Global Warming

[Rosy]

Rosy, they are fair questions and I’ll address them, with respect;

Firstly, if P was offended by me referring to him as a her, I apologise. However by apologising I now risk offending many females. I had not read his profile so did not know what sex he was. I may be a few things, but I am not sexist. It would be an honour to be referred to as a ‘her.’

I'm not judging how Panthera feels about being called a she. Wouldn't have a clue whether he'd find it offensive or not. I certainly think it's a compliment myself. :angel:

I do question your reasons though because I certainly, judging from your posts, doubt you meant to "honour" him. You commented about being a betting person (or words to that effect) yet the odds are massively in favour of posters on here being male...added to the fact Panthera has chosen to identify his gender.

Not a big deal really but I do find the condescending comments and judgement about another person's career quite unnecessary. Panthera has been a great contributor on this board. A lot goes over my head, same with a lot of posts, and a lot gives me food for thought.

Anyway my thoughts are we should plant more trees....I'll plant one especially for you Glantone...as soon as we get enough rain, if we ever do again, to increase it's chances of survival. :hearton

 

[glantone]

Anyway my thoughts are we should plant more trees....I'll plant one especially for you Glantone...as soon as we get enough rain, if we ever do again, to increase it's chances of survival. :hearton

Really, rosy? thanks! I bags a fig…only fitting given the biblical proportions of this drought.

A word of warning though, for a variety of reasons some rain drops go their own way. Witness this sad tale of watery woe below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8rsmGcv4VQ

 

[Merveille]

I enjoy reading the RR&P thread and have never posted here but have great respect for many of the posters that do - particularly Panthera.

Your posting, particulalry the stuff above, shows a complete lack of sincerity and doesn't deserve respect. You probably should refrain from posting lest you show yourself to be the "buffoon", to use one of your well chosen words.

Well I know where you stand on the topic then :-*

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Well I know where you stand on the topic then :-*

I'm actually a bit of a sceptic, just found your posts disrespectful, arrogant, insincere and tinged with a touch of jealousy - why all the pretence?

 

[Merveille]

I'm actually a bit of a sceptic, just found your posts disrespectful, arrogant, insincere and tinged with a touch of jealousy - why all the pretence?

Careful, on recent measures that post is bordering on personal abuse. Let's stick to the topic, ay? Nobody would want to be hypocritical.

So you are a 'bit of a sceptic'? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? That's why you haven't posted, perhaps you don't want to take a stance in case Panthera disagrees with you, and then you maye have to debate him?


No offence Panthera. Rosy, he started it.

 

[Tiger74]

So you are a 'bit of a sceptic'? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? That's why you haven't posted, perhaps you don't want to take a stance in case Panthera disagrees with you, and then you maye have to debate him?

you do know what the definition of a sceptic is? its someone who has doubts. not someone who disagrees, someone who doubts.

BCL has doubts, he has questions he wants answered. sounds like a sceptic to me.

 

[Big Cat Lover]

Careful, on recent measures that post is bordering on personal abuse. Let's stick to the topic, ay? Nobody would want to be hypocritical.

So you are a 'bit of a sceptic'? Is that like being a little bit pregnant? That's why you haven't posted, perhaps you don't want to take a stance in case Panthera disagrees with you, and then you maye have to debate him?


No offence Panthera. Rosy, he started it.

"he started it" - surprised I didn't get a "she started it"

Funny sort of comment from an x-teacher, must have learnt that off the kids

 

[tigersnake]

And the 'cascade' continues.

At least open your eyes to the possibilty that it's not as straight forward as you seem to think it is.

Of course there's a possibility that the sceptics could be right, but I know that its an extremely remote possibility. My eyes are wide open, some people call me 'ol bug eyes.

 

[ssstone]

Of course there's a possibility that the sceptics could be right, but I know that its an extremely remote possibility. My eyes are wide open, some people call me 'ol bug eyes.

:rofl :rofl remote possilbilty?....nth america is in the grip of global warming now arent they??? :rofl.. and to think at primary school my teachers used to tell us in the late 70's early 80; the world was going to have anthor ice age... *smile* alarmists should be shot but history will JUDGE them .....

 

[tigersnake]

The thing about the sceptics is they are simply rejecting news they don't want to hear. The aggro tone and rejection of all evidence except the dubious shreds that support what they want to hear is a dead giveaway.

I'd love climate change to not be happening, I'd love it if pollution had a benign or positive effect on the environment. But unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch stoney 'ol son. Cause and effect.

 

[Tiger74]

The thing about the sceptics is they are simply rejecting news they don't want to hear. The aggro tone and rejection of all evidence except the dubious shreds that support what they want to hear is a dead giveaway.

I'd love climate change to not be happening, I'd love it if pollution had a benign or positive effect on the environment. But unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch stoney 'ol son. Cause and effect.

this is unfair to a lot of sceptics. both sides have a pretty feral and vocal minority, and its unfair on both sceptics and believers to tar them with the same brush as their more "passionate" colleagues.

 

[ssstone]

The thing about the sceptics is they are simply rejecting news they don't want to hear. The aggro tone and rejection of all evidence except the dubious shreds that support what they want to hear is a dead giveaway.

