Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by thegent

Don't feel bad about being part of the herd following false prophets and their high priests

I don't. I believe the scientific evidence is strong. High priests imply a belief in personages over facts. That is the argument others are making. Take the personalities out of the argument and make your conclusion if you can.

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by Jesus Jones

Right on cue! Speaks volumes about their brain dead attitude!

For a self-styled 'free-thinker' you sure do have a tendency to fall back on some hoary, hackneyed, logical fallacies.

Never mind Ant, I'm sure you won't always be this petty!

That reminds me, I forgot to note your raging hypocrisy too.

^A quick peak at the Observatory HK records show that typhoon prevalence has pretty much stayed the same on the cycles they follow; no real evidence of them becoming more frequent or stronger.

Why is it though that the climate fear mongers will never answer direct questions; prefer to say "i don't have to because you don't understand". Just like the bankers who refused to explain how they fucked the world up "You wouldn't understand".

What is the correct temperature of the world? Any takers?

Originally Posted by Humbert

Originally Posted by thegent

Don't feel bad about being part of the herd following false prophets and their high priests

I don't. I believe the scientific evidence is strong. High priests imply a belief in personages over facts. That is the argument others are making. Take the personalities out of the argument and make your conclusion if you can.

Look, it's the industry setting the "agenda". Did you think the notion of man made global warming came 20 years ago as a consequence of scientists from all over the world arriving at a spontaneous conclusion arising out of data they calculated in some Damascene moment?
It's a movement, almost religious in it's origin but it's certainly got you hooked. That's as a result of political/economical/social indoctrination based on the cult of orthodox belief.

Take personalities out of the equation? You might as well take Jesus out of Christianity.

In the end one tires of talking about it. It's just bollocks but if it ain't and Gore is right, then it' already too late. Getting Africa, the Chinks, Russians, Indians,Brazil and S.E.Asia to forego industrial development in favour of tree hugging ain't going to happen so the entire argument is pretty well redundant, either way.

Why are these changers so stupid as not to see this? Even if they are right we're doomed. If they're wrong, which they are, then what the heck?

The only real immediate problem is the absurd taxation and daft renewables investment wasting taxpayer's money that is helping to crucify people getting on with their lives with real issues to worry about and not this fucking gormless bollocks employing tenth rate academics, supine politicians and lazy bureaucrats.

^yes it is the idustry setting the agenda, just as they did with tobacco, spreading spin and lies to delay public policy that could cost them revenue. And they are unfortunately having the same success the tobacco industry had when they started their campaigns.

The problem with equating science with religion is that religion starts with the the truth and looks for questions and answers that fit that 'truth', whilst science starts with the questions and answers.... and tries to find a truth that fits them. Scientific discover is based upon observation, that global warming was discovered is no more religious than the discovery of bacteria, viruses, pelecinin, taxans, the internal combustion egin or aluminium

The belief in global warming is one derived from evidence, its no more religious dogma that the laws of gravity. It is however extremely religious to attack such knowledge with nothing but rhetoric and spin for is that not what religion is all about, rather than by demonstrating how the evidence is flawed which was what richard muller tried to do.

And given that all we seem to be getting against global warming, is not evidence its ad hominems, its spin, its cherry picking, its marketing. One thing it is not is cold hard data and evidence.
On that basis the science is sound, the effect is real and all its about is who's marketing is better. And I will be honest there, those chaps that cut their teeth persuading people it was safe to carry on smoking, are putting on an excellent campaign second time round thats even more polished. Clearly you can fool most of the people most of the time.

Is the Climate Fear Industry setting the agenda - surprised you can not see that.

As you keep saying, but you don't ever give us anything more than empty rhetoric, and stories. You never seem to be able to show us the money connecting these people together. You know something of the quality as that shows the links between exxon, the koch brothers and others and the financing of the denialist movement. As I said, your falling for a carbon copy of the campaign against the dangers of smoking... and really there is no excuse for a 'truth seeker' to fall for the same corporate propaganda twice

Oh Hazz you are looking for a big conspiracy from me when there isn't one.

