"Global warming is real and humans are responsbile"

karma_

kneemos wrote: »

It's the urgency and exaggeration in the message that has lost you public support.Though no doubt Governments will continue to impose carbon taxes.

It's greedy men protecting vested interests who have muddied the waters on this issue, unfortunately there is no shortage of complete arsehóles who believe them.

kneemos

Rubeter wrote: »

Oh so you would believe them if they said it's happening but no need to worry.
That's not a very intelligent reason whether to believe something or not (actually it's a stupid one), Personally I make my choice based on the evidence given.

Better chance of being believed if you don't tell lies.

karma_

kneemos wrote: »

Better chance of being believed if you don't tell lies.

Do you even see teh irony in this?

kneemos

karma_ wrote: »

Do you even see teh irony in this?

No.

Rubeter

kneemos wrote: »

No.

You would believe them if they lied and said it was grand.

karma_

kneemos wrote: »

No.

That sums it up then so.

Going Forward

kneemos wrote: »

They have ruined their cause by scaremongering.
Why they would do such a thing I don't know.Perhaps self interest.

The greening.

And I feel the need to pay more carbon taxes as atonement.

Akrasia

kneemos wrote: »

It's the urgency and exaggeration in the message that has lost you public support.Though no doubt Governments will continue to impose carbon taxes.

If you go to the hospital with symptoms of Leukemia and you are assessed by a consultant oncologist and he tells you that you do have Leukemia and that it's very serious and you have to go on radiation therapy and chemotherapy straight away to stand any chance of survival, would you ignore him because he was being alarmist?

Would you ignore him because he works for a private hospital that charges insurance companies for medical treatment?

Lets say you go for a second opinion in a different hospital with a different oncologist and the same diagnosis is given but there is a slight variation and slightly different prognosis is given, but the treatment is still the same and it is still described as a very serious condition that requires immediate treatment

Would you ignore both diagnosis because there was a slight difference even though the message is the same?

Would you ignore the diagnosis because 'the human body is too complex, we don't understand everything about it, maybe the illness is caused by something else that will go away by itself'?

Would you ignore both doctors because they are both doctors and they all have a vested interest in diagnosing illness (if nobody was sick, there would be no need for doctors)

Lets say you get a third opinion, this time, not from an Oncologist, but from an 'Alternative medicine practice'
They look at your lifestyle 'holistically' and diagnose that you have an illness, but it's caused by 'toxins' in your body that are 'blocking your life force'.It's no big deal, you'll be fine and you can cure the illness by simply taking an 'all natural' detox product every day. The detox won't have any side effects unlike all the nasty chemicals which the hospital doctors are trying to give you.

What would you do?

Who would you believe?

Would you give all 3 opinions equal weight?

Lets ignore the third option for a moment, just sticking to Oncologists, would you think it's a good idea to keep getting more and more 'second opinions' until you finally find one doctor who tells you you don't have cancer and then ignore all the other diagnosis and decide not to take any treatment?

Does your emotional response to the message have any impact on which diagnosis is correct?

Does the cost of the treatment have any impact on which diagnosis is correct?

Because there is some disagreement between all 3 diagnosis, does this mean that none of them can be trusted, or all of them have to be given equal weight?


Please consider this and answer these questions honestly.

loveisdivine

I'm sure a lot of posters have seen this before, but whenever I see debates about climate change this is always the first thing that springs to mind.

cnocbui

steddyeddy wrote: »

Good scientific comeback. I'm guessing the scientific accuracy in this thread is going to be off the scale!

You want 'science' do you?

Would you like to describe the scientific method for everyone, then I'll be glad to point out a tiny little problem with the IPCCs position.

Oh, and 'Climate Change' isn't a hypothesis, it's an observation.

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

You want 'science' do you?

Would you like to describe the scientific method for everyone, then I'll be glad to point out a tiny little problem with the IPCCs position.

Oh, and 'Climate Change' isn't a hypothesis, it's an observation.

The observation that the global average temperature is warming is explained by the hypothesis that humans are emitting greenhouse gasses that are altering the composition of our atmosphere and trapping excess heat from the Sun that would otherwise be radiated into space.

This hypothesis has been confirmed by experimentation, observation and by applying the laws of physics

That animal species change over time is an observation that is explained by the hypothesis that genes are selected by the process of natural selection and adaptation.

kneemos

Akrasia wrote: »

If you go to the hospital with symptoms of Leukemia and you are assessed by a consultant oncologist and he tells you that you do have Leukemia and that it's very serious and you have to go on radiation therapy and chemotherapy straight away to stand any chance of survival, would you ignore him because he was being alarmist?

Would you ignore him because he works for a private hospital that charges insurance companies for medical treatment?

Lets say you go for a second opinion in a different hospital with a different oncologist and the same diagnosis is given but there is a slight variation and slightly different prognosis is given, but the treatment is still the same and it is still described as a very serious condition that requires immediate treatment

Would you ignore both diagnosis because there was a slight difference even though the message is the same?

Would you ignore the diagnosis because 'the human body is too complex, we don't understand everything about it, maybe the illness is caused by something else that will go away by itself'?

Would you ignore both doctors because they are both doctors and they all have a vested interest in diagnosing illness (if nobody was sick, there would be no need for doctors)

Lets say you get a third opinion, this time, not from an Oncologist, but from an 'Alternative medicine practice'
They look at your lifestyle 'holistically' and diagnose that you have an illness, but it's caused by 'toxins' in your body that are 'blocking your life force'.It's no big deal, you'll be fine and you can cure the illness by simply taking an 'all natural' detox product every day. The detox won't have any side effects unlike all the nasty chemicals which the hospital doctors are trying to give you.