I'd love climate change to not be happening, I'd love it if pollution had a benign or positive effect on the environment. But unfortunately, there is no such thing as a free lunch stoney 'ol son. Cause and effect.

plenty of free lunches tiggy in copenhagen..with an incredible amount of BRUMBYS BLACK BALLONS... wanna have a bet on next years rain fall in victoria tiggy?............as for aggro tone :-\ the left and green has been at it for years?

 

[tigersnake]

this is unfair to a lot of sceptics. both sides have a pretty feral and vocal minority, and its unfair on both sceptics and believers to tar them with the same brush as their more "passionate" colleagues.

its not unfair at all. Yes there are 'feral' or passionate people on both sides, bottom line is, only one side has evidence behind it. Like I said earlier, the people who rejected the round earth theory were passionate. This debate really is ridiculous. Like I said, I'd love human-induced climate change to not be happening, but it is.

 

[Freezer]

This debate really is ridiculous.

I'm guessing you won't be posting again then.

I'm not a scientist either, so I can only read what I come across. Is this stuff relevant? Or should it be dismissed as well?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

And I suppose Easterbrook's comments on the GSA's position is all made up as well?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response_to_GSA_position_statement.pdf

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I'm guessing you won't be posting again then.

I'm not a scientist either, so I can only read what I come across. Is this stuff relevant? Or should it be dismissed as well?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

So you don't find it concerning that despite the fact that we should be going into a cooling period we are experiencing the hottest decade on record?

 

[Merveille]

So you don't find it concerning that despite the fact that we should be going into a cooling period we are experiencing the hottest decade on record?

Hi Panthera, I make this point and ask these questions with absolute sincerity. i understand you have probably responded to such obvious questions earlier on the thread before i was around. And knowing that the debate is 'ridiculous' as a poster has stated, i humbly ask...,

As you ask a question of freezer in relation to a 'decade', and make a point within your question re that decade, a 'decade' is obviously a relevant time frame to debate.

In that case, I ask why has the globe not heated further over that period, as was predicted, with the ever increasing levels of co2?

And, if the predictions were incorrect, am I not allowed to have some doubt (as a decade is relevant?).


In answer to your question of Freezer, excuse my ignorance, but how far back is 'on record?'

 

[Merveille]

I'm guessing you won't be posting again then.

I'm not a scientist either, so I can only read what I come across. Is this stuff relevant? Or should it be dismissed as well?

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/07/20/shifting-of-the-pacific-decadal-oscillation-from-its-warm-mode-to-cool-mode-assures-global-cooling-for-the-next-three-decades/

And I suppose Easterbrook's comments on the GSA's position is all made up as well?

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Response_to_GSA_position_statement.pdf

that 2nd link is very interesting. I like the fig 1 graph - note the co2 increase between 1940 and 1975, with the global cooling of the same time period.

 

[Freezer]

So you don't find it concerning that despite the fact that we should be going into a cooling period we are experiencing the hottest decade on record?

You say that, but then I read articles like this from 2006, written by a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research, Prof Bob Carter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

and this from 2008:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

Now I know you'll be able to produce a million articles saying that the temperatures are rising, but why are there such discrepencies between what scientists are telling us?

Are those saying the temps have plateaued or even fallen not as smart as those that say we're just had the hottest decade on record? Are they making it up? Or are the 'sceptics' banding together in a "the earth's not really warming" giant conspiracy?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

You say that, but then I read articles like this from 2006, written by a geologist at James Cook University, Queensland, engaged in paleoclimate research, Prof Bob Carter:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/3624242/There-IS-a-problem-with-global-warming...-it-stopped-in-1998.html

and this from 2008:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/climate-facts-to-warm-to/story-e6frg7ko-1111115855185

Now I know you'll be able to produce a million articles saying that the temperatures are rising, but why are there such discrepencies between what scientists are telling us?

Are those saying the temps have plateaued or even fallen not as smart as those that say we're just had the hottest decade on record? Are they making it up? Or are the 'sceptics' banding together in a "the earth's not really warming" giant conspiracy?

There are no discrepancies. The data that Bob Carter presents about a hot 1998 are accurate. However, he chooses to ignore the known reasons for the temperature spike. He also chooses to ignore the overall heating trend that has occured (when you yourself point out the science that suggests that we should be going into a cooling period!).

Check out this link for information on the Bob Carter 'error'.

 

[Tiger74]

its not unfair at all. Yes there are 'feral' or passionate people on both sides, bottom line is, only one side has evidence behind it. Like I said earlier, the people who rejected the round earth theory were passionate. This debate really is ridiculous. Like I said, I'd love human-induced climate change to not be happening, but it is.

one side has evidence you agree with, the other evidence you don't. you may disagree with it, but they are using their own evidence to make their point (which is half the reason they are getting a hearing, the other half the fiasco at East Anglia). what conclusion that evidence makes is another issue, but its wrong to say sceptics are only debating on passion.
.
there are enough scientists raising questions to say at least the issue of climate change is one under constant review, so its nuts to say only one side is arguing based evidence and imply the other is just making stuff up.