Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Global Warming


_w_

Recommended Posts

There is no case for global warming. Changes in hundredths of percentage points in atmospheric CO2 levels are not questionned; their impact on temperatures or climate, despite what the propaganda machine tried to make us believe, are not proven and based on the last few years' data, not even measured.

This doesn't appear to make any sense.. could you clarify?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 405
  • Created
  • Last Reply

No you haven't because you are using the deniers' false questions instead of listening to what the scientist have actually been saying.

It's a subtle ploy but the deniers do it very well and you've been sucked in hook, line and sinker.

The subtle ploy is the one you are using: the use of a broadbrush tag ('deniers') in order to help systematic stereotyping (and stop people thinking for themselves in the process).

How about, instead in engaging in propaganda techniques, you tell me what you make of historical CO2 rises showing up after warming phases rather than before?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No you haven't because you are using the deniers' false questions instead of listening to what the scientist have actually been saying.

It's a subtle ploy but the deniers do it very well and you've been sucked in hook, line and sinker.

Kevin Trenberth stated, "The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can’t".[20]

Seems to be pretty clear about what he's saying to me, perhaps you can interpret it better?

Also every time you use the word "denier", Hitler kills a puppy.

Think of the puppies!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no case for global warming. Changes in hundredths of percentage points in atmospheric CO2 levels are not questionned; their impact on temperatures or climate, despite what the propaganda machine tried to make us believe, are not proven and based on the last few years' data, not even measured.

This doesn't appear to make any sense.. could you clarify?

Minute (on a world scale) changes to atmospheric composition (e.g. more CO2) are not proven to cause warming on anywhere near the scale claimed by the propagandists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subtle ploy is the one you are using: the use of a broadbrush tag ('deniers') in order to help systematic stereotyping (and stop people thinking for themselves in the process).

How about, instead in engaging in propaganda techniques, you tell me what you make of historical CO2 rises showing up after warming phases rather than before?

When I say' 'deniers' I am talking about Monckton et al, not yourself as such, so don't take it personally.

What they have done well is to plant in your brain the idea that your question has any value. Assuming what you are saying about CO2 levels is correct, would you care to tell me how that relates to the current climate system? And also, were those levels taken before man started producing greenhouse gases on an industrial scale?

I'm not 100% convinced by the evidence I have seen either but I know a BS artist (Monckton) when I see one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The subtle ploy is the one you are using: the use of a broadbrush tag ('deniers') in order to help systematic stereotyping (and stop people thinking for themselves in the process).

How about, instead in engaging in propaganda techniques, you tell me what you make of historical CO2 rises showing up after warming phases rather than before?

I'd tell you that the glaciation/deglaciation cycle is primarily driven by ice-albedo feedback with CO2 playing a later role. I'd also point out the logical fallacy of assuming that climate change can only have one cause. A person who was thinking for themself may have noticed the second of these points without having to decide on the validity of AGW.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature-intermediate.htm

Now, I've answered your proposition, so I'd like you to show your open mindedness by answering this: If we disregard the greenhouse effect, simple radiation balance calculations show that the Earth should be 33K colder - effectively frozen solid, although I expect that the oceans would remain mostly liquid under the ice. How do you account for the fact that the planet is not frozen?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all rubbish . I've stopped arguing it though. It's like arguing about religion.

global warming is the new religion. it has all the necessary requreiments.

the great she mother earth who must be protected

the great satan the usa

redemption, recycling for the masses

sins, driving cars

levels of authodoxy, from university thought provoking seminars to born again hysteria of the bbc.

and the scientists are the priests. woe betide any who veer from the written word.

example, i wish to write a thesis about the decline in squirrals in my forest, do i get a govenment grant, no; i want to write a thesis about the decline in squirrals in my forest due to climate change, do i get a grant.YES.

i have met many scientists at various level,including unversity reserchers. they are like the rest of us, they do a job and get paid, and like most people over house prices they just go along with whatever the zeidgist is. they take the money and tell thier paymasters what the want to hear.

dont think that scientists are any better than you, they are not. they are bright and clever with good memories, but they have all the failings of humanity. believe them at your peril, think about things yourselves and make you own mind up,( providing you have one.)

when i was at school during the seventies i specifically remember being told that a new ice age was upon us. well that was the top scientists of the day.

now here is a thought. THE WORLD WARMING UP IS NO THREAT TO HUMANITY, THE WORLD COOLING DOWN COULD FINISH US OFF. FACT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh

Well worth a read, the conclusion sums it up

My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there’s lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is pretty clear that the global political response to the so-called global warming emergency is pretty non-existent - all the various high profile meetings always conclude in a commitment to think about doing something next time, and they allow all the warmist career scientists to get themselves in a lather and stay self-involved a little longer

but yep, with some experience of the field, I agree it is just a public money career enabler, tainted with pseudo-science from all angles

Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is pretty clear that the global political response to the so-called global warming emergency is pretty non-existent - all the various high profile meetings always conclude in a commitment to think about doing something next time, and they allow all the warmist career scientists to get themselves in a lather and stay self-involved a little longer

but yep, with some experience of the field, I agree it is just a public money career enabler, tainted with pseudo-science from all angles

+1

Sticking your rubbish into various bins and changing light bulbs is pathetic.

