Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 148246	2019-09-29 00:07:00	The same people that support Climate Change.	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1464101	2019-09-30 00:31:00	B.M. Climategate was 9 years ago and you've been using it ever since to discredit every scientist who supports man made climate change. The thought that for 9 years every scientist who agrees with the consensus has been lying, mislead, or mistaken, is really pushing the credibility of your stance IMHO. I suggested in my first post you might rehash this, glad you didn't dissapoint. If you feel inclined you could try this skepticalscience.com but no doubt you'll find it funny and discount it as more collusion. The short version is many political and scientific bodies investigated climategate over a couple of years and found no scandal. You compared those of us who believe that man made climate change is real with someone who thinks a hair straightener threatens to cause trouble during the RWC. That's an unfounded stretch with no credible reason for it other than to make fun of people. So yeah I returned the favour by comparing you to flat earthers, I think that comparison is the fairer of the two personally :p	dugimodo (138)
1464102	2019-09-30 00:32:00	N Denier is not name calling, . yes it is. It was deliberately used to put them in the same category as holocaust denier . Thats name calling . So thats the level you need to stoop to. Cant rely on 'facts' ? Just why is the term "skeptic" never used by the climate scaremongers . Because they would rather resort to name calling. 9year old sort of stuff . Skeptic : dont believe everything spat out by the media. They are arguments for both sides. Both sides choose to be quite blinkered in their views . Then we get the issue of all talk , do nothing. go on and on and on about warming and being doomed. Then do nothing. Ziltch. Nada . Just talk . If you believe warming, then actions rather than talk. If you believe & do nothing YOURSELF , then you that makes you the worst of the worst start by never using your car, no overseas trips, no tourism, stop eating meat , stop buying stuff . Basically destroy our economy air travel is really bad for greenhouse gas . So no more tourists Farming : animals and the fertilizer itself : yep greenhouse gas. No more meat or dairy . Stop buying products made in china , as they were made using electricity from burning coal No more gas heating or cooking All our farms, replant in forests . :)	1101 (13337)
1464103	2019-09-30 00:39:00	skepticalscience.com So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this: "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." After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this: "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!"	1101 (13337)
1464104	2019-09-30 01:05:00	Not using my car - nope can't do that need to get to work but I did buy an electric car and also a bicycle. partly for the savings and partly to do my bit. No overseas trips - check no tourism - depends if you count trips to local waterfalls for a scenic walk as tourism because I do do that. stop eating meat - I don't buy into this one at all, humans are not herbivores I have no gas heating or cooking And also I have an electric lawn mower which I charge with solar panels Yeah china is bad in many ways and we should boycott them, you first yeah? But at least as the world's leading producer of solar panels and a plan in place to clean up their emissions they appear to be making some effort towards improving. www.weforum.org The holocaust never entered my mind until you compared me to a Nazi, I used the word denier in it's literal sense and had no intention of comparing the two. That all came from you. You've decided it was name calling, I didn't mean it that way I was just using it as a label. I'm not concerning myself anymore that it seems to mean more to you than it does to me. If you have another label you'd prefer that doesn't involve too much typing I'm happy to use it. Skeptic doesn't fit for me, that implies a willingness to be convinced. "those who don't believe in man made climate change" is just too unwieldy. Denier works until I have something better. Maybe destroying the economy is the right way to go, I don't know. I know that endless economic growth is a fairy tale. I know that the population has a limit whether we set it ourselves or let nature do it for us. This is equally true for the economy. I know that basing decisions on what's good for the economy instead of what's good for the human race as a whole long term is blinkered foolishness. I know that 7 billion humans on the planet has to effect the environment and that all the farmland we see is a visible testament to that. Ancient forests used to dominate this country, and we are one of the better ones. Yes you are correct that replanting the forests would be a step in the right direction, but to do that we need to drastically reduce the worlds population. Not such an easy proposition. I haven't done much, but I've done something. Maybe it's misguided and achieves nothing, but I tried. Maybe it's far too little, far too late. How about you what are you doing? made any attempts to improve the world in any way? Yep there are arguments for both sides, and back when B.M. first started posting his all over the forums I spent quite a bit of time reading and researching them to see if he had a point. I remain unconvinced. Researching the evidence for climate change will find you a wealth of information by informed and qualified sources, at least it did for me. Researching the evidence against climate change however I have failed to find anything to convince me. There are a lot of claims made, there doesn't seem to be anything to back them up as far as I can tell. The best arguments I've found simply point out the unreliability of predictions and the uncertainty of the extent which we are (or can) effecting the climate. They do nothing to show it simply isn't man made at all.	dugimodo (138)
1464105	2019-09-30 01:09:00	The short version is many political and scientific bodies investigated climategate over a couple of years and found no scandal. I’m glad you mentioned this. It worked like this analogy: The President of the Mongrel Mob is charged with assaulting a Prison Guard. The Jury was made up of Patched Mongrel Mob Members. What do you think the verdict would be. :lol:	B.M. (505)
