Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Originally Posted by S Landreth

It’s the sun, it's the sun, it's the sun

Glad we agree.

Here's a question - why exactly should we believe anything from the "peer reviewed" studies paid for by governments and banking corporations who make billions out of carbon tax and trading, when all of the predictions in these self same "peer reviewed" studies in the past have turned out to be wrong? Often from the very same "scientists".

The only studies that are slightly close to reality have been those predicting a slow increase in temperature over many decades (0.2-3 degrees) which is as expected whilst the world climbs out of the mini ice age. Every other prediction has been wrong. Why are they right now?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Here's a question - why exactly should we believe anything from the "peer reviewed" studies paid for by governments and banking corporations who make billions out of carbon tax and trading, when all of the predictions in these self same "peer reviewed" studies in the past have turned out to be wrong?

^ paid for by governments and banking corporations? the scientific consensus is wrong? c'mon pseudo-troll, now you're just making shit up again. are you on the Koch brothers payroll or what?

Originally Posted by Umbuku

The scientists don't care where the funding comes from. They just want to do the science.

Rubbish. Absolute cock. This does defeat your idea though that the scientists who correctly say its a load of balls are paid to say it by koch industries. No funding means no departments and no jobs. Do not bite the hand that feeds you. 20,000 scientists, in jobs, all trained by the Climate Cooling liars, and "peer reviewed" by the same people time all with a personal agenda.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

therefore not as accurate or objective as it should be.

It s not accurate of objective. Please show me a few from 20 years ago when this all started kicking off that has proven to be even slightly accurate (discounting those where the earth heating is so small it is explained by coming out of a mini ice age, as proven in the past).

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Case in point: the entire debate about childhood vaccinations causing diseases was started by an unscrupulous medical scientist who was paid to find a causal link between a vaccine and a disease by a pharmaceutical company that had a new vaccine to market.

What does this have to do with you being conned by climate scam? If you are gong to take this route, in 1990's, just before the real big push for climate scam happened, the powers that be decided to use global warming threat to replace the Cold War to instill fear into the western world so they could do what ever they like. Is this a valid argument as well?

Go and research how the carnegie foundation and rockefeller foundation went about changing the past in the eyes of historians. All they did was hand pick 20 newbie historians paid to say what they were told, they were then the "peers" reviewing each other, and thus the American Historical Society was born.

Take 20 scientsts, fund them to back your cause, they are the initial peers writing "No more snow in the UK after 2000" peer reviewed papers, they breed hundreds more being taught by them, and in 10 years you have "24,000 scientists have decided - tax Co2".

Hardly a conspiracy. Just a tried and practised routine

^^
A good illustration also of why the deniers no-matter-what-the-facts are are dangerous today. Their number, as has been pointed out, is a reflection of the Sheeple's News that is the US media. Propoganda that is well paid for by the corporations that benefit most from more carbon released into the atmosphere.

Which brings us to the question: why bother with propoganda when you can buy your own law one congressman at a time? Look at how gun purchase regulations went down a few months ago with an 85% public approval in the polls.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

24,000 scientists have decided - tax Co2

You mean government and policy makers. They get very frustrated by scientists because they demand certainty which is not what science can provide.

The point I am trying to make is that the science is sound, as sound and factual as evolutionary theory or the theory of gravity. That some elements are capitalizing on carbon credits and tax laws etc does not mean the science is incorrect, only that humans are in general scumbags.

Originally Posted by MrG

Sheeple's News

Ahh so you are saying that I am a Sheeple? The supposed biggest conspiracy nut on this board, and I am a Sheeple? You do realise that EVERY news paper and EVERY manin stream media (fox aside who are shite anyway) bleats on about climate scam al the time saying that we're alll going to die?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Here's a question - why exactly should we believe anything from the "peer reviewed" studies

Perhaps we should believe those studies because they prove that the increase in CO2 is anthropogenic and the correlation between increased CO2 and increased temperature?

