Any doubts about Climate Change?

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 02:25 AM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

Maybe you could back that up with facts.

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 02:28 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Not agreed upon by all scientist.

**Umbuku** · 16-10-2015, 05:00 AM

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Why? Ive read a 100 scientific reports on the subject.

I've read every publication since 1984...somewhere over 25,000 papers, reports, blogs, opinion pieces, newspaper articles etc. which includes the deniers and their publications and they are full of shit. Not even close to being remotely accurate or genuine. They are poltically motivated and they are lying through all their orifices, Freeman Dyson included. Fuck the [at][at][at][at]. He is assisting in the death of millions becuase of his political ideology as is any contrarian with any science background related to climate change. Look into their poltiics and their affiliations and you will find a trail of oil money and stauch libertarianism. Bunch of fucking cunts. I only wish the effects of global warming will become pronounced enough, and quickly enough, that these truculent evil pieces of shit can be held accountable for their deception.

**AntRobertson** · 16-10-2015, 08:46 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Because I wasn't aware that the answer had already been established. And I asked the question because it has relevance.

If, as I assume, you're one of those that believe the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old that is a notion that is completely contrary to scientific understanding. And since you clearly don't believe in climate change I therefore find it interesting that you obviously pick and choose what parts of science you do believe - e.g. the Dyson article - in order to fit the answers to your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

Goodo. And like I say I've worked on cars but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

**AntRobertson** · 16-10-2015, 08:47 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Not agreed upon by all scientist.

Do you not understand what the term "scientific consensus" means?

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Because I wasn't aware that the answer had already been established. And I asked the question because it has relevance.

If, as I assume, you're one of those that believe the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old that is a notion that is completely contrary to scientific understanding. And since you clearly don't believe in climate change I therefore find it interesting that you obviously pick and choose what parts of science you do believe - e.g. the Dyson article - in order to fit the answers to your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

Goodo. And like I say I've worked on cars but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

I do believe the climate is change I am just not convinced of the cause.

No it is not completely contrary to science I have posted in the past a number of credible scientists and geologist who are not in agreement with your view of the age of the earth, the problem is you and those of the same opinion as you are to myopic to look at anything contrary to your preset beliefs.

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 09:17 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Not agreed upon by all scientist.

Do you not understand what the term "scientific consensus" means?

Well yes I do, I just don't happen to agree with everything that might be said to be of scientific consensus as there are credible scientist who present facts that differ from your so called scientific consensus.

**baconandeggs** · 16-10-2015, 09:29 AM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Why? Ive read a 100 scientific reports on the subject.

I've read every publication since 1984...somewhere over 25,000 papers, reports, blogs, opinion pieces, newspaper articles etc. which includes the deniers and their publications and they are full of shit. Not even close to being remotely accurate or genuine. They are poltically motivated and they are lying through all their orifices, Freeman Dyson included. Fuck the [at][at][at][at]. He is assisting in the death of millions becuase of his political ideology as is any contrarian with any science background related to climate change. Look into their poltiics and their affiliations and you will find a trail of oil money and stauch libertarianism. Bunch of fucking cunts. I only wish the effects of global warming will become pronounced enough, and quickly enough, that these truculent evil pieces of shit can be held accountable for their deception.

The co2 theory is based on dodgy science that has been corrupted and the whole gw movement is driven by lefties.

Over 90% of the past data has been adjusted, mostly down to show a trend where no trend existed.

I highly doubt your reading claims but if true you would fail basic logic given the IPCC has a 0% strike rate with forecasts.

**baconandeggs** · 16-10-2015, 09:32 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Not agreed upon by all scientist.

Do you not understand what the term "scientific consensus" means?

Well yes I do, I just don't happen to agree with everything that might be said to be of scientific consensus as there are credible scientist who present facts that differ from your so called scientific consensus.

The false consensus claim was discredited years ago.

**AntRobertson** · 16-10-2015, 09:46 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I do believe the climate is change I am just not convinced of the cause.

A rose by any other name...

Originally Posted by RPETER65

No it is not completely contrary to science I have posted in the past a number of credible scientists and geologist who are not in agreement with your view of the age of the earth, the problem is you and those of the same opinion as you are to myopic to look at anything contrary to your preset beliefs.

Yeah well they aren't credible are they. Because dinosaurs/fossil records.

**baconandeggs** · 16-10-2015, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

I do believe the climate is change I am just not convinced of the cause.

A rose by any other name...

Originally Posted by RPETER65

No it is not completely contrary to science I have posted in the past a number of credible scientists and geologist who are not in agreement with your view of the age of the earth, the problem is you and those of the same opinion as you are to myopic to look at anything contrary to your preset beliefs.

Yeah well they aren't credible are they. Because dinosaurs/fossil records.

Fossil records provide estimates of time. Scientists can't even agree how long man has been around and every decade a new theory comes along. For decades they also had a consensus on Pluto being a planet oops

**AntRobertson** · 16-10-2015, 10:00 AM

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

Fossil records provide estimates of time.