1464106	2019-09-30 01:39:00	I'm not sure how good the analogy is, I do get what you are driving at though. However the whole reason the scientific process was developed and the peer review system implemented was the best attempt (so far) to prevent confirmation bias and to make sure scientific claims were backed up as well as they can be. Far from going along with the accepted view the best way a scientist can make a name for themselves these days is to publish research that shows the accepted view is wrong. If the science is good peer review will show that. It's my view that if man made climate change can be reasonably shown to not be a significant factor in the overall climate then someone will prove that sooner or later. As far as I know it has not been done yet. As I said the best I've seen so far manages to poke some holes in the reliability of current models without actually disproving anything. An analogy I'd suggest is it's like predicting how long a kettle will take to boil from some observations and then proving that prediction wrong. The kettle may or may not still boil, all you've proved is the prediction was flawed. If we know enough total energy is going into the kettle to boil the water we can still reasonably assert that it is likely to boil. In both the analogy and reality the only way to know is to wait and make more observations and more accurate observations, and try to improve the predictions. When it's a giant kettle and you are sitting in it though it's probably best to turn off the heat regardless.	dugimodo (138)
1464107	2019-09-30 02:49:00	skepticalscience.com So to summarise, Trenberth's email says this: "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." After reviewing the discussion in Trenberth 2009, it's apparent that what he meant was this: "Global warming is still happening - our planet is still accumulating heat. But our observation systems aren't able to comprehensively keep track of where all the energy is going. Consequently, we can't definitively explain why surface temperatures have gone down in the last few years. That's a travesty!" Is this the E-Mail? From: Kevin Trenberth To: Michael Mann <mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> Subject: Re: BBC U-turn on climate Date: Mon, 12 Oct 2009 08:57:37 -0600 Cc: Stephen H Schneider , Myles Allen , peter stott , “Philip D. Jones” , Benjamin Santer , Tom Wigley , Thomas R Karl , Gavin Schmidt , James Hansen , Michael Oppenheimer Hi all Well I have my own article on where the heck is global warming? We are asking that here in Boulder where we have broken records the past two days for the coldest days on record. We had 4 inches of snow. The high the last 2 days was below 30F and the normal is 69F, and it smashed the previous records for these days by 10F. The low was about 18F and also a record low, well below the previous record low. This is January weather (see the Rockies baseball playoff game was canceled on saturday and then played last night in below freezing weather). Trenberth, K. E., 2009: An imperative for climate change planning: tracking Earth’s global energy. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 1, 19-27, doi:10.1016/j.cosust.2009.06.001. [1][PDF] (A PDF of the published version can be obtained from the author.) 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. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on 2008 shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. That said there is a LOT of nonsense about the PDO. People like CPC are tracking PDO on a monthly basis but it is highly correlated with ENSO. Most of what they are seeing is the change in ENSO not real PDO. It surely isn’t decadal. The PDO is already reversing with the switch to El Nino. The PDO index became positive in September for first time since Sept 2007.see[2]http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/ocean_briefing_gif/global_ocean_monitoring_c urrent.ppt Kevin A fine example of Pseudo Science not stacking up. :rolleyes:	B.M. (505)
1464108	2019-09-30 04:26:00	I am not a denier but I am skeptical by nature and soon as I see the amount of cash that goes to those who adhere to the party line and how quick they are to ostracize anyone who disagrees it does tend to make me rather suspicious of the whole Climate Change business . I am not a climate scientist and I do not believe that any of you are either . Neither are those that are trying to generate fear to gain votes or make news stories primarily to sell advertisements . I am however perfectly willing to change my mind should I ever see any evidence that i should do so . A couple of things for you to shoot down . 1 . Dr Mann recently lost his case against Dr Tim Ball against who he sued for defamation and refused to produce the so-called data he used to produce his famous Hockey Stick Graph . 2 . The 97% of scientists all agree figure which is widely quoted was obtained by surveying some 6000 scientists employed as such in the USA asking their opinion on the subject . About 300 bothered to return the survey and of those 291 indicated that they were believers so it was then claimed as the 97% for instead of the true figure of 4 . 85% for . 3 . Since I learnt to read some 75 years ago not a single doomsday prediction, and there have been lots of them, has even come slightly close to being true . As far as conservation and eliminating pollution I am on board 100% . The Man Made Climate Change Religion not so much . Perhaps I should purchase some land in the Central Waikato with the aim of making my descendants rich selling beach front properties in the not to distant future . It is, in my view, child abuse to frighten children by telling them the world is going to end in the foreseeable future and it is stupid to then wonder why our youth suicide stats are so high .	CliveM (6007)
1464109	2019-09-30 14:39:00	The most compelling argument in my eyes is that the money is still being heavily invested in the areas that are supposed to be under water well before the loans can be paid off. Meaning, bankers do not see solid evidence of any apocalypse anytime soon.	FredCal (17690)
1464110	2019-09-30 19:44:00	The most compelling argument in my eyes is that the money is still being heavily invested in the areas that are supposed to be under water well before the loans can be paid off. Meaning, bankers do not see solid evidence of any apocalypse anytime soon. That’s a very good point FredCal, we’ve thrashed the Pseudo Science aspect, but what has happened to the taxes that have been collected already? Where do I find the Balance Sheet for what has already been collected, nationally and internationally? What’s the bet we will find Pseudo Accountancy to go with the Pseudo Science if indeed there is any.	B.M. (505)
1 2 3 4