Global Warming - don't wait up! - Page 5


Read more about 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 a


  International Military Forums > >
User Name
Password

 
December 8th, 2009   #41
senojekips
 
 
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.


"I am totally responsible for what I write,... however I cannot be held responsible for your complete inability to understand"


Last edited by senojekips; December 8th, 2009 at 21:48..
 
--
December 8th, 2009   #42
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by perseus
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips

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.


Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices. - Voltaire 1694-1778

Last edited by MontyB; December 8th, 2009 at 21:11..
 
December 8th, 2009   #43
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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 by senojekips; December 8th, 2009 at 21:47..
 
December 8th, 2009   #44
MontyB
 
 
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.
 
December 8th, 2009   #45
wolfen
 
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?
 
December 8th, 2009   #46
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.

Quote:
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....

Quote:
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 by senojekips; December 9th, 2009 at 00:15..
 
December 9th, 2009   #47
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips

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.
 
December 9th, 2009   #48
senojekips
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MontyB
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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 by senojekips; December 9th, 2009 at 02:42..
 
December 9th, 2009   #49
MontyB
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by senojekips
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/2...section=justin
 
December 9th, 2009   #50
senojekips
 
 
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.

Quote:
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 ******s 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 by senojekips; December 9th, 2009 at 05:47..
 



Tags
adelaide, opinion, university, wait, warming

Similar Topics
Junk Science
And you thought Global warming was a problem!
Bill Ties Climate To National Security
US takes heat on global warming
Global warming talks eye U.S.