What would you do?

Who would you believe?

Would you give all 3 opinions equal weight?

Lets ignore the third option for a moment, just sticking to Oncologists, would you think it's a good idea to keep getting more and more 'second opinions' until you finally find one doctor who tells you you don't have cancer and then ignore all the other diagnosis and decide not to take any treatment?

Does your emotional response to the message have any impact on which diagnosis is correct?

Does the cost of the treatment have any impact on which diagnosis is correct?

Because there is some disagreement between all 3 diagnosis, does this mean that none of them can be trusted, or all of them have to be given equal weight?


Please consider this and answer these questions honestly.

I made a comment previously about all the analogies that run throughout this thread for some reason.
I don't think we know nearly enough yet to go making the radical cutbacks the greens would like to see.

Akrasia

Analogy is an excellent way of getting a point across in a clear manner. If I start using false analogies, feel free to call me or anyone else on it, but argument using analogy is a perfectly legitimate communication method.

We don't know nearly enough yet about cancer either, but when you have a cancer diagnosis, it's serious enough that we're willing to deliberately poison ourselves in the hope that we will kill the cancer before we die of the poison.

We have a climate diagnosis based on the limited data we have available and it says that if we don't act now, there is a very high probability (over 95%) that we will cause global temperatures to keep increasing beyond levels that will have drastic consequences on the habitability of our biosphere.

The Diagnosis is agreed by 97% of all the experts in the field.

What you're doing is looking for contrarian opinion so you can continue burying your head in the sand, meanwhile the problem gets worse and worse.
Just like a cancer, there is a point that we will reach where it becomes incurable.

A cancer starts off as one problem, one part of one system in our body runs out of control, and then it goes metastatic. It spreads and infects other systems. Global warming is going to infect all of the systems on our planet.

KyussBishop

kneemos wrote: »

I made a comment previously about all the analogies that run throughout this thread for some reason.
I don't think we know nearly enough yet to go making the radical cutbacks the greens would like to see.

See, while the reasons to disagree with this post should be obvious to most (i.e. the need to do something about impending climate change), it actually touches on the most important issue in the whole debate: Economics.

Unfortunately, that's such a rhetoric/crap/pseudoscience filled topic, that most people are bored by mere mention of it, and the rest are sensibly wary enough to stay away; however, it is the single most important topic, for resolving human caused climate change.

We are in an economic system, run in such a way as to depend upon permanent economic growth, and economic growth as it is currently defined (roughly) means increasing pollution as well (because we aren't going to develop any good enough climate-saving energy tech anytime soon - we only have a few small pieces of that overall puzzle).

So, environmentalists already immediately lose the discussion: Due to the way economics is taught and run, slowing/halting growth is called cutting-back (even though it is just arresting growth so as to not make the problem worse), and in the current economic system it's neither a solution or sustainable economically (trying to arrest growth just accelerates the occurrance of economic crisis, at which stage the 'green' reforms are reversed as economically impractical).


To actually begin to make any real changes, environmentalists need to learn about making economies not depend on permanent growth, which means learning about the difference between debt-based money (requires permanent growth), and non-debt-based money (which can be used to form a steady-state economy, that does not require permanent growth).

This is a debate that so few people know about, with supporters of non-debt-based money having such a hard time gaining political notability (they are as far down as you can get on the overton window - you even get trolled to death by the 'free market' types when you bring it up on boards, and it is heavily limited from discussion on Politics - to the point that there is a serious chilling effect on the topic); it is a debate that has progressed so little, and is so suppressed because of the controversy it generates, that it is probably decades away from the point where it may actually happen.

Until that is resolved, there will be no lasting solution put in place to arrest climate change (just things that paper-over the bigger problem - things worth doing anyway, sure, but not good enough); I'm personally convinced, that it is not possible in an economic system that depends upon permanent growth (there will be no technological 'magic-bullet' to fix it in time either).

Akrasia

And Just for clarity, I'm not saying that cancer is the same as global warming, I am analysing the deniers attitude towards receiving the bad news of a cancer diagnosis.

None of the arguments you are using for rejecting the climate change hypothesis would stand if you replace global climate change with personal cancer diagnosis.

Akrasia

KyussBishop wrote: »

See, while the reasons to disagree with this post should be obvious to most (i.e. the need to do something about impending climate change), it actually touches on the most important issue in the whole debate: Economics.

Unfortunately, that's such a rhetoric/crap/pseudoscience filled topic, that most people are bored by mere mention of it, and the rest are sensibly wary enough to stay away; however, it is the single most important topic, for resolving human caused climate change.

We are in an economic system, run in such a way as to depend upon permanent economic growth, and economic growth as it is currently defined (roughly) means increasing pollution as well (because we aren't going to develop any good enough climate-saving energy tech anytime soon - we only have a few small pieces of that overall puzzle).

So, environmentalists already immediately lose the discussion: Due to the way economics is taught and run, slowing/halting growth is called cutting-back (even though it is just arresting growth so as to not make the problem worse), and in the current economic system it's neither a solution or sustainable economically (trying to arrest growth just accelerates the occurrance of economic crisis, at which stage the 'green' reforms are reversed as economically impractical).