That's correct.

And no credible estimate supports the notion that the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old.

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

For decades they also had a consensus on Pluto being a planet oops

And therein lies the strength of science: theories are routinely tested and corrected. Compare that to the strict, rigid and unbending, dogma of religion.

**MrG** · 16-10-2015, 10:53 AM

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

The co2 theory is based on dodgy science that has been corrupted and the whole gw movement is driven by lefties.

My.... Really. Dodgy science all over the world...? How did you uncover it?

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

The false consensus claim was discredited years ago.

Oh.... By whom. You must have at least one article to refer to in your extensive reading of credible scientists. Strange you haven't treated us to a single source, let alone a credible theory.

**Umbuku** · 16-10-2015, 03:17 PM

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

The co2 theory is based on dodgy science that has been corrupted and the whole gw movement is driven by lefties.

No it isn't. No it hasn't. And no it isn't.

Over 90% of the past data has been adjusted, mostly down to show a trend where no trend existed.

No it hasn't. The unadjusted raw data sets are available for download from many sources.

I highly doubt your reading claims but if true you would fail basic logic given the IPCC has a 0% strike rate with forecasts.

Doubt all you want. Facts don't give a hoot about doubt. And the IPCC's predictions have been well within their error margin ranges.

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

The false consensus claim was discredited years ago.

In fact it has been strengthened by four other independent studies that returned results within 1% of the Cook paper, and reviews of the climate literature for the last two years shows the consensus is now at 99.99%. Guess who the 0.01% are...

Your arguments and appalling grammar reveal that you get your arguments from Fox news and know fuck all about climate science. I no longer tolerate ignorant retards who are assisting in the downfall of human civilization. Get educated or shut the fuck up.

**harrybarracuda** · 16-10-2015, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

Maybe you could back that up with facts.

He seems to think the problem could be solve by planting 1 trillion trees.

And where the fuck do you think that's going to happen?

**harrybarracuda** · 16-10-2015, 04:39 PM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Because I wasn't aware that the answer had already been established. And I asked the question because it has relevance.

If, as I assume, you're one of those that believe the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old that is a notion that is completely contrary to scientific understanding. And since you clearly don't believe in climate change I therefore find it interesting that you obviously pick and choose what parts of science you do believe - e.g. the Dyson article - in order to fit the answers to your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

Goodo. And like I say I've worked on cars but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

I do believe the climate is change I am just not convinced of the cause.

No it is not completely contrary to science I have posted in the past a number of credible scientists and geologist who are not in agreement with your view of the age of the earth, the problem is you and those of the same opinion as you are to myopic to look at anything contrary to your preset beliefs.

Oooh I missed that.

So how old DO you think the earth is then?

**harrybarracuda** · 16-10-2015, 04:42 PM

Originally Posted by Umbuku

Your arguments and appalling grammar reveal that you get your arguments from Fox news.

Get educated

I sense a disturbance in the force....

**PlanK** · 16-10-2015, 06:09 PM

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

And no credible estimate supports the notion that the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old.

If you rely on conventional science.

But if you'd read 25,000 papers on space-time you'd know that it changes and warps in such a way that millions of years of history can pass in but a moment. This has been scientifically proven by the outstanding thesis of Richard O'Brien and his paper entitled: The Rocky Horror Picture Show, which unquestionably proved that not only does time warp, but also that it does so in quite unpredictable ways that can result in creation being mistaken for evolution, and that any scientist who takes MMGW seriously obviously hasn't spent enough time in fishnet stockings, singing show tunes, and generally enjoying life instead of running round like Chicken Little proclaiming that the sky is falling.

**Umbuku** · 16-10-2015, 06:12 PM

Deliberate but not appalling.

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

And yet he comes up with solutions that are clearly the invention of his imagination.

And contrary to worldwide scientific consensus.

Have you ever studied in depth the works that don't agree with your supposed scientific consensus?

**RPETER65** · 16-10-2015, 10:52 PM

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by AntRobertson

It has nothing to do with Dyson. Which is precisely why I asked you the question, not Dyson.

Besides Dyson's easy to discredit: he's not a climatologist, I've worked on cars before, that doesn't make me a mechanic, and the GWPF is just yet another corporate mouthpiece.

And why would you ask me that question when the answer has already been established?

Because I wasn't aware that the answer had already been established. And I asked the question because it has relevance.

If, as I assume, you're one of those that believe the earth is circa. 4 - 10,000 years old that is a notion that is completely contrary to scientific understanding. And since you clearly don't believe in climate change I therefore find it interesting that you obviously pick and choose what parts of science you do believe - e.g. the Dyson article - in order to fit the answers to your preconceptions.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Dyson may not be a climatologist but he has worked on climate computer models which is what he is referring to.

Goodo. And like I say I've worked on cars but that doesn't make me a mechanic.

I do believe the climate is change I am just not convinced of the cause.

No it is not completely contrary to science I have posted in the past a number of credible scientists and geologist who are not in agreement with your view of the age of the earth, the problem is you and those of the same opinion as you are to myopic to look at anything contrary to your preset beliefs.

