-
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
The Pious relies on braking to self generate it's power.
No braking means flat batteries.
On a long country drive at 100kmh the car has to rely on it's puny under-powered petrol motor.
On a trip from say Melbourne to Sydney I reckon a basic Commodore would get better economy.
What's your old clunker Michael?
Mine's a Fiat X1/9.
No braking means flat batteries.
On a long country drive at 100kmh the car has to rely on it's puny under-powered petrol motor.
On a trip from say Melbourne to Sydney I reckon a basic Commodore would get better economy.
What's your old clunker Michael?
Mine's a Fiat X1/9.
Merveille said:
Disproportionate in relation to the evidence merv. Yes it is your right to be a sceptic, just be very clear what its based on.
Being a climate change sceptic is like being a wind tunnel research sceptic, 'I reject your research that says a Prius is more eareodynamic than a combi van'. Based on what? Zero expertise and knowledge thats what, But I'm gunna drive my combi, and be damned.
He's got a cheer squad eh? When he bothers to respond to argument - eg http://www.puntroadend.com/yabbse/index.php?topic=27593.msg1067571#msg1067571 - then I'll give him more respect.
Appreciate he's outnumbered on this thread and all, but hey, can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
Appreciate he's outnumbered on this thread and all, but hey, can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
antman said:
Gee, you are an interesting character. I am not sure what you are referring to, is it just the fact haven't answered Disco? Is that it?
I had an answer first time I read the question. Reason i haven't answered? Basically laziness.
I have put up arguments over and over on here recently, one bloke chimes in with a question for one of the few times in ages, and I am supposed to fall over myself answering his question?
Really not sure why you linked what you did Antman. There is absolutely nothing of substance there. My quote that you say doesn't make sense, absolutley does in the context of what it is replying to. Maybe it is just a bit complex for someone who relies on faith alone.
You admit you never read Bolt - well, any criticism you have now of him has ZERO credibilty, and you have not only posted it that information, you are now linking to it..
You admit you never read Bolt - well, any criticism you have now of him has ZERO credibilty, and you have not only posted it that information, you are now linking to it..
Here are some current links relating to supposed peer-reviewed IPCC papers and announcements.
'Peer-review', relied on so heavily by so many, and all by outstanding scientists.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/01/22/ipcc-and-peer-review/
Disco i do apologise for not ansering you reasonable question, but every time I come here i get distracted, then run out of time.
'Peer-review', relied on so heavily by so many, and all by outstanding scientists.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6999975.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article7000063.ece
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/01/22/ipcc-and-peer-review/
Disco i do apologise for not ansering you reasonable question, but every time I come here i get distracted, then run out of time.
Appreciate the laziness thing, we all have other lives, but two posts in response Mervs? I'm honoured.
The Bolta? Others criticise him much more effectively than I do - I've made a few off the cuff remarks, granted, but you see the way Bolta is received in this forum. Zero respect, and that's not just my opinion, there are plenty of others here. I did make you an offer though - when he posts something of merit, let us know.
Basically, I want rational argument supported by evidence - still waiting on that too. BTW, posting a set of links to articles is not an argument. I'll have a look over these for you though when I have time.
The Bolta? Others criticise him much more effectively than I do - I've made a few off the cuff remarks, granted, but you see the way Bolta is received in this forum. Zero respect, and that's not just my opinion, there are plenty of others here. I did make you an offer though - when he posts something of merit, let us know.
Basically, I want rational argument supported by evidence - still waiting on that too. BTW, posting a set of links to articles is not an argument. I'll have a look over these for you though when I have time.
Merveille said:
Um, the links you provide show the peer-review process doing its job, ie. identifying errors in conclusions drawn by individual scientists. It wasn't the 'skeptics' pointing out the flaws in some of the IPCC conclusions, but scientists (obviously not those involved in the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY :
. All you are doing is revealing the strength of the scientific process.If you want to actually discredit the scientific consensus re: AGW then you need to point out the flaws in the current data, or provide contradictory data and a better explanation. Flinging mud adds nothing to our knowledge and demonstrates your ignorance of the scientific process.
Merveille said:
Don't have the link but there was a lengthy article in the SMH on the weekend (might also have been in the Age) re the 2035 V 2350 thing. Bottom line is A) the peer review process is not 100% perfect, thing slip through. B) this blue was actually picked up ages ago , by the a subsequent peer review process where the original paper was cited, but the press seeing a headline jumped on it some time after the fact. C) end result is the same, 2035 or 2350, no difference in eco/geo terms, the blink of an eye. Bottom line, the vast majority of galaciers are receding faster than even conservative predictions.
I'll say that again, bottom line, the vast majority of glaciers are receding faster than even conservative predictions.
Look, all this is just nipping around the edges, the guts of it is all-but irrefutable.
An analogy to this controversy would be a new house just finished, (the house being climate change research) consensus is it looks great, family living in it loves it. But a couple of people think its a dump and will fall down any minute. They point out skirting boards that don't quite meet, a kitchen cupboard that sticks. They release a press release and the tabloids run a story 'New House poorly built firetrap'. But its all *smile* minor details. The guts of it is, well built, keeps the rain off, approved by council, vast majority are happy with it.
tigersnake said:
Doesn't mean I shouldn't be taking the builders to task over why they keep telling me the house is fine, when clealy it's not. If you're happy living in a house with sh!t woodwork and things that don't work, good luck to you. But I'm gonna keep on at the builders until they sort it out.
Disco08 said:BTW Merv, I posted this question to you a little while after you logged off for a couple of weeks. You seemed to have missed it when you were catching up with the discussion which is fair enough, but I still wouldn't mind an answer.
Sorry about the delay Disco.
Firstly, I would like a link – yes, I don’t mind a link, unlike the Antman – to where this ‘factual’ assertion comes from re the 97% + number. I think that is a fair request. I don’t necessarily doubt it, I would just like to read about it.
Secondly, your question refers to ‘scientists with relevant knowledge’. How is ‘relevant scientist’ defined, who defined it, and how are their opinions measured?
Will that be included in the link? Do these ‘relevant scientists’ include Chairman Pachauri and Phil Jones? If so, my scepticism is not going to diminish any time soon. Even MONBIOT categorically denounced the relevant scientist climate-gate emails as disastrous – yet barely a mention on here.
Thirdly, you may trawl through my arguments – yes I have made arguments, regardless of Antman’s dribble – and if you can locate anywhere I have categorically stated ‘Global Warming is not influenced by mankind’s activities’ I will withdraw from these pages!
Global warming can be measured, so the temperatures themselves are not really what is being debated.
I am just not as convinced as most on here that it definitely is influenced by mankind’s activities to the degree the alarmists would have us believe!
Why? Seemingly because I am scientifically challenged, can’t make an argument and have my head stuck fair up my clacker…
Panthera tigris FC said:Um, the links you provide show the peer-review process doing its job, ie. identifying errors in conclusions drawn by individual scientists. It wasn't the 'skeptics' pointing out the flaws in some of the IPCC conclusions, but scientists (obviously not those involved in the GLOBAL CONSPIRACY :
But Pantha this is getting at the crux of the issue for me. Governments and other alarmists are able to put out these 'findings' into the public domain, they become the accepted wisdom, yet when the peer-review process does its job, as you're suggesting it is in the links Merveille provided, we hear no more about it. The damage is done.
The Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035. The world accepts it because it came from a "scientist", but when the findings are called into question, nothing happens. No font page news saying the Himalayan glaciers may in fact last a little longer than 25 years!
If you need a grant, just mention global warming/climate change and it's yours.