Or are you going to try to tell us that the data are false / fake / part of some grand conspiracy?

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by MrG

Sheeple's News

Ahh so you are saying that I am a Sheeple? The supposed biggest conspiracy nut on this board, and I am a Sheeple? You do realise that EVERY news paper and EVERY manin stream media (fox aside who are shite anyway) bleats on about climate scam al the time saying that we're alll going to die?

Last I heard yes, we are all going to die.

Anthropogenic climate change will certainly speed the process. How you may ask? Some examples:
Higher Temperatures

Changing Landscapes

Wildlife at Risk

Rising Seas

Increased Risk of Drought, Fire and Floods

Stronger Storms and Increased Storm Damage

More Heat-Related Illness and Disease

Economic Losses

Source: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives...acts/index.htm

Originally Posted by Umbuku

The almost complete majority of scientists in the field agree that it is...and they cannot all be on the payroll of some mysterious star chamber.

where does the funding come from?

Who benefits most from their model and fallacies they pass off as science?

Who has developed their own way of conducting "peer reviews" in that the author for climate scam and chose to not even acknowledge criticism and write what ever they like?

Who trained the last 20 years worth of scientists? What were they taught?

So many variables and regardless of anything else, as soon as someone says the science is proven, no more debate, you know it is not and its just a load of shite. Especially when year after year all the predictions from the last 2 decades ar shown to be wrong. Every time. Tonybkk - prove me wrong on that statement or stfu.

The only correct prediction is that the climate is gently warming as we come out of a mini ice age. Back to the days of crops on greenland. Ice cores? lol When ice melts where does the Co2 go? lol

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

Source: http://www.nature.org/ourinitiatives...acts/index.htm

Some sources do you more harm then good, troll boy.

Can't remember this "environmental charity" buying pristine lands for "conservation" purposes and then selling them at a discount to trustees for fabulous private-home sites, can you?

LOL - yup - they can be trusted

Will ya look at that, Pseudo-troll quotes me but changes the link.

Where does the altered link take you?

"Oh no! The page you're looking for isn't found in nature.

"

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Who trained the last 20 years worth of scientists? What were they taught?

I was taught to think for myself and to assess the data objectively.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Especially when year after year all the predictions from the last 2 decades ar shown to be wrong. Every time.

But they haven't been, except in denialist sites. Models have developed over time and through iterations have become more accurate. Due to the size of the study area (ie the whole planet) there will always be a margin of error. It is impossible to model the planet in a 1:1 relationship.

You seem to be making the common mistake that science is supposed to be truth. It isn't. It is the reduction of error to the point where what remains is the most probable answer to a question.

Originally Posted by Umbuku

there will always be a margin of error.

....except from the climate fear group who are never wrong.

Let's try again. Over the last 20+ years there have been prediction of global warming causing all sorts of things, and yet, where are they? About 8 weeks of snow in the UK this year, and supposedly there was going to be no more after 2000 according to one well received report.

InConvenient Truth? More like convenient memory loss.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

InConvenient Truth? More like convenient memory loss.

Like the Global Cooling scare mongers back in the '70's?

Here's a question for you denialists.

If 98 doctors diagnose you with cancer, and 2 say you're fine, who are you going to believe?

I ask because right now 98 out of every 100 climate scientists have concluded that anthropogenic climate change and global warming is real, yet you denialists insist on believing the 2 who say nothing's wrong...

Here's a question for you denialists
what caused the end of the last ice age ?
was it the cave mans fire ?

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

If 98 doctors diagnose you with cancer, and 2 say you're fine, who are you going to believe?

ok, say 15 years ago the 98 said we will be having mild winters and blazing hot summers in Britain , better plant palm trees etc and drought resistant plants in your garden - they expertly tell us .
today .
it's freezing and the palm trees are dead , err I think I'll listen to the 2 % this time .
Scientists used to think smell carried the Plague , hence the childrens rhyme .
Ring a ring of roses, a pocketfull of posies, atishoo, atishoo, all fall down ,
people tooks the advice and carries posies to ward off the plague.