To actually begin to make any real changes, environmentalists need to learn about making economies not depend on permanent growth, which means learning about the difference between debt-based money (requires permanent growth), and non-debt-based money (which can be used to form a steady-state economy, that does not require permanent growth).

This is a debate that so few people know about, with supporters of non-debt-based money having such a hard time gaining political notability (they are as far down as you can get on the overton window - you even get trolled to death by the 'free market' types when you bring it up on boards, and it is heavily limited from discussion on Politics - to the point that there is a serious chilling effect on the topic); it is a debate that has progressed so little, and is so suppressed because of the controversy it generates, that it is probably decades away from the point where it may actually happen.

Until that is resolved, there will be no lasting solution put in place to arrest climate change (just things that paper-over the bigger problem - things worth doing anyway, sure, but not good enough); I'm personally convinced, that it is not possible in an economic system that depends upon permanent growth (there will be no technological 'magic-bullet' to fix it in time either).

One interesting quirk of the economic system is that economic growth includes destructive activities.

What I mean is, if a house burns down, that's not an econmic loss, it's an opportunity to build a new house and this is counted as economic growth.

We have the opportunity to tear down the old oil based infrastructure and build a 21st century energy infrastructure that will serve us far better, and this will look good on the economic growth statistics

The main barrier is that it would involve a Monitary policy to allow us to inflate away all the debts incurred under the oil regime so we can 'borrow' more to make the investment in our own future.

To 99.99% of the worlds population, this would not have any impact on thier wealth. However, it would impact the current oligarchy and those who are directly invested in the current extractive energy technologies. It is these people who the 'climate change skeptics' are fighting for, not the 99.999% of the rest of us.

It's crazy that the keyboard warriers worried about paying a little bit in extra carbon taxes are really fighting the war on behalf of Saudi and Russian oil Oligarchs

cnocbui

Akrasia wrote: »

The observation that the global is warming is explained by the hypothesis that humans are emitting greenhouse gasses that are altering the composition of our atmosphere and trapping excess heat from the Sun that would otherwise be radiated into space.

This hypothesis has been confirmed by experimentation, observation and by applying the laws of physics

That animal species change over time is an observation that is explained by the hypothesis that genes are selected by the process of natural selection and adaptation.

But the earth has not been warming for the last 16 years even though CO2 levels have been rising continuously, therefore the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels cause warming of the atmosphere and the Earth has not been supported.

If the predictions arising from a hypothesis are not supported by actual observations, the hypothesis should be rejected.

FootShooter

cnocbui wrote: »

But the earth has not been warming for the last 16 years even though CO2 levels have been rising continuously, therefore the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels cause warming of the atmosphere and the Earth has not been supported.

If the predictions arising from a hypothesis are not supported by actual observations, the hypothesis should be rejected.

So wrong.

Air temperature rise has slowed down, it has not stopped warming entirely. It has just gone down to 0.05C per decade between 1998-2012. In comparison it was 0.12C per decade for the entirety of 1950-2012.
2000-2010 was the warmest decade ever recorded. Meanwhile the temperature of the ocean from 0-2000m has warmed increasingly. The ocean absorbs 93% of excess heat anyway.
http://grist.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/temps.jpg?

The temperature rise is not a linear trend, it's influenced by a range of short-term variations. The standard in climate science is therefore to look at nothing less than 30 year periods to deduce any sort of long term trend, to filter out the noise of short-term climate variability.
Short-term climate variability includes El Nino/La nina phenomenas. La Nina leads to colder temperatures, and since 1998 there have been 8 La Nina events, which is way more than usual.

wexandproud

reall shows the attitude of some people on boards that when they are having a discussion and somebody strongly dissagrees with them so they refer to them as "keyboard warriors", while they themselves are on here argueing their point as well.

also just because someone does not agree with the cause of "global warming" or "climate change" as they now call it, does not make them a sceptic or anti science, its just that they choose to believe different scientific information.
regarding the analogy of cancer [not very nice by the way]. there is nobody denying climate change [ cancer as you say] what they are differing about is what caused it

Rubeter

wexandproud wrote: »

also just because someone does not agree with the cause of "global warming" or "climate change" as they now call it, does not make them a sceptic or anti science, its just that they choose to believe different scientific information.
regarding the analogy of cancer [not very nice by the way]. there is nobody denying climate change [ cancer as you say] what they are differing about is what caused it

What scientific information would that be? and from who?

Akrasia

cnocbui wrote: »

But the earth has not been warming for the last 16 years even though CO2 levels have been rising continuously, therefore the hypothesis that rising CO2 levels cause warming of the atmosphere and the Earth has not been supported.

The earth has been warming. The soundbytes by the denialist industry are just there to plant the seeds of doubt and confusion.
Atmospheric temperatures have increased over this period, And they have increased within the range of predictions made by the IPCC in the last report. but it was on the lower end of the range.

There was some slight observed cooling in the upper oceans, but this was more than offset by an accelerated heating in the deep oceans
The oceans are still warming, and they are still rising through thermal expansion.

There is no precedent for what we are doing to the earth. We conducting a massive uncontrolled experiment to find out what will happen if we release carbon into the air at a million times faster than the earth can sequester it. (estimates are that we have burnt fossil fuels in 100 years that took 100 million years for the earth to make)

We can not say for certain what will happen, but we can give educated guesses based on the best evidence we can come up with, and the potential outcomes are almost universally negative. Climate change deniers tried to muddy the debate by saying that global warming is actually good for us (CO2 is plant food, it will open up new lands for agriculture after the permafrost melts etc) but those arguments were so unbelievably stupid that not even the most cynical deniers could repeat them for long with a straight face

If the predictions arising from a hypothesis are not supported by actual observations, the hypothesis should be rejected.

