Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
religion and global warming
Options
Comments
-
ConsiderThis wrote: »I'm guessing you are a sceptic?
Not really, the evidence seems to be solid. What pisses me off is the hysteria and preaching by the zealots.0 -
To compare the theory of climate change to religion is to treat it as fairytale (in my opinion) and dismiss the supporting evidence. It also implies that those who support the theory do so blindly, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their ‘beliefs’. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the position of the climate change denialist bears far more resemblance to that of the fervent religious believer.ConsiderThis wrote: »here's what I think; I think climate change sceptics probably agree that its akin to a religion, and climate change believers probably don't.
I disagree. There is an ‘unpleasantness’ directed at those who deny, rather than question. There’s nothing wrong with questioning anything.ConsiderThis wrote: »I recognise something in what you say about the herd mentality, and also recognise that, when it comes to climate change, there is a sort of unpleasantness directed at many who question.0 -
-
-
To compare the theory of climate change to religion is to treat it as fairytale (in my opinion) and dismiss the supporting evidence. It also implies that those who support the theory do so blindly, ignoring any evidence that contradicts their ‘beliefs’. I’m going to go out on a limb here and suggest that the position of the climate change denialist bears far more resemblance to that of the fervent religious believer.
I disagree. There is an ‘unpleasantness’ directed at those who deny, rather than question. There’s nothing wrong with questioning anything.
I think the religious comparison was less to do with the origins of the subject, and more to do with the fervence of some not only to believe it, but also to the way some try to rubbish those who question their beliefs.
I suppose one mans "supporting evidence" is another mans pin the tail on the tail on the donkey blindfolded.
For example, the computer models on which many of the claims are made, and which are used to justify many of the claims, are in themselves predictions based on guesses. Yet there are those who get very upset at others who point that out.
Does that sound similar to devout christians who get very upset at some who don;t believe in God and who question the contradicting events in the bible?0 -
Advertisement
-
Perhaps you could illustrate this point with a specific example?ConsiderThis wrote: »I think the religious comparison was less to do with the origins of the subject, and more to do with the fervence of some not only to believe it, but also to the way some try to rubbish those who question their beliefs.
When I refer to supporting evidence, I’m referring to published scientific literature. Now, one can dismiss this evidence if they wish, but in order to be consistent, all published scientific literature (not just that pertaining to climate change) would have to be dismissed. But of course, this is never the case. In fact, deniers and (sometimes) sceptics are often only too happy to cite scientific evidence which (apparently) supports their position.ConsiderThis wrote: »I suppose one mans "supporting evidence" is another mans pin the tail on the tail on the donkey blindfolded.
Are they? Again, could you provide a specific example? Perhaps you could identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved?ConsiderThis wrote: »For example, the computer models on which many of the claims are made, and which are used to justify many of the claims, are in themselves predictions based on guesses.
But it’s not quite the same thing, is it? It’s impossible to prove that God does not exist, in that it is not possible to prove a negative. This affords the religious-minded among us a certain degree of protection from the scientific method (or so they believe). However, in the case of climate change, or more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming theory, it is not necessary to disprove the physical basis for the theory, but merely propose an alternative (based on observable evidence, preferably). However, as yet, no alternative explanation has stood up to scrutiny.ConsiderThis wrote: »Does that sound similar to devout christians who get very upset at some who don;t believe in God and who question the contradicting events in the bible?0 -
Perhaps you could illustrate this point with a specific example?
When I refer to supporting evidence, I’m referring to published scientific literature. Now, one can dismiss this evidence if they wish, but in order to be consistent, all published scientific literature (not just that pertaining to climate change) would have to be dismissed. But of course, this is never the case. In fact, deniers and (sometimes) sceptics are often only too happy to cite scientific evidence which (apparently) supports their position.
Are they? Again, could you provide a specific example? Perhaps you could identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved?
But it’s not quite the same thing, is it? It’s impossible to prove that God does not exist, in that it is not possible to prove a negative. This affords the religious-minded among us a certain degree of protection from the scientific method (or so they believe). However, in the case of climate change, or more specifically, the anthropogenic global warming theory, it is not necessary to disprove the physical basis for the theory, but merely propose an alternative (based on observable evidence, preferably). However, as yet, no alternative explanation has stood up to scrutiny.
