Thread: Global Warming - the Final Word

Can someone erase all that bollocks, please?

^^ Any comments on the graph? Do you want to revise your thesis on climate change or are you sticking with 'itz va sun wot dun it'?

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Originally Posted by DrB0b

"Blinding with science" Translation: "I didn't understand it"

When you're throwing spiel at me such as

+0.12 [+0.06 to +0.3] W m–2

no, I don't understand it.

You snob. This is a class war & you know it.

I was in Class War, mate. I left because they were pussies. Do you remember their newspaper? Every month they had a "Dead Pig of the Month" picture on page 3. They showed a pic of P.C. Blakelock and described him as their first topless model

I do remember their classic "how to attack a pig with a shit-filled durex".

C'mon - You said that after careful consideration of the evidence (not based on the collected bleatings of Littlejohn) you thought that the thesis of anthropogenic climate change was a load of balls. All I'm doing is asking you to expand on that. How is that a troll? You should be capable of answering this question at least.

Originally Posted by Wayne Kerr

^ Very impressive ... but

Originally Posted by DrB0b

Might strong words there wayne, I'm sure you can prove that. I can hardly wait. I've got nearly 30,000 pages of IPCC stats here, sure you can disprove them all?

I'll start by quoting a recent example where the Governor of Bangkok and a Chula Scientist presented at the Foreign Correspondents Club a few weeks back. They suggested that rising sea levels caused by climate change were resulting in the flooding of Bangkok at an alarming rate. The reality is that the mass damming of most upland catchments in Thailand has resulted in a large reduction in the quantity of sediment being contributed to the floodplain upon which Bangkok is built. The net result is that Bangkok is sinking much faster than sea level is rising, and some not so smart scientists are blaming it all on climate change ... sea level rise etc ... oh come on.

The thing that pisses me off about the IPCC stats is that they are rarely presented in terms of the multitude of factors contributing to environmental change. Then the stats are used by people who do not understand them, i.e, dipsticks in environmental NGOs etc to secure large sums of money to deal with a problem that is not so very well understood in terms of natural fluctuations in climate, especially as it relates to the geological time scale. I assume I don't have to direct your attention to your Geology 101 texts and the massive climatic fluctuations during the Pleistocene epoch, and the massive changes we've seen during the holocene marine transgression.

Mate, maybe I should've refrained from using my "purveyors of cover rather than substance" comment. But your comment "I've got nearly 30,000 pages of IPCC stats here, sure you can disprove them all?" strikes me as the typical "purveyor of cover" comment... mate I use TD for fun not for taking up challenges like this. Maybe I don't know about the issue, all I'd like to see is a bit more substance brought into the debate.

If you could give me one decent example of how those 30,000 pages of stats can help you differentiate between the effects on the quality of life of people in Asia from climate change and other factors contributing to environmental change (human and natural caused) then I'll shout you a night on the town.

Sorry I don't usually enter into debates like this but these crappy Thais getting their mugs in the news with crappy science pissed me off. I will exit stage left .

You claimed the stats were nonsense, actually you said they sucked, all of them, such sweeping statements do tend to get me going a little. You're now saying that that opinion was based on their presentation rather than the statistics themselves. Neither the data itself nor the IPCC is responsible for the idiotic misuses people put it to, people like those you've mentioned in your post - that's just people being mendacious tossers, depressing but not surprising. I probably agree with you in many ways I won't agree that the misuse of data makes the data invalid, nor will I agree with the tired nonsense about research funds, a topic that's been dealt with ad-nauseam on this forum and in many other places.

I don't understand your question about improving the quality of life for people, what on earth makes you think that research on anything is intended to do that? Anyway, climate changes and other environmental changes are not an either/or thing, they can happen at the same time. If you want more details on the matter there are several dozen links in this thread pointing to worthwhile information, far more worthwhile, informative, and dare I say, authoritative, than the witterings of the Governor of Bangkok and a Chula scientist. I completely understand why you would be pissed off by their nonsensical lies.

As for 30,000 pages - that's the most I managed to download from the net, there's probably a few million more

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

Can someone erase all that bollocks, please?

You can erase it but it's still true

Bob I think you made my point so much more better than I did. Stats are very different from data. In my mind we use data to derive statistics, and we use statistics to make decisions about complex problems.

In your first two sentences you talk about statistics, then in the third sentence you talk about data like they're the same thing. Then in your fourth sentence you use data again. Just what is it that you're talking about? Your big long list of shite is just data mate. Not one statistic in there from what I can see.

Originally Posted by DrB0b

I don't understand your question about improving the quality of life for people, what on earth makes you think that research on anything is intended to do that?

So what are you doing it for mate, so you can throw data (or statistics as you call them) around on a web forum. Good luck getting your next research grant mate . This is my first negative post on this forum, maybe I shouldn't mix business with pleasure. Pleasure being having fun on TD.

That's what you get for being a smart arse, Dr Bob - someone smarter comes along & puts you - & Gerection - in your place.

We can succeed in what we want to achieve.

