Climate change junk science mass hysteria!

:shock: I certainly hope that Algore is not held libel. (Insert generic sarcastic statement about inventing the internet here).

You Brits seem to be the only folks with common sense these days. Thank you for questioning and reviewing the data. It seems that a lot of American scientists were willing to accept the findings without significant inquiry.
 
:shock: I certainly hope that Algore is not held libel. (Insert generic sarcastic statement about inventing the internet here).

You Brits seem to be the only folks with common sense these days. Thank you for questioning and reviewing the data. It seems that a lot of American scientists were willing to accept the findings without significant inquiry.

What makes you think there is not "significant" inquiry?
It seems to me that people believe that silence is an indication of blind acceptance when in fact it is perhaps more a case of agreement.

Essentially I think that for the most part this argument has become a case of both sides overstating their case to justify their argument, neither side can be seen to moderate their stance through fear of being seen as weak.
 
But Dr Roy Spencer ticks all the boxes on qualification and makes it very clear that the financial cost of this blunder is disastrous. And in my opinion the political costs to freedom are disastrous also.

Perhaps you might review his book Monty; how about that?
 
But Dr Roy Spencer ticks all the boxes on qualification and makes it very clear that the financial cost of this blunder is disastrous. And in my opinion the political costs to freedom are disastrous also.

Yeah but so do all the people who say he is wrong, qualifications are irrelevant, data is all that matters.

Perhaps you might review his book Monty; how about that?

Probably not, right now I neither have the time nor interest in the subject to want to read anything (lots of other things on my plate).

Although I have to admit the fact that he is into Intelligent Design does make me want to read it just to figure out how he reconciles hundreds of thousands of years of climate data into the 6000 year old Earth philosophy.
 
Nice try MontyB - but not so. America's greatest climate scientist cannot be dismissed in this way. Especially by bad science junk data which could bring about the bankruptcy of countries.

As for his book, yes, it would be good for you to read it and discover that advice right from the top; that would be yet another string to your considerable bow.

A little reality as required:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)


http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267

http://algorelied.com/?p=4018



And yes - here is yet another string for your bow. Wow - this sure is your lucky day:-


http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php
 
Last edited:
Yeah but so do all the people who say he is wrong, qualifications are irrelevant, data is all that matters.
Do not forget that we are relying on the scientists to INTERPRET the data for us. As I said earlier, there are quite a few "scientists" here in America that have made their reputations on the Global Warming Gloom and Doom platform. I am encouraged that other scientists are willing to read the studies and conduct their own independant evaluations.

BTW Monty. If you have ever taken statistics you would understand that there are lots of ways to interpret the same data set.

Probably not, right now I neither have the time nor interest in the subject to want to read anything (lots of other things on my plate).
You would rather just comment?

Although I have to admit the fact that he is into Intelligent Design does make me want to read it just to figure out how he reconciles hundreds of thousands of years of climate data into the 6000 year old Earth philosophy.
Hundreds of thousands? Where did that come from? We only have hard (empirical) climate data from the last coulple hundred years. The rest of this "data" is from "estimates" or "best guesses" and is therefore suspect. If it is included then I would seriously question any conclusions derived.
 
Do not forget that we are relying on the scientists to INTERPRET the data for us. As I said earlier, there are quite a few "scientists" here in America that have made their reputations on the Global Warming Gloom and Doom platform. I am encouraged that other scientists are willing to read the studies and conduct their own independant evaluations.

BTW Monty. If you have ever taken statistics you would understand that there are lots of ways to interpret the same data set.

I have taken statistics classes which is why I know this is a pointless argument and the primary reason I only recognise raw data as that way I can draw my own conclusions without being directed by people with vested interests on either side.

You would rather just comment?

Can't comment on a book I haven't read.


Hundreds of thousands? Where did that come from? We only have hard (empirical) climate data from the last coulple hundred years. The rest of this "data" is from "estimates" or "best guesses" and is therefore suspect. If it is included then I would seriously question any conclusions derived.

I disagree, ice core data stretches back hundreds of thousands of years and is a good indication of climate variation.
Besides just the fact that it exists makes the Intelligent Design argument invalid which in turn leads me to believe that his argument will be skewed by belief.
Just as I would be skeptical of someone telling me the world is round after claiming to believe the Easter Bunny is scientifically valid, it doesn't mean he is wrong but it makes it him hard to take at face value.

Nice try MontyB - but not so. America's greatest climate scientist cannot be dismissed in this way. Especially by bad science junk data which could bring about the bankruptcy of countries.

As for his book, yes, it would be good for you to read it and discover that advice right from the top; that would be yet another string to your considerable bow.

A little reality as required:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)


http://www.tcsdaily.com/Authors.aspx?id=267

http://algorelied.com/?p=4018



And yes - here is yet another string for your bow. Wow - this sure is your lucky day:-


http://theevolutioncrisis.org.uk/testimony2.php

I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he is skewing his conclusion (or the reviewer is) to create sensation and sell his book.
I agree with him that global warming is largely if not almost entirely natural but then I think you will find that most people believe this what we need to figure out is how much "almost" is and what effect that is having on a balanced system, all your book review has given us is a guy that says "almost" is irrelevant and that he has made a huge break through in discovering global warming is a natural cycle.

I look at the earth a little like the Titanic, it can take on a lot of water and as long as the pumps are functioning the boat wont sink however if 1ml per minute more water is coming in than the pumps can pump out then the boat is going to sink, 1ml is "almost" irrelevant right?
 