The generic problem is over population and shi1tting in our own nest. The web of deceit involves capitalism and religion. Together they are munchin up the planet like mad pacmen.

Halve the worlds population and the job's done. No over consumption and no pollution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

Sticking your rubbish into various bins and changing light bulbs is pathetic.

The generic problem is over population and shi1tting in our own nest. The web of deceit involves capitalism and religion. Together they are munchin up the planet like mad pacmen.

Halve the worlds population and the job's done. No over consumption and no pollution

Who gets to say which half stays and which half goes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One solution in one scientific journal just last week said one way would be to grow a heck of a lot of ....wheat or something with longer stems that would suck Co2 out and put it into the ground and this would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 2%. I have no idea of the feasibility of such an invention/GM modification but I can tell straight away that this solution is not sexy enough and not causing enough sacrifice - so it will simply not happen.

The same thing as pouring feckloads of iron oxide into the seas to nurture algeae to grow and eat CO2 as well. Again, I don't know how much would be required but I am sure someone will tell me it won't work.

It simply won't happen. The solutions are too simple. Or it will be argued that we should reduce Co2 output as that is the truest thing to do. I quite like pragmatic solutions though.

Dang I'm getting drawn into arguments now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the entire glow ball population expires every 70 years or so on average the entire debate is largely irrelevant.

If there are only 100 million left I'd suggest you offload your gold hoard well in advance though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

+1

Sticking your rubbish into various bins and changing light bulbs is pathetic.

The generic problem is over population and shi1tting in our own nest. The web of deceit involves capitalism and religion. Together they are munchin up the planet like mad pacmen.

Halve the worlds population and the job's done. No over consumption and no pollution

Here's the problem: If it's the poorest half that you want to get rid of, it dosen't make a lot of difference to the problem.

If it's the richest half, they have all the guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When I say' 'deniers' I am talking about Monckton et al, not yourself as such, so don't take it personally.

I don't take it personally. I take exception to the use of tags (deniers, gold bugs, lefties, etc.), a well know propaganda technique; it helps redirect people's focus from facts to stereotypes. The aim, whether it was conscious on your part or not, is to stop people thinking for themselves and help them grab on to prepackaged ideological arguments. It moves discussions away from toughtful debates and well thought out conclusions.

What they have done well is to plant in your brain the idea that your question has any value. Assuming what you are saying about CO2 levels is correct, would you care to tell me how that relates to the current climate system? And also, were those levels taken before man started producing greenhouse gases on an industrial scale?

I find this statement astonishing. I would have thought any person of sound mind would want to know whether the anthropological warming thesis has any validity. These questions aim to answer that, how can they not be relevant?

I'm not 100% convinced by the evidence I have seen either but I know a BS artist (Monckton) when I see one.

Your focus was moved away from the data to the messenger's character. I'd say you are the one who has been played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angus Millar lecture at the RSA in Edinburgh

Well worth a read, the conclusion sums it up

My argument is that like religion, science as an institution is and always has been plagued by the temptations of confirmation bias. With alarming ease it morphs into pseudoscience even – perhaps especially – in the hands of elite experts and especially when predicting the future and when there's lavish funding at stake. It needs heretics.

this post needs bouncing - brilliant link

Monckton is a bit of a fool, but this above is instead v good

it is true about anyone questioning the warmist agenda - I was in a UK academic conference related to it and saw a perfectly decent and respected scientist shot down for questioning the rationale behind catastrophic economic implications of climate change, it really is a statist professor's charter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One solution in one scientific journal just last week said one way would be to grow a heck of a lot of ....wheat or something with longer stems that would suck Co2 out and put it into the ground and this would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 2%. I have no idea of the feasibility of such an invention/GM modification but I can tell straight away that this solution is not sexy enough and not causing enough sacrifice - so it will simply not happen.

The same thing as pouring feckloads of iron oxide into the seas to nurture algeae to grow and eat CO2 as well. Again, I don't know how much would be required but I am sure someone will tell me it won't work.

It simply won't happen. The solutions are too simple. Or it will be argued that we should reduce Co2 output as that is the truest thing to do. I quite like pragmatic solutions though.

Dang I'm getting drawn into arguments now.

Re; the whole global warming / climate change debate. Im sure that there may be a majority of scientists who believe the global climate is changing, that it is man made and it is will have a huge 'change' effect on the world as we know it now.

What disturbs me is that I dont think the non-scientifc (largely philosophical) questions have been pomdered about this before any action ids recommended.

1) Does anyone know what changes would have naturally occurred in the absence of anthropogenic changes ? The anser is almost certainly no and hence the effects of man made climate change can not be definitively said to be either Good or bad as we dont know what they are changing, simply that they will change something from where we are now (and obviously as we have adapted our world to 'now' and change from now is disturbing). But if the world would have changed anyway, then the effect of our climate change may be beneficial instead of damaging. When I was a kid nearly all 'publicised' scientific opinion suggested the moon was not once part of earth, that was incorrect and also the likelihood was that we were either in or were entering an ice age.