I wasn't actually just talking about you, and that you always refer to supporting evidence. I was talking more generally.
As I have said elsewhere , the only real truth we have is that 2+2=4, and to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is meaningless. Some people believe in god, others don't, ans its up to each of us to decide. So I can't prove he exists or not to anyone else, only to myself.
The computer modelling used to predict climate change is not infalliable. The outcome from the programmes used depend on the parameters input by whoever is programming it. Quite obviously the predictions depend on the inputs and the parameters.
I dislike the term "climte change deniers" as it is pejorative, and has connotations of "holocaust deniers". I admit that , by nature, I am a sceptic which I define as someone who needs proof before believing a hypothesis.0 -
Which is probably why I asked you to be more specific.ConsiderThis wrote: »I wasn't actually just talking about you, and that you always refer to supporting evidence. I was talking more generally.
I don’t know what you’re getting at here or whether this is a response to something I said? My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence, the existence of a deity cannot. A theory that cannot be validated in such a way is generally not considered to be terribly scientific.ConsiderThis wrote: »As I have said elsewhere , the only real truth we have is that 2+2=4, and to prove that God either exists or doesn't exist is meaningless. Some people believe in god, others don't, ans its up to each of us to decide. So I can't prove he exists or not to anyone else, only to myself.
I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.ConsiderThis wrote: »The computer modelling used to predict climate change is not infalliable.
Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)? I actually have a link to one such project in my sig – perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a critique of the BOINC project and inform the good folks at Berkeley as to where they are going wrong?ConsiderThis wrote: »The outcome from the programmes used depend on the parameters input by whoever is programming it. Quite obviously the predictions depend on the inputs and the parameters.
No, it doesn’t. The term “denier” is appropriate in cases were an individual refuses to acknowledge to be true (or even probable) something that has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it.ConsiderThis wrote: »I dislike the term "climte change deniers" as it is pejorative, and has connotations of "holocaust deniers".
Define “proof”.ConsiderThis wrote: »I admit that , by nature, I am a sceptic which I define as someone who needs proof before believing a hypothesis.0 -
I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.
Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)?
The main greenhouse gas is water vapour, by a country mile, contributing 95% of all global warming. A lot of the water vapour in the atmosphere can be found in the form of clouds, which play a very important and very complex role in terms of regulating overall climate.
Clouds are so complex that none of the climate models model them and so they should be ignored outright. It is a bit like a traffic model that didn't' include lorries and busses.
None of the models predicted the current gloabal cooling, prior to it happening, so their predictive capacity is next to nil.
The lack of cloud modeling and very poor or simplistic handling of water vapour means climate models are not fit for purpose and so should be disregarded.
We do not have anything remotely approaching enough understanding of all the variables and processes that drive climate, nor anything approaching the computer capacity to run a model that incorporates even what is known, so the idea of people seriously touting any long term credible predictive capacity to climate models would be laughable, if they weren't actually making such claims.
Then there's the Sun...0 -
-
Advertisement
-
Which is probably why I asked you to be more specific.
I don’t know what you’re getting at here or whether this is a response to something I said? My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence, the existence of a deity cannot. A theory that cannot be validated in such a way is generally not considered to be terribly scientific.
I never said it was – after all, results are accompanied by a margin of error.
Obviously they do, but the same could be said for any other man-made modelling system. Should we dismiss every model because it is not infallible? Obviously not. So why be so dismissive of climate models? Again, could you identify one particular model (or aspect of that model) and suggest how it might be improved (or even why it should be dismissed)? I actually have a link to one such project in my sig – perhaps you would be so kind as to provide a critique of the BOINC project and inform the good folks at Berkeley as to where they are going wrong?
No, it doesn’t. The term “denier” is appropriate in cases were an individual refuses to acknowledge to be true (or even probable) something that has an overwhelming body of evidence to support it.
Define “proof”.
Thanks for your reply.
I am not "dismissive" ( again a pejorative term) of man made modelling systems. I don't know of any other modelling systems which are not man made.
What I said is that they are subject to the criteria input (by man), and the system (generated by man), to produce results. In the case of climate models, they are predicting what might happen at some time in the future.