Last edited:
I find it mildly amusing to note that this researcher's findings would have been accepted at face value and quoted as being without question when they supported the beliefs of the doom sayers, yet should he find evidence that the previous findings were flawed his credibility is suddenly bought into question.

It's highly reminiscent of views held by some about Afghan warlords. When they support out ideals they are freedom fighters, when they oppose us they are terrorists.
 
No you find it mildly amusing that some one who's opinion you agree with isnt being venerated for an argument you support.

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

So perhaps "Pot meet kettle, he's black" applies here.
 
No you find it mildly amusing that some one who's opinion you agree with isnt being venerated for an argument you support.

The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

So perhaps "Pot meet kettle, he's black" applies here.
None of which disproves a single thing that I said.
 
The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.
I agree with you. But if it cannot be conclusively proven, maybe we have a case against Algore for inciting a panic. I never bought into it but the US Government seems to have. This is all in spite of the fact that the jury is still out. Maybe we should wait until it is decided wither way, before we begin spending billions.
 
True but that is because you didn't actually say anything to disprove.
Not even this Monty?
---snip---this researcher's findings would have been accepted at face value and quoted as being without question when they supported the beliefs of the doom sayers, yet should he find evidence that the previous findings were flawed his credibility is suddenly bought into question.---snip---
If your last statement had even the slightest truth to it,,... why did you bother trying to (incorrectly) show that my initial statement was ill found?

Or did you just feel like an argument over "nothing" ? Not like you at all Monty, you're slipping,... badly.

Tell the truth, the glaringly obvious truth of my initial statement got up your nose.
 
Last edited:
The global warming argument is a religion it has it fanatics at both ends of the scale and I don't trust either of them, I would also point out that what Del Boy posted was a review of a book and was not the words of the writer so nothing in there was anything more than an opinion of someone else's work.

As always (applauding) you are nicely tip-toeing through the tulips and of course I approve of the sceptic approach.

This is why I recommend a choice of two paths for you on this issue.

1. Read the book and get back to us - don't be scared, it's nice.

or, highly recommended:-

2. Take my word for it that this guy's work should go the top of your tick-list ; you know I can be trusted to be instinctively correct at all times.
Just take hold of my coat-tails and you won't go far wrong.

Regardless, I have done my messenger job here on behalf of all and sundry; to sum up my position on this global warming issue is still "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS"!

G'day.
 
Last edited:
As always (applauding) you are nicely tip-toeing through the tulips and of course I approve of the sceptic approach.

See here is the problem I have with the "its all a hoax" crowd, even if the entire "man made global warming" argument was entirely false the "Natural cycle" one isn't so we still have to deal with a problem no matter who is right.

In the end I really don't care who is right as long as we do not allow intransigence to create more problems further down the track, further to this I actually don't mind the idea of cleaning up our act environmentally as it will benefit us health wise and ascetically for generations to come, so given the choice of living in an unrestricted industrial wasteland or a clean environment, clean will win every time.


This is why I recommend a choice of two paths for you on this issue.

1. Read the book and get back to us - don't be scared, it's nice.

I told you I don't have the time and to a large part I don't have the interest right now.

2. Take my word for it that this guy's work should go the top of your tick-list ; you know I can be trusted to be instinctively correct at all times.
Just take hold of my coat-tails and you won't go far wrong.

Not going to happen because you and I share enough differences for me to know that you are only right when you agree with me.
:P


Regardless, I have done my messenger job here on behalf of all and sundry; to sum up my position on this global warming issue is still "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS"!

G'day.

Let me expand on this a little, "BEWARE OF PICKPOCKETS NO MATTER WHAT THEIR MOTIVE".
 
Have you cast your vote today Del Boy? UKIP, BNP or Conservative? All of them are Climate Denier's, don't be fooled by Cameron, he is only pretending to play the socially respectable card. Don't worry he won't really do anything to offend Businesses!

The Media bias is nothing more than a political conspiracy by big business to suppress moderate or left wing views. Here are last years circulation figures. It's a national disgrace, everyone knows advertising works (except with themselves) so don't suggest they can't influence voters decisions, especially those who haven't got the time or brains to make an informed decision.

Conservative = 7.0 million

Sun 2.8
Mail 2.1
Express 0.7
Telegraph 0.8
Times 0.6
FT 0.4

Labour = 1.6 million

Mirror 1.3
Record 0.3

Lib Dem = 0.5 million?

Guardian 0.3
Independent? 0.2

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/tabl...nal-newspapers
 
Last edited:
As regard to Spencer being the greatest climate scientist, from your (disambiguated) link. Yes he is the one you meant this is really true

Spencer is a proponent of intelligent design as the mechanism for the origin of species.[22] On the subject, Spencer wrote in 2005, "Twenty years ago, as a PhD scientist, I intensely studied the evolution versus intelligent design controversy for about two years. And finally, despite my previous acceptance of evolutionary theory as 'fact,' I came to the realization that intelligent design, as a theory of origins, is no more religious, and no less scientific, than evolutionism. . .

and like all the so called 'climate skeptic scientists' he doesn't really deny CO2 must have an effect on the atmosphere, only by how much. This is something the Deniers fail to mention. Any scientist suggesting otherwise would be stating the impossible due to the inherent physical nature of these gases.

As John [Christy] said, if you add CO2, something has to change. But things are changing all the time anyway.
Source: George C. Marshall Institute Washington Roundtable, "Satellite Temperature Data", pdf, April 2006

Fred (Tobacco) Singer is the 3rd prominent 'sceptic'. He is so deep in oil money he 'can't remember where all the checks come from' (his words)
 
Last edited:
Back
Top