2) Pre the credit crunch the highest paid minds in the world were working and creating models showing that the events of 2008 could only happen once in a 1,000 years etc etc. Their models proved it and in isoltaion were probably all correct. My Dad was a postman, he told me we were hedaing for a massive credit crunch due to excessive osse money and the over production of paper backed wealth. He couldnt even program a video.

Like someone said, Ive no doubt the world is getting warmer, that this is man made, and that this will lead to drastic change for some if not everyone.

Id also think that given short term human nature and short of invading Chain and India there pretty much nothing that will be done to reverse it. Perhaps the global warming industry should turn its atention away from making money on the back of it as an issue and start looking for ways of helping the world to cope.

In fact, given the infinte possibilities that may have occurred from randaom climate change, at lease the antropogenic kind gives us a kind of certainty of what will happen, something weve never enjoyed before in terms of preparation.

I'd leave science to scientists, but Id advise scientists to leave the solutions to those who think well beyond the very closed and contained boundaries that scientific thinking leads to. Scietists will and are continue to be used as stooges on both sides of this debate so some people can make money out of the fear they want to generate.

Lets look at global warming as both inevtiable, irreversible, and finally as an opportunity to reshape our world. The whole deate looks different that way and without the ten day junkets to Rio and Cape Town.

See, Im not a denier, I'm a free thinker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it�s full complement of species, returning throughout the world." -Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

These people are insane , anyone read the articles about the genetically modified salmon being released? The species they are replacing the current ones with have been genetically modified , the world these creeps are creating will be nothing like the one that we are used to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Re; the whole global warming / climate change debate. Im sure that there may be a majority of scientists who believe the global climate is changing, that it is man made and it is will have a huge 'change' effect on the world as we know it now.

you'd be surprised, a large proportion are far less hysterical, but also lose out on funding by being like this, and simply keep their heads down to avoid getting the sack - I know this from expereince and knowing them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we disregard the greenhouse effect, simple radiation balance calculations show that the Earth should be 33K colder - effectively frozen solid, although I expect that the oceans would remain mostly liquid under the ice. How do you account for the fact that the planet is not frozen?

There is one thing I can account for: it is the absence of science supporting the thesis of global warming caused by human emissions of CO2 to date. That is not proved or supported by the data in any way in my judgement. The earth is now in a cooling phase for Pete's sake!

As to what causes a 33K difference during a period that lasted, I assume, at least 10 or 20,000 years I have no idea and don't care. That is something for the climate researchers to have fun with; considering the complexity of climate systems compared to other sciences, I am quite confident they are pretty far from finding a definitive answer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't take it personally. I take exception to the use of tags (deniers, gold bugs, lefties, etc.), a well know propaganda technique; it helps redirect people's focus from facts to stereotypes. The aim, whether it was conscious on your part or not, is to stop people thinking for themselves and help them grab on to prepackaged ideological arguments. It moves discussions away from toughtful debates and well thought out conclusions.

I find this statement astonishing. I would have thought any person of sound mind would want to know whether the anthropological warming thesis has any validity. These questions aim to answer that, how can they not be relevant?

Your focus was moved away from the data to the messenger's character. I'd say you are the one who has been played.

<sigh> Would you mind answering a question with a straight answer? Otherwise you are fast moving into the 'BS artist' category along with Monckton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

global warming is the new religion. it has all the necessary requreiments.

the great she mother earth who must be protected

the great satan the usa

redemption, recycling for the masses

sins, driving cars

levels of authodoxy, from university thought provoking seminars to born again hysteria of the bbc.

and the scientists are the priests. woe betide any who veer from the written word.

Actually, I'd say that it is the current vogue for conspiracy theories, include the one that claims that AGW is a massive scam, that really represents the new religion.

Now that belief in conventional religions is fading, many people need some other avenue through which they can comfort themselves on their perceived lack of personal attainment and apparently pointless existence. If you're a conspiracy theory believer, it all makes sense. It is much more gratifying to think that your failure is not due to personal factors or luck, but that you are in fact a victim of the machinations of others. There is also the satisfaction of belonging to an exclusive club of enlightened ones and the eternal hope of ultimate vindication when the conspiracy is finally revealed. What's not to like?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As to what causes a 33K difference during a period that lasted, I assume, at least 10 or 20,000 years I have no idea and don't care. That is something for the climate researchers to have fun with; considering the complexity of climate systems compared to other sciences, I am quite confident they are pretty far from finding a definitive answer.

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really have no idea what you are talking about, do you?

no, really, he has a point

the uncertainty in global models is enormous, for example they have only just added an upper troposphere dynamic, ergo they had not coonsidered solar wind as an input before

C cycles do not resolve in the chemical models - which is pretty fundamental, and quietly laughed away by the scientists concserned

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd tell you that the glaciation/deglaciation cycle is primarily driven by ice-albedo feedback with CO2 playing a later role.

this is balls, glacial cycles are Croll-Milankovich-driven, as any environmental scientist would tell you, very very clear fact

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.