You say that "...My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence..." and its obvious that models which predict the future will have to wait to see if what they predict comes true. That doesn't become evidence until the future become the present.
This thread is about how climate change has similarities to religion, and to try to turn it into a "you are a denier" " and "I know the truth" argument seems to be in the wrong place.0 -
Absolute nonsense – I have a model running on my computer as we speak that includes cloud formation patterns. As far as I am aware, NASA even has a dedicated cloud modelling and analysis research group (I doubt it’s the only one in the world).Clouds are so complex that none of the climate models model them...
I think it’s a little premature to be talking about global cooling, but anyway, check out ‘Scenario C’ in Hansen et al. (1988). I’d also suggest you have a glance at Figure SPM.4 from the most recent IPCC report (Working Group I, Summary for Policymakers).None of the models predicted the current gloabal cooling, prior to it happening...
Indeed; has the behaviour of the sun varied much over the last few decades? The available evidence suggests it has not.Then there's the Sun...0 -
Actually, you said they are ‘predicting’ based on ‘guesses’. I would say they are projecting based on observations of past behaviour of our climate.ConsiderThis wrote: »What I said is that they are subject to the criteria input (by man), and the system (generated by man), to produce results. In the case of climate models, they are predicting what might happen at some time in the future.
See my previous post.ConsiderThis wrote: »You say that "...My point was that a scientific theory can be validated with evidence..." and its obvious that models which predict the future will have to wait to see if what they predict comes true.
You’ve yet to demonstrate those similarities.ConsiderThis wrote: »This thread is about how climate change has similarities to religion...0 -
Absolute nonsense – I have a model running on my computer as we speak that includes cloud formation patterns. As far as I am aware, NASA even has a dedicated cloud modelling and analysis research group (I doubt it’s the only one in the world).
That's news to me and even the IPCC, I believe. Great to hear you have managed to solve the problem. Could you please post a graphic of the predicted cloud pattern over Ireland at 22:30 UTC on 17th Nov. 2009.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_modelCoupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.
If you want to model the Earth's climate, you would by implication want that model to include, and accurately represent, relevant large scale and important mechanisms, would you not?
Something like water vapour perhaps?
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0908.4410Water vapor is not only important for Earth’s ra-
diative balance as the dominant greenhouse gas of the
atmosphere. It is also an active player in dynamic pro-
cesses that shape the global circulation of the atmo-
sphere and thus climate
...
But that water vapor plays
an active and important role in dynamics globally is
less widely appreciated, and how it does so is only
beginning to be investigated.
....
WATER VAPOR AND THE DYNAMICS OF CLIMATE
CHANGES
Tapio Schneider
California Institute of
Technology.
Paul A. O’Gorman
Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
Xavier Levine
California Institute of
Technology.
30-Aug-09
I would have thought that it would be rather difficult to include in a model, processes that are "only beginning to be investigated." Neat trick if you can pull it off, but I do have my doubts.
You mean the one where they state?: "scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000."I think it’s a little premature to be talking about global cooling, but anyway, check out ‘Scenario C’ in Hansen et al. (1988).
Was there a "rapid curtailment" of such emissions or was there rather "continued exponential trace gas growth", the assumed conditions for Scenario A? The model did not predict anything if it's main assumption was not met.
How do you work that one out? We are currently undergoing the most prolonged solar minimum in nearly a century. The last solar minimum that exceeded the length of this one was the Dalton Minimum (1790 to 1830) A period which saw a 2 degree decline in temperature in Europe over twenty years.Indeed; has the behaviour of the sun varied much over the last few decades? The available evidence suggests it has not.
Cosmic ray output from the Sun is at the highest levels ever measured and the current Total Solar Irradiance is at the lowest level since accurate measurements were made possible (1979)
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009/29sep_cosmicrays.htm?list1301588"We're experiencing the deepest solar minimum in nearly a century," says Dean Pesnell of the Goddard Space Flight Center0 -
weather ≠ climateCould you please post a graphic of the predicted cloud pattern over Ireland at 22:30 UTC on 17th Nov. 2009.