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

^^^^

No, no at all. People describe the holocaust as the most horrific thing ever or a myth, depending on which side of the fence you're on. I specifically said let's not get into it.

You're putting words into my mouth.

Why bring it up in the first place?

Originally Posted by Dr Zaius

They know there's nothing in it - no money in it, either. That's what it's all about.

Global Warming Exposes Arctic to Oil, Gas Drilling

by Reuters

WASHINGTON - Rising global temperatures will melt areas of the Arctic this century, making them more accessible for oil and natural gas drilling, a report prepared by the United States and seven other nations said on Monday.

It predicts that over the next 100 years, global warming could increase Arctic annual average temperatures 5 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit over land and by up to 13 degrees over water. Warmer temperatures could raise global sea levels by as much as 3 feet.

Such a change would threaten coastal cities, change growing patterns for vegetation and destroy habitats for some wildlife, but an energy-starved world would have new areas for oil and gas exploration, according to the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment report.

The Arctic region, particularly offshore, has huge oil and gas reserves, mostly in Russia, Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Norway.

Warmer temperatures would make it easier to drill and ship oil from the Arctic, the report said. It did not attempt to quantify the costs of drilling and shipping Arctic oil and gas, or estimate how high energy prices would have to be to justify drilling in the region.

"Offshore oil exploration and production are likely to benefit from less extensive and thinner sea ice, although equipment will have to be designed to withstand increased wave forces and ice movement," the report said.

However, land access to energy reserves would likely be restricted due to a shorter season during which the ground is frozen hard enough to support heavy drilling equipment.

"The thawing of permafrost, on which buildings, pipelines, airfields and coastal installations supporting oil and gas development are located, is very likely to adversely affect these structures and increase the cost of maintaining them," the report said.

Energy companies would find it easier to transport oil and gas because the warmer temperatures would open sea routes.

"By the end of this century, the length of the navigation season...along the Northern Sea route is projected to increase to about 120 days from the current 20-30 days," the report said.

However, a longer shipping season will increase the risk of oil spills, the report warned.

The report was commissioned by the United States, Canada, Russia, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Norway and Finland. It concluded that global warming is heating the Arctic almost twice as quickly as the rest of the planet in a thaw that threatens millions of livelihoods.

Global Warming Exposes Arctic to Oil, Gas Drilling | EnergyBulletin.net | Peak Oil News Clearinghouse

"In a cruel twist of fate, most of the hunger resulting from global warming is likely to be felt by those who haven't caused the problem: the people in developing countries. At the same time, it may be a boon to agriculture in richer northern countries more responsible for the greenhouse gas emissions driving climate instability.

With climate change, the agricultural areas in Canada, Russia and Europe will expand, while the areas suited for agriculture in the tropics will decline," Dr. Verchot says. "Basically, the situation is that those who are well off now will be better off in the future, and those who are in problems will have greater problems."

globeandmail.com: How global warming goes against the grain

Originally Posted by Hootad Binky

Why bring it up in the first place?

Just to show Gerection an example of something that has a lot of evidence though has also been descibed as a myth. It was a bad example, in hindsight, don't read too much into my use of it.

Dr Verchot is full of shit. In a hundred years this will all be old news.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

And just how many people simultaneously describe the holocaust as a myth and something for which the evidence is compelling? What? Sorry, I can't hear you

Who mentioned simultaneously? Why are you questioning me on something I haven't even said? You're clutching at straws now because you lost the debate. The more you say the more you are revealed to be twisting the argument to discredit other's opinions rather than form your own.

You are trying to make me look small & all you are doing is showing yourself to be a persistent bullshitter. Wayne Kerr put Dr Bob to bed with the truth & you should have gone, too. Now you're just trolling.

Originally Posted by Gerontion

And just why is Dr Verchot full of shit?

Poor countries have struggled to feed their populations since way back. Was that global warming? I thought it was down to the militias keeping it all for their armies.

He's trying to say people are going to starve to death over this shit & that's a lie. They would starve to death regardless as they have been for years before you monkeys invented global warming.

Propoganda. Speculation. Blinding science. Probabilities & some poxy graph. This is your evidence.

What a joke.

Same as what the others' said - the IPCC talks bollocks. Even Stroller entertained this idea & he's a ball-breaking mod. I shouldn't have to repeat answers that you will find by reading the thread properly anyway.

Trying to say the Sun doesn't make the Earth hot just shows me what type of maniac you actually are. I've heard some cobblers in my time but you're taking the piss now.

Oh right. So on the one hand we have 'others' and a mod on some shitty internet board and on the other we have all the scientific academies of the developed world, thousands and thousands of scientists working independently, government departments, NGOs, and countless corporations. I can see why you're so skeptical; how very reasonable of you.

Look, there's no shame in not understanding a graph or a little bit of science. That's fine. Come out and say it. I'll understand.

You're a joke. You clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about and you refuse to answer any of my questions so I can see no point in continuing this.

Are you an ex-TV member or not?

I'm curious. Tell me, please. You win the argument & everything - just tell me.