That's right, and if things change and the earth stops warming, scientists will absolutely re-think the theory. The models are constantly being reviewed and revised and updated as we gain a better understanding and more data for analysis.

And, the global warming deniers use this as another attack on the science. Because climate scientists are constantly updating and improving the models, the deniers claim that they are making them up as they go along. You really can't win with these people. Their strategy is not to win any debate, their strategy is to create doubt and delay any action that will hurt their financial interests or those of their employers.

Akrasia

wexandproud wrote: »

reall shows the attitude of some people on boards that when they are having a discussion and somebody strongly dissagrees with them so they refer to them as "keyboard warriors", while they themselves are on here argueing their point as well.

The difference between the global warming deniers and the climate scientists is that the climate scientists are engaged in active scientific research, while the deniers are engaged in a political/marketing campaign disguised as a scientific debate.

Scientists use information, data, research etc as their tools, the deniers use social media and traditional media, and partisan politicians as their tools.

I am on here to defend science and the scientific method and genuine sceptical and critical thinking.
The deniers are on here to repeat the same old lies that they throw out every single time this topic is mentioned, so much so that many internet science forums have banned all discussion on climate change because of the amount of moderation time it takes up, and as soon as a topic is started, they instantly have dozens of new members join the forum explicitly to spread denialist misinformation.
There is a clear strategy out there to crowd out the real science with lies, distortions, character attacks on real scientists so that the public in the middle are left confused and think that climate science is just some side issue that is only discussed by extremists on both sides.

also just because someone does not agree with the cause of "global warming" or "climate change" as they now call it, does not make them a sceptic or anti science, its just that they choose to believe different scientific information.

Science is not about choosing to believe something, it's about accepting what the evidence shows. The overwhelming evidence is that we are experiencing human induced global warming. If you choose to remain ignorant of this evidence (and there is no excuse not to inform yourself, the IPCC have just released a comprehensive report and there are lots of websites that explain this in laymans terms, eg www.skepticalscience.com) then they should abstain from making claims in the debate.
The evidence is there, it is convincing to a 95% confidence level. Arguments from incredulity are not helpful.
Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it wrong.

regarding the analogy of cancer [not very nice by the way].

Global warming is not very nice either

there is nobody denying climate change [ cancer as you say] what they are differing about is what caused it

Actually, there are lots of people denying global warming. They are deliberately using language (which is an imprecise medium for communication) to muddy the debate. They say 'I accept climate change, the climate is always changing' but what this debate is about is Human induced climate change, or 'Anthroprogenic Global Warming' and they will deny the reality of this.

These are climate change deniers, and they are ignoring the mountains of evidence that support the AGW hypothesis simply because they don't like what the implications are if it's true. They're no different to Creationists denying evolution because that implies that their literal interpretation of the bible is wrong.
You can't decide what is true or not based on what the consequences are if it is true. You have to decide the truth based on the evidence for and against the claim.

turbot

Actually, what you really need to be concerned about is the fact that humans, even when they want to, struggle to change their own behaviour. Marketers know this, and are funded by mega-corporations who have mostly short term aims to make money by wasting resources to hit quarterly goals. This (kind-of) means our planet is headed toward a carbon-consumer zombie apocalypse.

http://whatsheonaboutnow.com/consumer-zombie-apocalypse/

This video also makes the facts clear:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRGVTK-AAvw#t=574

zenno

Amazing. It was 17 degrees celsius yesterday, and today it was 11 celsius, this is astonishingly dramatic climate change, we must do something fast to stop this climate change from happening :rolleyes:

The climate has changed all on it's lonesome, day in, day out, for millions of years, and this global warming (they had to change the name of that recently) climate change is the scam of the century, what a scam indeed, it's all about the money as per usual.

Can we not just let the natural climatic cycles do it's thing naturally without trying to damage it and our pockets please.

Dublinpato

Typical humans how will they ever get into The Citadel Council if they can even look after their own planet.

Akrasia

zenno wrote: »

Amazing. It was 17 degrees celsius yesterday, and today it was 11 celsius, this is astonishingly dramatic climate change, we must do something fast to stop this climate change from happening :rolleyes:

The climate has changed all on it's lonesome, day in, day out, for millions of years, and this global warming (they had to change the name of that recently) climate change is the scam of the century, what a scam indeed, it's all about the money as per usual.

Can we not just let the natural climatic cycles do it's thing naturally without trying to damage it and our pockets please.

Climate doesn't change 'day in, day out' that's weather.

If you don't even know the difference between climate and weather then you have a lot of catching up to do before you can make any meaningful contribution to this debate.

Here's a helpful website that has very accessable explanations to pretty much all of the global warming talking points.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

FootShooter

zenno wrote: »

Amazing. It was 17 degrees celsius yesterday, and today it was 11 celsius, this is astonishingly dramatic climate change, we must do something fast to stop this climate change from happening :rolleyes:

The climate has changed all on it's lonesome, day in, day out, for millions of years, and this global warming (they had to change the name of that recently) climate change is the scam of the century, what a scam indeed, it's all about the money as per usual.