So climate models do simulate clouds? Because you just said that none do and, as such, the models should be ignored?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_climate_modelCoupled climate models do not simulate with reasonable accuracy clouds and some related hydrological processes (in particular those involving upper tropospheric humidity). Problems in the simulation of clouds and upper tropospheric humidity, remain worrisome because the associated processes account for most of the uncertainty in climate model simulations of anthropogenic change.
It would indeed, but of course, the authors are not implying that cloud processes are ‘only beginning to be investigated’, because that would be laughable. Here's an oft-cited book on the subject published in 1992.I would have thought that it would be rather difficult to include in a model, processes that are "only beginning to be investigated."
Sorry, I meant Scenario ‘B’.You mean the one where they state?: "scenario C assumes a rapid curtailment of trace gas emissions such that the net climate forcing ceases to increase after the year 2000."
Real-world forcings have followed Scenario ‘B’ quite closely, yes.Was there a "rapid curtailment" of such emissions or was there rather "continued exponential trace gas growth", the assumed conditions for Scenario A? The model did not predict anything if it's main assumption was not met.
Cosmic rays don’t come from the sun (the clue is in the name), but anyway, there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.Cosmic ray output from the Sun is at the highest levels ever measured...
And the overall trend of TIR over the last 30 years has been what exactly? Is there a correlation with mean global temperature variation?...the current Total Solar Irradiance is at the lowest level since accurate measurements were made possible (1979)0 -
Actually, you said they are ‘predicting’ based on ‘guesses’. I would say they are projecting based on observations of past behaviour of our climate.
See my previous post.
You’ve yet to demonstrate those similarities.
I hope you'll forgive me for bowing out of this, but I get the feeling that one of your interests is to try to catch me out rather than to have an interesting discussion, and its exhausting.
Thanks for contributing and I wish you well.0 -
weather ≠ climate
Argumentative fail.
You can't produce the graphic because there are no even reasonably accurate cloud models.
No, they don't 'model' them, they try to include very rough, poorly formed approximations, which simply isn't good enough.So climate models do simulate clouds? Because you just said that none do and, as such, the models should be ignored?
Let us suppose I have a spherical lump of plasticine and I place it upon a chair. I then sit upon said lump with my naked derrier. I then raise the squished lump aloft and proudly declare to the world 'this is my model of the Taj Mahal, isn't it brilliant?'
Those who love the spirit of art would agree with me, but those wanting/needing an accurate representation of reality would say it was useless and not deserving of the word 'model' - and they'd be right!
I am glad you said that. The authors were talking about water vapour in all it's forms, not just clouds, which are just a subset.It would indeed, but of course, the authors are not implying that cloud processes are ‘only beginning to be investigated’, because that would be laughable.
So not only can the worlds climate models, not be modeling clouds, they can't be modeling water vapour with any accuracy either, a much more important and large scale variable.
Laughable, as you said.
Which part of Hansen's spiel predicts the 'quite closely' you refer to it, it seems very vague to me.Sorry, I meant Scenario ‘B’.
Real-world forcings have followed Scenario ‘B’ quite closely, yes.
Some do, despite the name.Cosmic rays don’t come from the sun (the clue is in the name)
The increase in cosmic rays arriving at the earth at unprecedented levels is a direct result of the dramatic decline in the Suns activity, something you incorrectly claimed as not occoured.
I could have phrased it better.
If you say so..........or maybe not., but anyway, there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.When solar activity is close to its minimum cosmic rays will increase cloud cover and lightning, which will almost completely cancel out the warming effect of added greenhouse gases at that point in time.
Reis et al. Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux. International Journal of Global Warming, 2009; 1 (1/2/3): 57 DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2009.027081
You are again trying to deflect attention from the fact that your assertion that the Sun's bahavour has not varied over the last several decades is totally at odds with reality.And the overall trend of TIR over the last 30 years has been what exactly? Is there a correlation with mean global temperature variation?0 -
But I never claimed that it was possible to predict cloud formations on a given day? I doubt such a thing is possible. I also question whether such a thing is necessary, given that what we’re interested in is changes in climate rather than the weather on a particular day. Predicting the weather is not a prerequisite for climate projections.Argumentative fail.
You can't produce the graphic because there are no even reasonably accurate cloud models.