Oooh I missed that.

So how old DO you think the earth is then?

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ...
https://answersingenesis.org/.../the...ience-that-con...
Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

**MrG** · 17-10-2015, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

About Answers magazine
The purpose of Answers magazine is to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

**RPETER65** · 17-10-2015, 01:33 AM

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

About Answers magazine
The purpose of Answers magazine is to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

**MrG** · 17-10-2015, 02:32 AM

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Originally Posted by MrG

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Ooooh have you ever studied the works of scientist who disagree with the scientific consensus is the earths age?

The link takes you to Answers Magazine. This from their own site.

About Answers magazine
The purpose of Answers magazine is to illustrate the importance of Genesis in building a creation-based worldview, and to equip readers with practical answers so they can confidently communicate the gospel and biblical authority with accuracy and graciousness.

All they really want you to do is read the Bible...oh, and all the wonderful books they've written.

Originally Posted by RPETER65

Oct 1, 2012 - The 10 Best Evidences from Science that Confirm a Young Earth ... but God Himself tells us to give reasons for what we believe ( 1 Peter 3:15 ).

So I'll wait for God to tell me because a lot of his trumpeters are full of shit.

So I assume from your reply you did not follow and study the links, tells me one thing you refuse to look at all the evidence only what supports your preconceived ideas.

Try refuting scientific evidence with evidence. The Bible is not evidence.
You're trying to tell us that we have to "follow and study" the Bible or every hair-brained idea that it's believers make up about God or Jesus , as evidenced in your link, in order to refute your make believe. You will have a better chance recruiting members going door to door.

I think all you want to do is proslatize your religios beliefs in the guise of intelligent discussion on climate change..

**S Landreth** · 17-10-2015, 04:05 AM

Rate of Antarctic ice melt to double by 2050 – study

Antarctica, the planet’s largest desert, is home to 90% of the world’s ice – enough to raise global sea levels by at least 60 metres. So what happens to its ice and snow is a matter of serious concern to all of us.

One group has just predicted that, by 2050, the rate at which the ice shelves melt will double. Another reports that powerful winds are not just shifting Antarctica’s snow, but are also blowing 80 billion tonnes of it away, into the sea or the atmosphere.

Both cases exemplify the challenges of climate research and the construction of projections for the future.

Inland glaciers

Ice shelves are already afloat: if they melt, that will make no difference to sea levels. But floating ice that is fixed to the continental shelf also serves as a brake on the flow of glaciers further inland. So without the ice shelf “doorstops”, these could start to shed ice ever faster, and accelerate sea level rise.

Luke Trusel, postdoctoral scholar at the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution in the US1, and colleagues report in Nature Geoscience that they foresee a doubling of surface melting of the ice shelves by 2050.

If greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuel combustion continue at the present rate, by 2100 the melting may surpass the levels associated with collapse of the shelves.

__________

The slow ones are usually the last to .

Poll Finds Fewer Americans Than Ever Doubt Climate Change Is Happening

At least 70 percent of Americans now believe that global warming during the last 40 years is real and supported by solid evidence, coinciding with the lowest percentage of Americans who doubt climate change, according to a new poll released this week.

Even more startling: the survey also found a dramatic drop during the past year in the number of self-identified Republicans who doubt the existence of climate change, from 41 percent last fall to 26 percent now.

“The big shift here is amongst Republicans, and it is a huge one,” said Barry Rabe, professor of public policy and environmental policy at the University of Michigan, and a co-author of the poll. “Most survey work has found a gaping divide between self-identified Democrats and Republicans on this issue for many years now. This suggests that those differences still persist, but have declined significantly. We did not anticipate this.”

The finding that 70 percent of Americans support the evidence of climate change represents the second-highest level in the history of the survey, which is conducted twice annually — in the spring and fall — by the National Surveys on Energy and the Environment. The current number is only a slight dip from the 72 percent recorded in 2008, which then likely was “a response to the perception of weather or weather experiences, and before there was a campaign to challenge proposed climate change policies,” Rabe said. “But then it began to drop almost immediately.”

By this spring, however, the percentage had risen to 63 percent, then jumped during the past six months to 70 percent, almost certainly reflecting concern over severe drought conditions in many parts of the country, Rabe said. “The drought issue is affecting big regions of the country,” Rabe said. “Drought is not just a narrow, localized issue now. A lot of people live in areas where there is some degree of drought.”

Originally Posted by S Landreth

It’s only the hard core stoopid that don’t understand that humans are the (main) cause of today.

Two more to add to the list,…..

Originally Posted by baconandeggs

The co2 theory is based on dodgy science that has been corrupted and the whole gw movement is driven by lefties.

Originally Posted by Plan B

any scientist who takes MMGW seriously obviously hasn't spent enough time in fishnet stockings, singing show tunes, and generally enjoying life instead of running round like Chicken Little proclaiming that the sky is falling.

Thread: Any doubts about Climate Change?

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Posting Permissions