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

I ask because right now 98 out of every 100 climate scientists have concluded that anthropogenic climate change and global warming is real, yet you denialists insist on believing the 2 who say nothing's wrong...

Most are not climate scientists, most will squark anything out to continue thier fat wage packet .
Also your spurious arguing techique is know as
Argumentum ad numerum (argument or appeal to numbers). This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Also depends how you phrase the question to them ,

it's a fact climate change is sun driven , if man made factors have a role then it's very minor.

Originally Posted by blue

This fallacy is the attempt to prove something by showing how many people think that it's true. But no matter how many people believe something, that doesn't necessarily make it true or right.

Originally Posted by blue

it's a fact climate change is sun driven , if man made factors have a role then it's very minor.

Of course the climate changes naturally. Only a simpleton would argue otherwise. But to deny that human beings are having a significant negative impact on our environment would be equally facile.

Despite the efforts, primarily of the oil and coal industry, to politicize the science, the scientific consensus clearly supports the theory that global surface and sea temperatures have increased in recent decades caused primarily by human-induced emissions of greenhouse gases.

Climate change denialists are trying to distract us from the more urgent and relevant questions: what are the best policy responses to the science?

Out of 11,944 peer-reviewed climate papers, 97.2% agree on man-made global warming

Source: http://www.treehugger.com/climate-ch...l-warming.html

Originally Posted by blue

Most are not climate scientists, most will squark anything out to continue thier fat wage packet.

^ Beg your pardon but like many of your other assumptions, you're wrong.

Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart

by Jim Powell

"Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature. I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology."



" 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here."

"Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

"The articles have a total of 33,690 individual authors. The top ten countries represented, in order, are USA, England, China, Germany, Japan, Canada, Australia, France, Spain, and Netherlands."


"Global warming deniers often claim that bias prevents them from publishing in peer-reviewed journals. But 24 articles in 18 different journals, collectively making several different arguments against global warming, expose that claim as false. Articles rejecting global warming can be published, but those that have been have earned little support or notice, even from other deniers."


Full article: Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility - In One Pie Chart | DeSmogBlog

Jim Powell is a science author. He has been a college and museum president and was a member of the National Science Board for 12 years, appointed first by President Reagan and then by President George H. W. Bush.

Originally Posted by Boon Mee

Like the Global Cooling scare mongers back in the '70's?

This warning was acted upon. Coal power plants got soot filters like steel mills. The air got a lot cleaner.

Originally Posted by blue

Most are not climate scientists, most will squark anything out to continue thier fat wage packet .

Gets responded to by this....

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ Beg your pardon but like many of your other assumptions, you're wrong.

And then he completely ignores this and posts another load of generic bull that he has cut and pasted. The arrogance of the fool

Oii Trolly - If you are going to dispute what someone has said, back it up with something. At least what you post up before you do you wally. Otherwise people will assume you are an uninformed tosspot.

Originally Posted by pseudolus

Originally Posted by blue

Most are not climate scientists, most will squark anything out to continue thier fat wage packet .

Gets responded to by this....

Originally Posted by TonyBKK

^ Beg your pardon but like many of your other assumptions, you're wrong.

And then he completely ignores this and posts another load of generic bull that he has cut and pasted. The arrogance of the fool

Oii Trolly - If you are going to dispute what someone has said, back it up with something. At least what you post up before you do you wally. Otherwise people will assume you are an uninformed tosspot.

You're kind of thick aren't you? Blue said "most are not scientists" so I offered the graphic and link referencing 13950 climate articles written by 33700 climate scientists.

Trolly - the accusation was that of all the thousands of scientists you shout about, only a handful have qualifications anything to do with Climate study.

You, to counter this, stick up a post again showing how many TOTAL ALLEGED phDs back climate scam.

Are you this thick or deliberately obtuse?