What would be good enough, in your opinion?No, they don't 'model' them, they try to include very rough, poorly formed approximations, which simply isn't good enough.
Well, actually, the article concerns the influence of the latent heat of evaporation and sublimation on circulation currents in the atmosphere (although I haven’t read it in detail), illustrated by (lo-and-behold) simulations.I am glad you said that. The authors were talking about water vapour in all it's forms, not just clouds, which are just a subset.
In the full paper.Which part of Hansen's spiel predicts the 'quite closely' you refer to it, it seems very vague to me.
I draw your attention to the first line of the conclusion:If you say so..........or maybe not.When solar activity is close to its minimum cosmic rays will increase cloud cover and lightning, which will almost completely cancel out the warming effect of added greenhouse gases at that point in time.
Reis et al. Coal and fuel burning effects on the atmosphere as mediated by the atmospheric electric field and galactic cosmic rays flux. International Journal of Global Warming, 2009; 1 (1/2/3): 57 DOI: 10.1504/IJGW.2009.027081
The paper claims that cosmic rays modulate the Earth’s climate, which does not contradict my assertion that “there is no convincing evidence that cosmic rays are a major influence on our climate.”Evidence of global warming in the past few decades is accumulating, and it is virtually confirmed that it is caused by climate forcing of anthropogenic origin.
I phrased that poorly – what I should have said was that there has been no observable upward or downward trend in solar output since 1978. Mean global temperature has increased on average, while solar output has remained, on average, relatively constant (although 30 years is a relatively short time period over which to be basing conclusions either way).You are again trying to deflect attention from the fact that your assertion that the Sun's bahavour has not varied over the last several decades is totally at odds with reality.0 -
Predicting the weather is not a prerequisite for climate projections.
To give an analagy*....I can predict the long-term distribution of what number comes up on a (fair) roulette wheel, without having any capability of predicting what the next roll will be.
*Yes...you can find several ways in which the analagy breaks down. All analagies break down....thats partly why they're presented as analagies and not as functionally-identical models.0 -
I was going to use the analogy of predicting the winning lottery numbers versus projecting the distribution of the winning numbers, if the need arose - way to steal my thunder (no pun intended).To give an analagy*....I can predict the long-term distribution of what number comes up on a (fair) roulette wheel, without having any capability of predicting what the next roll will be.0 -
Advertisement
-
ConsiderThis wrote: »I hope you'll forgive me for bowing out of this, but I get the feeling that one of your interests is to try to catch me out rather than to have an interesting discussion, and its exhausting.
Thanks for contributing and I wish you well.
Ditto0 -
ConsiderThis wrote: »I hope you'll forgive me for bowing out of this, but I get the feeling that one of your interests is to try to catch me out rather than to have an interesting discussion, and its exhausting.
Thanks for contributing and I wish you well.
My feelings exactly.0 -
Global Warming= Fact. Its happening. The ice is melting. No doubt about it. Of course, it happened before, when there were no humans, so who knows for sure what the cause is this time.
Man-Made Global Warming: An area of legitimate debate. Or it would be if deniers of GW had not been reduced to Holocaust-Deniers by.....
........Al Gore: Fat, useless SOB. Lost the election so this was his new plaything. Just like the founder of the Serbian Green Party, one....Radovan Karadzic. No Al, temperatures do not "get warmer". :rolleyes:
Green Party: Global Warming Hucksters. They are to science what Mad Mullah McMohammed is to religion. Believe, or die. Will be run out the door at the next election, with any luck. Actually are the least scientifically minded of all the people involved in the argument. Most members of most Green Parties are not aware that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.0 -
So let’s review your contribution, shall we?My feelings exactly.
You kicked off the thread by comparing climate change to religion. You then claimed that scientists (climatologists?) have questioned global warming (which they undoubtedly have), after which you claimed the thread was headed ‘off-track’. Now you’re refusing to engage any further? Did I miss anything?0 -
You're like a dog with a bone, in a sense this helps to prove the religious connection here. It's like a theological argument, going back and forth and back and forth and nobody can win because the truth is elusive.So let’s review your contribution, shall we?