Ok - it's not about where the money comes from but the fact that EVERY university in the world has loads of projects on this, and lots of revenue coming in as a result. Looking a gift horse in the mouth is not that common....

Secondly, all of these universities are full of researchers who have learnt their trade from others who have agreed the science is over. They are only looking for supporting evidence as opposed to questioning what is really happening. Again...gift horse in the mouth time?

Then you have the financial industry who is getting a new exchange to trade on - a multi billion dollar industry out of thin air.

Then you have the protection of western nations industry....all very lucrative.

Then you have events, conferences... you name it. Very lucrative.

Its a huge industry, and without the Fear campaign, there would not be this industry.

Originally Posted by hazz

^yes it is the idustry setting the agenda, just as they did with tobacco, spreading spin and lies to delay public policy that could cost them revenue. And they are unfortunately having the same success the tobacco industry had when they started their campaigns.

The problem with equating science with religion is that religion starts with the the truth and looks for questions and answers that fit that 'truth', whilst science starts with the questions and answers.... and tries to find a truth that fits them. Scientific discover is based upon observation, that global warming was discovered is no more religious than the discovery of bacteria, viruses, pelecinin, taxans, the internal combustion egin or aluminium

The belief in global warming is one derived from evidence, its no more religious dogma that the laws of gravity. It is however extremely religious to attack such knowledge with nothing but rhetoric and spin for is that not what religion is all about, rather than by demonstrating how the evidence is flawed which was what richard muller tried to do.

And given that all we seem to be getting against global warming, is not evidence its ad hominems, its spin, its cherry picking, its marketing. One thing it is not is cold hard data and evidence.
On that basis the science is sound, the effect is real and all its about is who's marketing is better. And I will be honest there, those chaps that cut their teeth persuading people it was safe to carry on smoking, are putting on an excellent campaign second time round thats even more polished. Clearly you can fool most of the people most of the time.

Oh dear. The thesis that Co2 production has caused a calamitous global warming has not been proved. The data simply does not support either that there is significant global warming taking place or that man is responsible for it should such a phenomenon be taking place.
To believe otherwise amounts at best to no more than an act of faith. That is why it is quite reasonable and valid to equate the global warming nonsense with just another religious based sect trumped up by a miscellany of vested interests and their gullible disciples.

The Goracle is making stuff up again. Claims only 34 out of 33,700 scientists deny MMGW

Al Gore @algore .@sxsw I was asked about the # of scientists that deny human-caused global warming. The answer? 34 out of 33,700 http://bit.ly/Y4LZkd

He even came up with this nifty graphic



With every utterance this fat blowhard embarrasses himself more...

Originally Posted by pseudolus

^A quick peak at the Observatory HK records show that typhoon prevalence has pretty much stayed the same on the cycles they follow; no real evidence of them becoming more frequent or stronger.

Why is it though that the climate fear mongers will never answer direct questions; prefer to say "i don't have to because you don't understand".

Because every liberal is a citizen scientist - because they claim to be...

Originally Posted by thegent

Oh dear. The thesis that Co2 production has caused a calamitous global warming has not been proved. The data simply does not support either that there is significant global warming taking place or that man is responsible for it should such a phenomenon be taking place.
To believe otherwise amounts at best to no more than an act of faith. That is why it is quite reasonable and valid to equate the global warming nonsense with just another religious based sect trumped up by a miscellany of vested interests and their gullible disciples. vbrep_register("2386790")

It's surprising that someone who has so carefully crafted a internet persona of wit and intelligence would create an argument against the science behind climate change based entirely upon one fallacy heaped on top of another. You have several like minded sycophants here to stroke your ego so revel in it.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

The Goracle is making stuff up again. Claims only 34 out of 33,700 scientists deny MMGW

Al Gore @algore .@sxsw I was asked about the # of scientists that deny human-caused global warming. The answer? 34 out of 33,700 http://bit.ly/Y4LZkd

He even came up with this nifty graphic



With every utterance this fat blowhard embarrasses himself more...

Oooh, they've used bold green writing too. Power of suggestion works wonders on the feeble!