Can we not just let the natural climatic cycles do it's thing naturally without trying to damage it and our pockets please.

Who is they? Climate science has used global warming and climate change interchangeably all the time. They are two different processes.
However they recommended the media to start using climate change instead of global warming as it's more accurate and doesn't confuse people like you who think weather and climate is the exact same thing.

A quick lesson:
Global warming = the rise in average global temperatures, largerly caused by human emissions of greenhouse gases. (there is no scientific dispute about the fact that humans are the main cause of warming since the 1950s)
Climate Change = The resulting change in climate from higher global average temperatures. The consequences of climate change vary a lot between different regions. For example some places will get more rain, other places will get more drought, depending on if they're tropical or sub-tropical. Ireland will get more rain most likely. And there will be more extremes on both end of the scales, as in more cold extremes and more warm extremes.

So to not confuse people like you who think that global warming just means warmer weather, they asked the media to start using climate change which is a more accurate representation of the consequences we will see in the future. The two terms are of course both still used in the scientific literature as they don't need to dumb down the science for people like you who know nothing about climate science.


Climate scientist obviously know that the climate has changed in the past, and they know the causes to why it changed. Those causes can not in any way explain the extremely rapid climate change we are experiencing now.

They also know when past natural climate change has happened, and they know when it should happen again. It should absolutely not be happening now. The only explanation to why it's happening now is human emissions of greenhouse gases.

How much do you think a scientific researcher at a university actually makes? How much do you think a CEO of an oil company makes in comparison? You sound like a typical conspiracy theorist when you say it's all just a scam for money. We have known greenhouse gases lead to warming since 1896.

Was the "scam" invented that year by Svante Arrhenius do you think? And just carried on from there until they could create the UN, and then wait a few decades more and then propose a carbon tax (that most climate scientists think is a bad solution)?

zenno

Akrasia wrote: »

Climate doesn't change 'day in, day out' that's weather.

If you don't even know the difference between climate and weather then you have a lot of catching up to do before you can make any meaningful contribution to this debate.

Here's a helpful website that has very accessable explanations to pretty much all of the global warming talking points.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/The-Scientific-Guide-to-Global-Warming-Skepticism.html

I know this, that was indeed my mistake, it was a genuine error.

The IPCC has used pseudo-science regarding it's global warming/climate change models, some of these pseudo-scientists have already been caught from their e-mails of making up climate model changes on a large scale.

I might have been tired and made an obvious mistake in my previous comment regarding climate and weather, but i'm not a fool like many who believe in what the IPCC and it's pseudo-science try to tell us.

The IPCC continue to splurt out what their computer models predict, but NO computer model out there can predict something as complex as the climate. The highly complex nature of the climate would be impossible to measure in all of it's workings.

The ice is melting the IPCC says ? the ice north and south has always melted and it's called the spring break-up, it happens every year, and top climatologists and scientists are saying that the ice has actually accumulated much more in the past 5 years, so yes, the ice is melting because of the natural spring break-up of which has always been the case, but for the IPCC's pseudo-scientists, they will continue to make up new fake models probably to secure their funding.

Al Gore has his own agenda regarding carbon credits and he doesn't give a crap about the climate, he's in it for the cash obviously if you can't see it yet. Also the scientists that were signed down on the IPCC's books, many of them said they didn't want their names added to this but the IPCC went ahead anyway and signed them down, and in doing this, these scientists are bringing a case against the IPCC to have their names removed because when these scientists saw the final paper from the IPCC's models they didn't agree at all with it and made the remark that the models are completely wrong and so don't want anything to do with it, this is a fact, look it up.

It still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC's global warming AKA climate change models are fake and manipulated to secure funding and more extremist environmentalists.

It's still the scam of the century.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

I know this, that was indeed my mistake, it was a genuine error.

The IPCC has used pseudo-science regarding it's global warming/climate change models, some of these pseudo-scientists have already been caught from their e-mails of making up climate model changes on a large scale.

I might have been tired and made an obvious mistake in my previous comment regarding climate and weather, but i'm not a fool like many who believe in what the IPCC and it's pseudo-science try to tell us.

The IPCC continue to splurt out what their computer models predict, but NO computer model out there can predict something as complex as the climate. The highly complex nature of the climate would be impossible to measure in all of it's workings.

The ice is melting the IPCC says ? the ice north and south has always melted and it's called the spring break-up, it happens every year, and top climatologists and scientists are saying that the ice has actually accumulated much more in the past 5 years, so yes, the ice is melting because of the natural spring break-up of which has always been the case, but for the IPCC's pseudo-scientists, they will continue to make up new fake models probably to secure their funding.

Al Gore has his own agenda regarding carbon credits and he doesn't give a crap about the climate, he's in it for the cash obviously if you can't see it yet. Also the scientists that were signed down on the IPCC's books, many of them said they didn't want their names added to this but the IPCC went ahead anyway and signed them down, and in doing this, these scientists are bringing a case against the IPCC to have their names removed because when these scientists saw the final paper from the IPCC's models they didn't agree at all with it and made the remark that the models are completely wrong and so don't want anything to do with it, this is a fact, look it up.

It still doesn't change the fact that the IPCC's global warming AKA climate change models are fake and manipulated to secure funding and more extremist environmentalists.

It's still the scam of the century.

Well it's obvious you didn't read the link in the post you just quoted because it dispels everything you have just said.

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

Well it's obvious you didn't read the link in the post you just quoted because it dispels everything you have just said.