You kicked off the thread by comparing climate change to religion. You then claimed that scientists (climatologists?) have questioned global warming (which they undoubtedly have), after which you claimed the thread was headed ‘off-track’. Now you’re refusing to engage any further? Did I miss anything?
Okay, You claim it's all about science, Well I say, what Science?0 -
No, I'm a moderator of this forum. Starting a thread with an opinion and then refusing to engage in a discussion of said opinion constitutes soap-boxing, which is not tolerated on most fora on boards.ie.You're like a dog with a bone...
There has been plenty of discussion of science so far on this thread - why don't you address some of the points raised?Okay, You claim it's all about science, Well I say, what Science?0 -
No doubt that there is an aggressive Dogma at work in society today, pushing the theory of man-made global warming down people's throats. Is it religious? Not yet...but has acquired Dogma status. Like mainstream "religion", any old Spoofer is now allowed utter platitudinous non-entities like "burning coal makes the snow melt because, it.the air carbon...dioxide and smell..gets hotter and stuff" and they are now like some 21st Century man-of-the-cloth.
It used be that all a man had to do was profess a faith in "God" and he couldnt go very far wrong in the eyes of the masses.
Now, be a "green" and you wont go far wrong either.
Is the snow melting? Yes, of course it is. But just as caribou populations wax and wane, just as the last lot of snow melted '000's of years ago, it is possible that man is not as responsible as first thought.
"Climate Criminal". "Climate Refugee".
Compare these expressions to expressions such as....."Wrecker...All Engineers are Wreckers"......"Petty-Bourgeois Self-Indulgent"....."Jew Bolshevik"
Not much of a difference. Catchphrases, neatly arranged phrases designed to brand and tar according to the designs of the branding/tarring party.
I am a climate criminal. The guy with 234 children living on 4 cups of rice in a hurricane zone {where there have always been hurricanes} is the climate refugee. I am to blame for his problems, so the thinking goes.
You see how we move from a discussion about the possible link btw man and ice-melt into something far more sinister and vicious.
But it is happening.
Climate-Change sceptic? You might as well be called Nick Griffin....0 -
And such a person would quickly be branded an idiot. And quite rightly too.Like mainstream "religion", any old Spoofer is now allowed utter platitudinous non-entities like "burning coal makes the snow melt because, it.the air carbon...dioxide and smell..gets hotter and stuff" ...
Oh well that would explain why The Green Party are so immensely popular at the moment.Now, be a "green" and you wont go far wrong either.
It’s certainly possible. It does however seem quite likely that we are playing a role.Is the snow melting? Yes, of course it is. But just as caribou populations wax and wane, just as the last lot of snow melted '000's of years ago, it is possible that man is not as responsible as first thought.
Do sensationalism much?Climate-Change sceptic? You might as well be called Nick Griffin....0 -
Join Date:Posts: 6185
You simply stating there is room for debate does not make it so. And much of the room for debate is artificially created by the media.Man-Made Global Warming: An area of legitimate debate. Or it would be if deniers of GW had not been reduced to Holocaust-Deniers by.....
Comparison to Islamic fundamenalism is the new Godwins Law, it seems.Green Party: Global Warming Hucksters. They are to science what Mad Mullah McMohammed is to religion. Believe, or die. Will be run out the door at the next election, with any luck. Actually are the least scientifically minded of all the people involved in the argument. Most members of most Green Parties are not aware that water vapour is a greenhouse gas.
Oh and Green bashing is apparently the new FF bashing. But I'm guessing you have little or no evidence to back up this populist rant.0 -
Advertisement
-
@DJP Barry: Are people laughing en mass at Al Gore, a man who once stood up and said "As CO2 increases, the temperature gets warmer".
????
Temperature gets WARMER?
Also @DJPBarry...I mentioned that people who profess an interest in the planet are akin to those who profess a belief in God, in that they attract ready-made support.
In case you had not noticed, the Greens were recently elected to GOVERNMENT for the first time in the States history. You cannot trade off some momentary or topical dislike of them and say that they are unpopular. Their popularity has reached an apogee convergent with the prominence of "green issues".
Discussion of Global Warming, not to mention the effects of GW itself, are at an all-time high. Please do not regard the ascent of the Green Party to Irish Govt as being thus mere coincidence. It is not.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement