Global Warming

[tigersnake]

Al Gore predicted New York would be underwater (see about 2:30 into video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_21b7mdJz2M&feature=related

FFS. Nothing to do with 10 years. and he dosn't predict NY would be underwater, he shows that it wouldn't take much of a rise to flood the edges of Manhattan Island. Big diff to 'flooding NY'. a) those predictions were referring to IF we don't act and the arctic ice melts. Nothing to do with 10 years. b), have you ever been to Manhattan? Extremely low lying Island, parts of it already flood on a king tide. Its not a big stretch anyway.

The argument is ludicrous. Its like if we were arguing about the benefits of a general anaesthetic, and someone posts an article about somebody dying under a general. 'see what do you say about that?' fair dinkum. Why the resistance? Do you have some misinformed belief that you'll be forced to become vegetarian or something? Just dumb arse sh!t.

This is all the people who refuse to accept reality can do, pick out some extreme predictions and scoff, set up a straw man in other words. If you line up all the research findings and predictions, this is all you need to know:

1. The earth is warming rapidly due to burning fossil fuels. 2. It will have detrimental effects on the/ our environment.

You can argue about when, you can argue about how, but thats it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

FFS. Nothing to do with 10 years. and he dosn't predict NY would be underwater, he shows that it wouldn't take much of a rise to flood the edges of Manhattan Island. Big diff to 'flooding NY'. a) those predictions were referring to IF we don't act and the arctic ice melts. Nothing to do with 10 years. b), have you ever been to Manhattan? Extremely low lying Island, parts of it already flood on a king tide. Its not a big stretch anyway.

The argument is ludicrous. Its like if we were arguing about the benefits of a general anaesthetic, and someone posts an article about somebody dying under a general. 'see what do you say about that?' fair dinkum. Why the resistance? Do you have some misinformed belief that you'll be forced to become vegetarian or something? Just dumb arse sh!t.

This is all the people who refuse to accept reality can do, pick out some extreme predictions and scoff, set up a straw man in other words. If you line up all the research findings and predictions, this is all you need to know:

1. The earth is warming rapidly due to burning fossil fuels. 2. It will have detrimental effects on the/ our environment.

You can argue about when, you can argue about how, but thats it.

This is the bit that has me dumbfounded TS. What is the worst thing that can happen if we behave as though we should limit our affect on the atmosphere? We develop cleaner constant sources of energy. We become more efficient in our industries. We guarantee a cleaner brighter future for generations to come. We build new industries around clean sustainable energy production that create jobs and wealth but at a much lesser impact on the planet. Industry is able to continue production but with a smaller footprint through more efficient technology. Why does that need to be resisted at all costs? I just don't get it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Did you read the posts from Freezer where the science, data, and admittance from scientists contradicts what you are saying?

Have you admitted that your post to Al Gore was a cherry picked piece of sensationalist garbage and your intro contained a lie about what he actually said?

 

[Rosy]

FFS.

Ahh Livers...he's done it again. :rofl

 

[Liverpool]

No volume on mine so wouldn't have a clue what he predicted, what he based it on and/or why. Funny example to base your comment on. Who are the "other"s you referred to?

I said 20 years ago they were talking about cities (I think itw as the Golad Coast) being underwater within 10 years...obviously, that diod not happen.

Al Gore is just another one of these doomsday peddlers that the climate change lovers like to jump on board with and claim as one of their "experts", even though he has dealings with a carbon-trading firm and travels everywhere by jet plane.

WRONG. LIES. Are you able to be a part of this discussion without using sensationalist claims?

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

And you want to lecture me about sensationalist claims?

 

[tigersnake]

This is the bit that has me dumbfounded TS. What is the worst thing that can happen if we behave as though we should limit our affect on the atmosphere? We develop cleaner constant sources of fuel. We become more efficient in our industries. We guarantee a cleaner brighter future for generations to come. We build new industries around clean sustainable energy production that create jobs and wealth but at a much lesser impact on the planet. Industry is able to continue production but with a smaller footprint through more efficient technology. Why does that need to be resisted at all costs? I just don't get it.

But more than that KR, when (if) the tipping point arrives the drive for energy efficiency will drive and reinvigorate the global economy. It will be like the industrial revolution, the rise of the car, the computer. It will create whole new industries. I find the fear and denial pathetic, not unpredictable all things considered, but pathetic.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Ahh Livers...he's done it again. :rofl

Some people just have a knack for it. He is the Richard Carlton of PRE.

 

[Liverpool]

Have you admitted that your post to Al Gore was a cherry picked piece of sensationalist garbage and your intro contained a lie about what he actually said?

of course its sensationalist garbage that was cherry-picked!!!

Its the sort of codswallop that is believed though.

Did you read Freezers posts?...thoughts?..and obvious contradictions and arguments from yourself?

 

[tigersnake]

Ahh Livers...he's done it again. :rofl

yep. I'm pathetic for bothering to get annoyed by this dross on an internet RFC site rosy.

 

[Liverpool]

yep. I'm pathetic for bothering to get annoyed by this dross on an internet RFC site rosy.

You said that 5 years ago but keep coming back :hihi

Its because you lot have to argue...its simple as that....you can't bear the thought of any poster going against the little clique that comes on these threads and someone that challenges what you lot want to spout as facts

 

[KnightersRevenge]

of course its sensationalist garbage that was cherry-picked!!!

Its the sort of codswallop that is believed though

That confirms it, I just don't get you Livers. ???

 

[tigersnake]

You said that 5 years ago but keep coming back :hihi

Its because you lot have to argue...its simple as that....you can't bear the thought of any poster going against the little clique that comes on these threads and someone that challenges what you lot want to spout as facts

More like 8 years, then 5 years, then 3 years. Its a good little clique though, we get together and drink chardonnay or latte sometimes, chuckle away at the poor flat earth simpletons, its fun.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

of course its sensationalist garbage that was cherry-picked!!!

Its the sort of codswallop that is believed though.

Did you read Freezers posts?...thoughts?..and obvious contradictions and arguments from yourself?

Yup, and it is still pointless. Why doesn't anyone post a mountain of peer reviewed scientific evidence that has been tested over many years and shown to contradict the consensus? Because it doesn't exist. Why do they only post from newspapers? Because that is the only place these stories can get published.

The science is not in doubt. Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the Daily Mail are scientific bodies.

 

[Liverpool]

That confirms it, I just don't get you Livers. ???

I'm saying that if all the science is accurate and should be believable, then why wheel out people like Gore and exaggerate claims to try and push an agenda?

Drowning bears and flooded cities......yeah, maybe in 500,000 years during the next Ice Age and then we can all sit around singing Kumbaya and saying how that Gore fella was right after all.

More like 8 years, then 5 years, then 3 years. Its a good little clique though, we get together and drink chardonnay or latte sometimes, its fun.

Funny that...I was accused once on here as being a private-school conservative voting chardy drinking latte sipping monarchist.
Of course, that was all wild vicious rumours as I don't like chardy...more of a single-malt drinker myself

 

[tigersnake]

Yup, and it is still pointless. Why doesn't anyone post a mountain of peer reviewed scientific evidence that has been tested over many years and shown to contradict the consensus? Because it doesn't exist. Why do they only post from newspapers? Because that is the only place these stories can get published.

The science is not in doubt. Neither the Wall Street Journal nor the Daily Mail are scientific bodies.

Peer review means nothing KR. Its all scientists with vested interests in peddling greeny pinko hogwash being reviewed by their mates. Its all blogs and News Ltd articles these days. We've established that much at least in the course of this thread.

 

[Rosy]

Its because you lot have to argue...its simple as that....you can't bear the thought of any poster going against the little clique that comes on these threads and someone that challenges what you lot want to spout as facts

It's a bit hard to follow your posts Livers. What exactly have "you lot" spouted as facts that you are challenging?

 

[Liverpool]

Peer review means nothing KR. Its all scientists with vested interests in peddling greeny pinko hogwash being reviewed by their mates.

You're not far wrong...:

In “Peer Review? What Peer Review?” McLean writes, “The IPCC would have us believe that its reports are diligently reviewed by many hundreds of scientists and that these reviewers endorse the contents of the report. Analyses of reviewer comments show a very different and disturbing story.”

In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. The reality is that there is surprisingly little explicit support for this key notion. Among the 23 independent reviewers just 4 explicitly endorsed the chapter with its hypothesis, and one other endorsed only a specific section.

Moreover, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all. As with other chapters, simple corrections, requests for clarifications or refinements to the text which did not challenge the IPCC’s conclusions are generally treated favourably, but comments which dispute the IPCC’s claims or their certainty are treated with far less indulgence.

In a related finding, McLean observes, “The dominance of research presupposing a human influence also means that the IPCC editing teams are likely to consist of people predisposed to view the situation in that light.”

Adds McLean,

“The problems continue into the authorship of these reports. According to IPCC documents, scientists are nominated by governments or explicitly invited by scientists already associated with the IPCC. What a wonderful way to position scientists who support a government agenda on climate and then fill out the IPCC with like-minded individuals.”

Concludes McLean, “The IPCC reports appear to be largely based on a consensus of scientific papers, but those papers are the product of research for which the funding is strongly influenced by previous IPCC reports. This makes the claim of a human influence self-perpetuating and for a corruption of the normal scientific process.”

The full paper can be read at: (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/peerreview.html)

 

[Liverpool]

It's a bit hard to follow your posts Livers. What exactly have "you lot" spouted as facts that you are challenging?

The usual stuff...ALP/Gillard are great...Abbott/Lib are *smile*...Aborigines are hard done by...we're all dying from greenhouse gases, flooded cities....etc, etc.
the usual pish

 

[Rosy]

The usual stuff...ALP/Gillard are great...Abbott/Lib are sh!t...Aborigines are hard done by...we're all dying from greenhouse gases, flooded cities....etc, etc.
the usual pish

Forget the politics...that's for another thread. I can't for one second understand where you stand on global warming/climate change. (Still waiting for willow to clarify why he crossed out one and substituted it with the other.) You spend so much time posting useless links and shooting others down but don't actually add much substance in regard to your beliefs and concerns. Care to elaborate so I/we can try to understand where you're coming from?

 

[KnightersRevenge]

I'm saying that if all the science is accurate and should be believable, then why wheel out people like Gore and exaggerate claims to try and push an agenda?

Drowning bears and flooded cities......yeah, maybe in 500,000 years during the next Ice Age and then we can all sit around singing Kumbaya and saying how that Gore fella was right after all.

No you're not. Your You're throwing up pseudo-scientific non sequiturs using Monktonesque logic. Who wheeled out Al Gore? Answer: He did. There is no global conspiracy of scientists. There are no Stone-cutters. Al Gore most likely decided that people like the authors of the two stories cited by Freezer and Merveille were confusing the issues and he took it upon himself to use his profile to tell the story of the science. He made some mistakes himself. But then he isn't a climate scientist either.

As usual that isn't the point. How did you calculate 500,000? You didn't. You aren't interested in facts. You aren't interested in the scientific method. You think you can think logically and progressively come to a conclusion about a subject without having to put in the decades of hard work it takes to actually understand the subject. It is a false premise. Some things can't be thought of in that way. Try using logical reasoning alone to come to the conclusions of quantum mechanics. It simply doesn't work. Much of it is counter-intuitive. Why should it be reasonable to think you could understand and then argue against it without understanding the principles on which it is founded? Why should this branch of science be any different. The truth is, it isn't. That is why I argue that you can't really argue the science on a forum like this. We simply don't have the knowledge and the expertise. It is a false notion. Argue the response to the theory if you like. But the science is not up for debate and you have offered no convincing evidence to the contrary. There isn't any outside the pages of right wing newspapers and in the minds of nuts like Monkton. If there were there would be a massive debate in scientific circles. There isn't. Newspaper articles aren't where these things are conducted.