It doesn't dispel anything, believe the lies and pseudo-science from the IPCC all you want, people will believe any garbage/fraud that is put out from this crowd.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

It doesn't dispel anything, believe the lies and pseudo-science from the IPCC all you want, people will believe any garbage/fraud that is put out from this crowd.

Why don't you read it before commenting on it?
Why should I listen to you?

maw368

Yes there is dispute against Man made global warming you. Deniers just use pollitics and marketing, these two comments just show you for the ignorant bias individual you realy are, while spamming yoru drivel en masse trying to come across as clever. you claim there has been warming all this time, it's just deniers causing confusion, well why does the IPCC admit there has been no warming in the last 15 years, as they call it, the hiatus.

Regarding dispute and deniers are non scientists you are clearly burying your head in the sand. There is plenty of research that disagrees, there is plenty of research that shows how the sun is the bigger influence and plenty f research that explains the significant HIATUS, because due to the quitest sun in over a 100 years we will see a NORMAL CYLICAL trend of cooler climate. To back this up you will find many scientists of all the relevant and related fields from various relevant institutions around the world. The web if filled with the information, which is why I know you are just being using your own bias in your selectivity. I bet you've never even researched the alternative which you should really before claiming the deniers are wrong. How can you know they are wrong without doing the research and you obviously haven't done any not to see how many scientists have the polar opposite ideas.

I can't be bothered to go track down all the information that I have come across because already its clear you wont read it, or if you do you will read it with your selective glasses on, as you seem to have done so well to date. There has even been many scientists from the IPCC claim how they are committing fraud, being selective in data with warm bias, completely getting te science wrong, using undereducated undergraduate student work (and admission from a top level IPCC employee). There has been scientists leave the IPCC due to the moral issue of their lies, then his name was still flaunted by the IPCC when saying the top scientists agree with AGW. He had to ask on so many occasions to stop using his as a reference to their research that he eventually took legal action to stop them using his name. Then the institutes involved have been caught committing fraud with their data hence the climategate scandal.

The IPCC predictions were not correct, the drop in temps never happened to the extent they claimed years ago, hence the formal admission from the IPCC. Sea levels didn't rise as much, temps didn't rise as much or at all over last 15 years (HIATUS)etc, still snows in the UK after apparently expcting to see no more snow. Well we have had record snow falls and record temperatures over last 5 years. We had 7 months below average temps last year and 6 months below average temps this year according to the UK MO. Your just talking nonsense

King Mob

I always like how people who doubt climate change accuse everyone of being involved in a conspiracy to promote it and make money. Meanwhile a rather large industry who might want to oppose a tax on carbon emissions through misinformation is totally ignored.

If the green conspiracy is so much more powerful than the oil industry I wonder why we aren't all forced to drive electric cars and live under the terrible blades of wind farms.

maw368

Who said anything about a wide scale conspiracey. As Edwards Bernays said, you only need to manipulate the opinion of the leader/peer to manipulate the opinion of the masses. When everyone agrees with the religion of AGW without questioning the SCIENCE then its not a wide scale conspiracey, just ignorant followers. To call it science you need to consider all weakness in your theory and consider all research that contradicts your theory. The IPCC do not liek to consider any data or research that contradicts them which is why so many fo their own staff have spoken about their bias

Rubeter

King Mob wrote: »

I always like how people who doubt climate change accuse everyone of being involved in a conspiracy to promote it and make money. Meanwhile a rather large industry who might want to oppose a tax on carbon emissions through misinformation is totally ignored.

If the green conspiracy is so much more powerful than the oil industry I wonder why we aren't all forced to drive electric cars and live under the terrible blades of wind farms.

It is funny, usually it's the likes of the oil industries that these poor souls accuse of miss-information and CTs. It makes me smile when they accuse the 97% of scientists of pseudoscience and prefer to believe it's the 3% who are doing the real stuff. Poor sods.

It's obvious none of the recent posters have read this pdf .

maw368

And trying to dismiss fraud that did go through a legal battle as a result is not a good way of disgussing AGW. People always blindly accuse people of conspiracey when they have NOTHING useful to say. Especially when conspiracey wasn't mentioned. Why not criticise the points in my case rather than cry conspiracey, I know its hard but it is far more useful. Or are yu afraid to learn about the fraud, or trying to keep it to the back of your mind.

It's not hard to get scientists or universities to support your theory when these institutes get or DONT get funding if they don't favour the outcome of the people providing the funding. Everyone understands it when its a fad diet that has all this research done by some scientists, no one is surprised to learn that the scientists used bad research methods and came to aweful conclusions that didn't prove anything, just hints at coincidence which if often enough to fool people with poor logic. Everyone understands then when that diet is eventually discredited and all of the research, science and scientists that were involved in making it the fad that it was. Well its same here, its a propaganda machine, setting opinions in just the way Edward Bernays did for government in his days. It's the same BAD science, with flawed logic that is just sufficient to seduce the lazy minds that just adopt an opinion due to social conformity and never EVER bother to actually check for contradictions, errors or anything that remotely challenges their belief. AGW is just a religion, no evidence just faith. Well the new trend of cold weather is already taking hold for 5 consecutive year now throughout Northern Hemisphere, interesting to see what winter brings again this year as it's only October

Rubeter

maw368 wrote: »