Keep up trying to deny the science by vilifying the messenger. It's laughable.
Ludites.

^^As I said Bert - it's a massive industry they have got going there. A huge one. They would never allow cash cow to come to an end. All those billions of bucks going into universities and alleged "scientific" institutes. Where does it all come from?

7% of the Co2 is human created. 7%. It is laughable to suggest that this 7% is responsible for a natural phenomena. Does the 93% not count then? Is that 93% safe Co2?

Outgassing - as the earth warms up, water and oil release gasses including Co2. higher Co2 levels comes from a warmer climate, and is not producing one. It is lagging behind it. As Ice melts, it releases gas including Co2. Why is this so hard to understand?

The whole concept of human involvement in climate change is frankly laughable. The arrogance of man to believe that they can stop the warming and cooling cycle of the world is also laughable.

Turn off your TV, stop reading the main stream news websites and paper and then after a few weeks of getting the bullshit out of your system go and look at the actual FACTS again. Not the predictions. Not the computer models. Not the rhetoric. Not the claim of peer reviews (which, let me remind you again, are proven to be biased and one sided) and then you will come to the conclusion that yes, the science is settled, Climate Change is natural, and man released (not produced, released) Co2 has nothing to do with it.

Then....relax. Have a glass of lemonade and feel happier that the fear politics has left you. Then try to do the same with the War on Terror (LMFAO), the Debt Crisis, and all the other fear based propaganda that is used to relieve you of autonomy and money. It's a lot nicer when you do. It reminds me of when you are playing in a competition and are knocked out in the early rounds - your stress levels decrease, you can see what is happening, and you can enjoy the show knowing it is not all that serious and it doesn't really matter. It is only when you are caught up in it that is means anything.

Go on, put your feet up and relax a little. You deserve it.

Originally Posted by thegent

Oh dear. The thesis that Co2 production has caused a calamitous global warming has not been proved. The data simply does not support either that there is significant global warming taking place or that man is responsible for it should such a phenomenon be taking place. To believe otherwise amounts at best to no more than an act of faith. That is why it is quite reasonable and valid to equate the global warming nonsense with just another religious based sect trumped up by a miscellany of vested interests and their gullible disciples.

As I said the fundamental difference between a religion and science is that religion starts with the truth and expects you to believe in it, any evidence to backup the this reveled truth will consist of cherry picking existing knowledge.

You can see a rather impressive example of it here
Miracles of the Qur'an - Modern Science Reveals New Miracles of the Qur'an
and for balance, here are some christans pulling off the same stunt
::Miracles Of The Bible::

Rather in the way that you deny global warming. You want the truth to be that there is no such thing, so you go looking for articals of faith, your cherry picked data, the blindness to everything that disagrees with your truth.

Prior to the development of modern science, what there was of science did fall inot this catagory. there was a faith that everything that the ancient Greeks had discovered was correct, and in the case mathematics this was very true, but as for the rest it was very patchy. And this faith in the knowledge of the greeks was largely as you and pseudoius discribe incorrectly modern science; it was one of the major contributary factors almost complete lack of scientific prograess between the collapse of greek society and the advent of modern science.

Modern science is based upon a cyclical process

• observation and measurement
• the creation/modification of theories to explain the measurements/observations
• making predictions based on these theories
• repeating the process making measurements and observations that test these predictions

And this is where the dogma does come into science, measurements and observations trump theories every time. If your theory cannot explain the observations its just wrong, no matter how elegant it is. the ruthless application of occams razor. It is the dogma that theory must explain observed reality in its whole..... something that the religious have little interest in.

To be honest I cannot see how anyone can fail to understand the difference between faith in knowledge based upon reviled truth and wishful thining and faith in knowledge derived from the observation and measurement of reality. Whilst I do not understand why people do this, I do accept that many do. After all we have HIV denailism and the flat earth society; who have to use the full gamut of the religious interpretation of science to maintain their faith that their wishful thinking is more accurate than direct observation of reality.

