show you where you may have gone wrong. then to ride off into the sunset on your imaginary high horse by feeling all warm fuzzy and Superior by yet again thwarting the naive climate deniers whilst simultaneously saving the planet...
this actually sounds like the strategy of all people who wish this to be true.
i must say what great show man ship....
still don't prove anything...
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
Surely by now you have realised you are dealing with people who are not looking to change their mind and as such are just picking words at random from arguments to justify an untenable stance which is why I stopped responding in this thread a while ago.

You are not getting any counter argument just a couple of guys with their fingers in their ears shouting LALALALALAALALALA and responding to each post because they feel the need to have the last word as a justification.

My suggestion is save yourself the headache and wait for a sensible response from someone before getting involved it really is a lot easier. LALALALALALALALALALALALALALALALA,... &etc.
Click to expand...
The reason he's getting no counter argument is simple,....... There is no valid argument in the first place, just a series of pet theories that not even the eggheads can all agree on. It's like trying to "push off" against fairy floss. (Cotton Candy to the Yanks)
 
Yeah yeah its an international conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, geologists, engineers and politicians to convince the world that its getting warmer we all secretly carry thermometers hidden in our armpits so that we can fake warm temperatures.

Fortunately the world has right wing talk show hosts, mine owners and oil interests to counter the evil "intelligentsia" and convince the layman that the tons of crap they are pumping into oceans and atmosphere is really not all that bad and CO2/Green house gases were far worse during the last mass extinction period and that never caused humans any issues.

You don't even have to believe the pro-climate change argument to see that the likes of Plimer and Beck have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, christ Beck would be the biggest champion of climate change if Obama and Gore announced climate change didn't exist.
 
MontyB said:
Yeah yeah its an international conspiracy involving tens of thousands of scientists, geologists, engineers and politicians to convince the world that its getting warmer we all secretly carry thermometers hidden in our armpits so that we can fake warm temperatures.

Fortunately the world has right wing talk show hosts, mine owners and oil interests to counter the evil "intelligentsia" and convince the layman that the tons of crap they are pumping into oceans and atmosphere is really not all that bad and CO2/Green house gases were far worse during the last mass extinction period and that never caused humans any issues.

You don't even have to believe the pro-climate change argument to see that the likes of Plimer and Beck have absolutely no clue what they are talking about, christ Beck would be the biggest champion of climate change if Obama and Gore announced climate change didn't exist.
Click to expand...
I've never denied that the climate is changing, neither have most (if not all) of the people in this thread, what I say is that there is no proof that this is man made, nor is there anything to show that our puny input or lack there of can change it.

Already there is a school of thought saying, "he climate gets warmer, there is more transpiration and evaporation leading to more cloud cover and rain snow etc., one of the side effects of this increased cover is thought to be that it will cause a lowering of temperatures". The Arctic icecap is reducing, and already there is evidence that the Antarctic icecap is growing (in Volume).

Yep, there is evidence that climate is changing, as it has changed many, many times before,... and round and round we go. Our efforts will be better spent learning how we can adapt to it, rather than trying to stop or change it. One of the most notable effects being that West Africa's climate has been changing for several thousand years. The Sahara was once lush jungle and the desert has been noticeably creeping South since well before the industrial revolution. We haven't been able to stop it and in fact we have not really tried except in very limited trials.

"Bring back King Canute"!!! they scream.
 
Last edited:
umm i am a person willing to change my position when sufficient evidence has been supplied...
and i don't want assurances of evidence or examples of real evidence that is presented in a manner that makes it questionable because it only shows snippets of evidence that by them selves make it scientifically impossible to draw conclusions that others have claimed they have come to...
 
captiva303 said:
umm i am a person willing to change my position when sufficient evidence has been supplied...
and i don't want assurances of evidence or examples of real evidence that is presented in a manner that makes it questionable because it only shows snippets of evidence that by them selves make it scientifically impossible to draw conclusions that others have claimed they have come to...
Click to expand...

Bollocks.
Neither of you are capable of changing your opinion on this matter because you have painted yourselves into a corner being skeptical of everything, I have to admit I actually don't care whether climate change is man made or not (I do admit that I think people who believe mans influence on our environment is "minimal" are mentally retarded but it is inconsequential) because I am prepared to accept that it is happening and as such we must find solutions before its effects cause us major issues.

When I first joined a research team I was told by the manager to always question things but never be skeptical to the point that you are looking for reasons to fail something and I think that this is precisely what both yourself and Spike are doing.
 
MontyB said:
Bollocks.
Neither of you are capable of changing your opinion on this matter because you have painted yourselves into a corner being skeptical of everything, I have to admit I actually don't care whether climate change is man made or not (I do admit that I think people who believe mans influence on our environment is "minimal" are mentally retarded but it is inconsequential) because I am prepared to accept that it is happening and as such we must find solutions before its effects cause us major issues.

When I first joined a research team I was told by the manager to always question things but never be skeptical to the point that you are looking for reasons to fail something and I think that this is precisely what both yourself and Spike are doing.
Click to expand...
well by the looks of it it would depend on your POV on who this description actually applys...
i think you would find i am to open minded to be skeptical of everything.
and if you are unwilling or incapable of actually answering my questions or provide real evidence then how is it my fault that you have not convinced me that man made climate change and global warming is actually ocurring as currently described...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top