Who said anything about a wide scale conspiracey. As Edwards Bernays said, you only need to manipulate the opinion of the leader/peer to manipulate the opinion of the masses. When everyone agrees with the religion of AGW without questioning the SCIENCE then its not a wide scale conspiracey, just ignorant followers. To call it science you need to consider all weakness in your theory and consider all research that contradicts your theory. The IPCC do not liek to consider any data or research that contradicts them which is why so many fo their own staff have spoken about their bias

If everyone did this there would be no problem, because all the evidence points towards anthropocentric global warming leading to climate change.
If there is evidence against it, where is it?

maw368

97% of scietists don't agree though, provide evidence to prove to me that 97% f scientists in the world agree with AGW, if you can't provide evdidence t support that number then you are just blindly regurgitating your BIBLE without evidence, just faith. Just reading your IPCC literature (BIBLE), is not evidence to support this claim. Provide evidence that proves beyond all doubt that 90 odd percent of scientists agree. Otherwise stop spouting that crap.

maw368

you got to be ignorant to believe there is none, there is hundreds of studies and also the fact many of the studies by the IPCC and the scientists themselves who did the studies agree are wrong and should not b counted as relevant.

Rubeter

maw368 wrote: »

you got to be ignorant to believe there is none, there is hundreds of studies and also the fact many of the studies by the IPCC and the scientists themselves who did the studies agree are wrong and should not b counted as relevant.

Where is it?

maw368

just to start you off http://www.spaceandscience.net/id4.html

But the fact you cant find any expresses the extent of your BIAS IGNORANCE because a simple 2 word search on GOOGLE.COM will provide thousands of hits. I can't be arsed doing the leg work for someone who is bias to begin with, as I already know you wont even take it serious, depsite the credentials of the scientists in the first link above makes them some of the highest in their field

Rubeter

maw368 wrote: »

just to start you off http://www.spaceandscience.net/id4.html

But the fact you cant find any expresses the extent of your BIAS IGNORANCE because a simple 2 word search on GOOGLE.COM will provide thousands of hits. I can't be arsed doing the leg work for someone who is bias to begin with, as I already know you wont even take it serious, depsite the credentials of the scientists in the first link above makes them some of the highest in their field

Sorry but I get my info from scientific journals. Not from how many hits a question asked on google will give.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full#

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

It is funny, usually it's the likes of the oil industries that these poor souls accuse of miss-information and CTs. It makes me smile when they accuse the 97% of scientists of pseudoscience and prefer to believe it's the 3% who are doing the real stuff. Poor sods.

It's obvious none of the recent posters have read this pdf .

I love the way you just made up, and massaged the figures, 97% of scientists, did you get those stats from the IPCC ? looks like it, as most real scientists don't want their names associated with this fraud.

There are far too many of these pseudo-scientists engaged in this, but as has happened, when you have a well known scientist that disputes the IPCC's data and disagree with them they find themselves out of a job and this has happened too many times by these fraudsters.

You are just a repeater, just like most religious believers of global warming/climate change. It would be foolish to not believe in climate change because we all know that the climate has changed and has done since it existed naturally, but i do not believe it's man-made. Blame nature and volcano's for releasing it's natural ejection of Co2. Tax the air people breath next, they may as well the way things are going. The poison Co2 they say, you wouldn't be here without it, nothing would.

The global warming crowd are just a bunch of environmental extremists. They want us all to go back to the stoneage, bunch of freaks. They keep putting the clamps on in certain parts of africa in not allowing them to use electricity in hospitals, the environmental extremists allow them to only use solar panels to power their fridges and lighting of which doesn't work for them.

Here's a bit of Co2 for you.... have a guess where that came from

If everyone did this there would be no problem, because all the evidence points towards anthropocentric global warming leading to climate change.
If there is evidence against it, where is it?

You find the IPCC's findings as evidence, don't make me laugh.

seanie_c

Rubeter wrote: »

It is funny, usually it's the likes of the oil industries that these poor souls accuse of miss-information and CTs. It makes me smile when they accuse the 97% of scientists of pseudoscience and prefer to believe it's the 3% who are doing the real stuff. Poor sods.
It's obvious none of the recent posters have read this pdf .

Bankers couldn't be happier with the Emissions trading, energy corporations and the wealthy people invested in them are happy to see Ice in Antarctica melting because it gives them the opportunity to extract the gas/oil up there. They're still cutting down precious forest and destroying habitat of plant life/animals, seas are being depleted of fish.

"Science will solve all our problems, just have faith in science"

Do you honestly think the governments give a **** about climate change?
I mean...do you really sincerely believe that?

So what have they been doing? Nothing.

Churn out thousands of reports telling us we're doomed and yet the governments still do nothing.

Why don't you lead by example and start living off the grid?
Stop working for example? What's the point anyway if we're all doomed?

Reduce your carbon footprint by cycling or walking into work each day.

Instead of turning on your heating, why not throw on an extra piece of clothing?

Dump all your electronic items, go back to using horse and plough to grow your own food...cut the wheat with a scythe.

Lead the way on reversing climate change/saving the world and no doubt thousands and millions will follow.

If you're unable to convince enough people, take a loud speaker down to the town and read out your PDF on why climate change is real and see how many care.

What are you doing to reverse climate change? What are the government doing? ....except helping make bankers more wealthy.

Rubeter

seanie_c wrote: »

Bankers couldn't be happier with the Emissions trading, energy corporations and the wealthy people invested in them are happy to see Ice in Antarctica melting because it gives them the opportunity to extract the gas/oil up there. They're still cutting down precious forest and destroying habitat of plant life/animals, seas are being depleted of fish.