And in this environment there are no sacred cows, if you look at most experiments into special relativity, they are not designed to prove that special relativity is true or false, they are designed to test a prediction and observe differences between prediction and observation.... these differences if observed lead to either the improvement of theory or its replacement.
As Special Relitivity and quantum mechanics replaced classical physics, to much dismay amongst classical physicists of the day(including Einstein). The existence of Pions disproved the belief that infectious disease causing agents must contain DNA or RNA, a proposal that was met with almost universal hostility. This happened because accurately explaining observed and measured reality overrides other considerations, like wise the equally radical suggestions of cold fusion and polywater failed simply because in time they were found to not explain measured and observed reality.

This kind of progress could not happen in the environment that denialist of all flavors propose. one where existing knowledge is seen as a dogma that cannot be challenged, where vested interests override all, where those with the funding decide in advance what is and what is not true.

Now the various models that universally show that carbon dioxide is the driving force of global warming are all based upon mathematical models derived from theories created by observing how matter interacts at all scales, the fluctuation of the suns output, the suphur in the fuel used in the shipping industry, the photochemistry of methane. based on the same processes that successfully allow us to design large enginering projects be they silicone chips, dams, bridges, massively complex machines like the LHC, the dreamliner, knowing that they will fundamentally work first time.

having faith in these models is akin to faith that tomorrow the cloudless sky will be blue.... very different to the faith that the earth is 6000 years old, because you want to believe the bible says so.

If you truly believe that global warming is not real, you need to provide theories and ideas that explain historical and present climate more accurately than the existing models do. This is what richard muller is doing, and so far he is findings confirm the accuracy of existing climate models.

By using spin, cherry picking, false logic, misrepresentations and marketing. You are simply falling into the same faith based trap of the christans and muslems looking for science in their books, the hiv denalists and the flat earthers.

Skeptics about climate science would probably grasp at any cure available when facing a life threatening illness. When it gets down to personal loss suddenly people start to wake up.

CAMBRIDGE — America’s top military officer in charge of monitoring hostile actions by North Korea, escalating tensions between China and Japan, and a spike in computer attacks traced to China provides an unexpected answer when asked what is the biggest long-term security threat in the Pacific region: climate change."

The Norks are going to send us a nuclear surprise because of MMGW?

Right...up is down. Freedom is suppression. Right is wrong and some people are really living in another world.

Source

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Right...up is down. Freedom is suppression. Right is wrong and some people are really living in another world.

That does sound like a very apt description of the world you live in, you know where americans won't vote for obama, the uk is a hot bed of compared to america and all those other articles of faith.
And its very different to the the world the rest of us live in, that reality where 1+1=2, obama won the popular vote and america is has one of the higher murder rates in the western world; its why you get just about everything wrong.

personally I think its because you are a gullible tool, rather than you living in some alternate universe.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

CAMBRIDGE — America’s top military officer

And some other military men and their opinion,…..

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Right is wrong

Your right is wrong

There are ancient citys all around the planet under water 1000,s of years old. Damn those sumerians and their automobiles and powerplants.

[quote=thegent;2386790]

Originally Posted by hazz

Oh dear. The thesis that Co2 production has caused a calamitous global warming has not been proved. The data simply does not support either that there is significant global warming taking place or that man is responsible for it should such a phenomenon be taking place.

It has been proved, but you are the one who used the term 'calamitous'. If there were no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere the global mean temperature of now about 14 degrees Celsius would be 33 degrees lower. That was the effect of the natural greenhouse gases water vapor, 280ppm of CO2 before the industrial age, traces of methane, ozone etc.

Hiking CO2 to nearly 400ppm increased the greenhouse effect by only 2%. 2% increase by anthropogenic warming, 0.7 degrees Celsius during the last century. CO2 at todays levels accounts for 9% of the total greenhouse effect, the maths fit from this side as well.

CO2 will rise further, though. At 500ppm the temperature will be 0.7 degrees warmer again, the same at 600ppm and so on. Feedbacks become stronger over time, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water vapor.

Sooner or later the planet will die.
Does'nt matter which.
Get the fuck over it you lot.