-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100011716/how-the-global-warming-industry-is-based-on-one-massive-lie/
poppa x said:
Its been happening for the last 40 years pop gun. There's been debate the the 'scientific level' peer reviewed journal articles that is, since the 1950s The science is in, or as in as it can ever be.
The unfortunate thing is that the media, because they aren't scientists and tend to have vested interests in the stautus quo, present the debate as 2 relatively even 'sides' they ain't. In footy terms the scientific 'debate' has reached the point where its the AA team v Ballarat YCW under 10s.
ssstone said:
OK, so you're anti-science and also painfully ignorant of how the scientific process works. That is clear. Again I ask you (or the farmers) to point out the proplems with the science. Arguments from incredulity are less than convincing. Claims of conspiracy also reveal you to be a crackpot.
Have you actually seen the contents of those emails? Although there is some BS from the scientists involved (personal BS, not scientific BS) that doesn't discredit the data that they have generated, nor, more importantly, the data generated independently that corroborates and confirms the conclusions that the scientific community have come to. Most of the crap that I have seen about those emails reveal a complete misunderstanding of the science and a clear aim to discredit the scientific community as if they are involved in some global conspiracy. Again, if you know anything about science you would understand that such conspiracy is impossible in such a system.
Have you actually seen the trends?
Funnily enough I'm running the same argument on another forum.
Climate change denialists have done pretty well, you have to admit. Even though the global scientific community pretty much made up its mind on anthropogenic global warming around 2000, and every major scientific organisation in the world, both national and international, have all stated that climate change is real and it's about 97% certainty that it's due to our actions, apparently all that counts for naught because of Andrew Bolt crapping on about some leaked emails from a university in East Anglia.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
Climate change denialists have done pretty well, you have to admit. Even though the global scientific community pretty much made up its mind on anthropogenic global warming around 2000, and every major scientific organisation in the world, both national and international, have all stated that climate change is real and it's about 97% certainty that it's due to our actions, apparently all that counts for naught because of Andrew Bolt crapping on about some leaked emails from a university in East Anglia.
If it wasn't so serious it would be funny.
Would you guys disagree that there is a growing school of thought that man's contribution to global warming is not as significant as previously thought?
And that man's ability to control 'global warming' as it is currently, is much less than previously hoped?
And that man's ability to control 'global warming' as it is currently, is much less than previously hoped?
Freezer said:
On your first point I have seen nothing that would suggest that humans' impact on global climate is less significant than previously thought. If anything, we are seeing some of the effects from the more more pessimistic climate models.
Freezer said:
I would agree if you could show me the journal articles in the peer reviewed scientific journals, and the national and international scientific organisations come to the funky party. Unfortunately though the reverse is true - in the 70s it was the radical crackpot scientists who believed in AGW, now it's just about everyone, and they've got the scientific evidence to prove it.
Happy for you to provide info on the all the scientific, rigorous, peer reviewed journal articles to the contrary.
No reasonable climate scientist, the IPCC or whoever ever claimed that controlling climate change would be easy. Where did you get this idea from? Did the IPCC say stop driving cars and everything goes back to normal? As the climate scientists are telling us we are approaching the situation where we may be reaching a tipping point. CO2 is a greenhouse gas but water vapour is an even more potent greenhouse catalyst. If we reach a stage where the climate gets so warm that we have a globally humid climate, it will be pretty much impossible to turn things around.
antman said:
Ant, normally love your posting but here Freezer didn't say it would be easy to control. ONly that it now appears that it is going to be much harder for man to control than perhaps was once thought.
As for your last sentence, when do you perceive that as possibly occurring. My view is that it will never get to that.
jb03 said:
Yes, I'm using a bit of poetic licence jb03 and apologies to Freezer. Freezer, let me rephrase my point.
I can't think of any scientific papers or well-known arguments that claim that climate change would be "easy for man to control". The arguments I'm familiar with tend to state that climate change is occurring, we need to reduce CO2 emissions as a matter of urgency as the long term effects of continuing will be severe, and tipping points may be reached. No-one really knows how long it will take for the climate to "recover" or whether the changes that have occurred already are "reversible". We may never have the same global climatic conditions that we had 200 years ago, but we can - possibly - prevent catastrophic climate change.
What is clear though is that doing nothing could be far far worse than doing something.
I understand the scientific reposts but that wasn't what I was asking. You'll always be able to bamboozle 99% of the population with science, including me.
But...
Would you agree there are more people/scientists/politicians/nerds/dunces/priests/anglicans/kids/professors etc., etc., that no longer seem to towing the party line about global warming?
And I know it doesn't prove anything - I'm just asking.
But...
Would you agree there are more people/scientists/politicians/nerds/dunces/priests/anglicans/kids/professors etc., etc., that no longer seem to towing the party line about global warming?
And I know it doesn't prove anything - I'm just asking.
Freezer said:
More people? This was a relatively small phone poll by Roy Morgan which shows those who think concern over climate change is exaggerated - 2006- 13%, 2009 - 27%.
So since 2006 the number of skeptics has doubled if we accept the poll results.
http://blogs.crikey.com.au/pollytics/2009/08/13/global-warming-and-cprs-polling/
However, the majority view is still that it's a big problem even though that has eroded somewhat in the last 3 years.
Strangely though a big majority still thinks the major cause is human greenhouse gas emissions - but presumably think it's less of a problem given the above results.