"Science will solve all our problems, just have faith in science"

Do you honestly think the governments give a **** about climate change?
I mean...do you really sincerely believe that?

So what have they been doing? Nothing.

Churn out thousands of reports telling us we're doomed and yet the governments still do nothing.

Why don't you lead by example and start living off the grid?
Stop working for example? What's the point anyway if we're all doomed?

Reduce your carbon footprint by cycling or walking into work each day.

Instead of turning on your heating, why not throw on an extra piece of clothing?

Dump all your electronic items, go back to using horse and plough to grow your own food...cut the wheat with a scythe.

Lead the way on reversing climate change/saving the world and no doubt thousands and millions will follow.

If you're unable to convince enough people, take a loud speaker down to the town and read out your PDF on why climate change is real and see how many care.

What are you doing to reverse climate change? What are the government doing? ....except helping make bankers more wealthy.

All I'm doing is arguing that it's happening, I even buy real non smokeless coal because the other stuff is crap.

Rubeter

zenno wrote: »

I love the way you just made up, and massaged the figures, 97% of scientists, did you get those stats from the IPCC ? looks like it, as most real scientists don't want their names associated with this fraud.

There are far too many of these pseudo-scientists engaged in this, but as has happened, when you have a well known scientist that disputes the IPCC's data and disagree with them they find themselves out of a job and this has happened too many times by these fraudsters.

You are just a repeater, just like most religious believers of global warming/climate change. It would be foolish to not believe in climate change because we all know that the climate has changed and has done since it existed naturally, but i do not believe it's man-made. Blame nature and volcano's for releasing it's natural ejection of Co2. Tax the air people breath next, they may as well the way things are going. The poison Co2 they say, you wouldn't be here without it, nothing would.

The global warming crowd are just a bunch of environmental extremists. They want us all to go back to the stoneage, bunch of freaks. They keep putting the clamps on in certain parts of africa in not allowing them to use electricity in hospitals, the environmental extremists allow them to only use solar panels to power their fridges and lighting of which doesn't work for them.

Here's a bit of Co2 for you.... have a guess where that came from



You find the IPCC's findings as evidence, don't make me laugh.

Read the link in the post above your one I quoted here, then get back to me.

Dave!

Rubeter wrote: »

All I'm doing is arguing that it's happening, I even buy real non smokeless coal because the other stuff is crap.

You monster!

UCDVet

I can't believe everyone complaining about global warming. Are you kidding me? You kids today....you have no idea what we had to do, what we went through....to keep this planet warm.

If not for my generation, we'd all be on ice. Frozen. Dead.

“A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.” –

Newsweek – April 28, 1975 “The Cooling World”

Seriously though - does anyone else remember this? See, back in the 70s, the world was freezing, and humans were to blame. And it was getting worse, by the 'year 2000' (they loved to say 'year 2000') we were all going to be dead or living like ancient times, in small tribes, hunting animals or some crap.

Some weren't so grim though....

The world “could be as little as 50 or 60 years away from a disastrous new ice age, a leading atmospheric scientist predicts,” read a July 9, 1971 Washington Post article. NASA scientist S.I. Rasool, a colleague of James Hansen, made the predictions. The 1971 article continues: “In the next 50 years” — or by 2021 — fossil-fuel dust injected by man into the atmosphere “could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees,” resulting in a buildup of “new glaciers that could eventually cover huge areas.” If sustained over “several years, five to 10,” or so Mr. Rasool estimated, “such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age

We had until 2020 - or so.....before our man made pollutants triggered an ice age.

In the early 1970s, top CIA thinkers concluded that changing weather was “perhaps the greatest single challenge that America will face in coming years”. As a result they ordered several studies of the world’s climate, the likely changes to come and their probably effect on America and the rest of the world. The studies conclude that the world is entering a difficult period during which major climate change (further cooling) is likely to occur. That is the consensus of the Central intelligence Agency, which highlights the fact that we are overdue for a new ice age. Many climatologists believe that since the 1960s,

EVEN THE CIA knew. And let's face it, if the American's can figure it.....it must have been right in front of all our noses!

GLOBAL COOLING IS REAL AND HUMANS ARE RESPONSIBLE.

We did what we had to do.....to save the world. People were burning trash in the streets.....I sold my bicycle and purchased a large school bus to drive for my day-to-day errands.

WE SAVED THE WORLD....YOU ARE WELCOME.

Rubeter

maw368 wrote: »

just to start you off http://www.spaceandscience.net/id4.html

By the way have a read of this regarding your link. Anything from a reputable peer reviewed science journal?

zenno

Rubeter wrote: »

Read the link in the post above your one I quoted here, then get back to me.

In its most recent assessment, IPCC states "unequivocally" that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities: “Human activities …

As i already said, How on earth can anyone possibly believe a corrupt fraudulent organisation like the IPCC after all of it's manipulations of the climate data. Man-made they say, is it mans fault that volcano's erupt more Co2 over long periods of time ?

Is it man's fault for having to breath out Co2 ? millions upon millions of animals farting every second of the day, man's fault again. Sounds like the IPCC would like to kill off the human race and all animals and plug volcano's from releasing this deadly poisonous thing called Co2 by the sounds of it.

The climate has been changing naturally, long before we became a technologically advanced species, it also enjoyed it's levels of Co2, well the plants love it