Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 139865	2015-07-13 02:48:00	Can I have a $ each way please?	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1404656	2015-07-26 03:25:00	Show me some proof. :lol: http://climate.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov www.arctic.noaa.gov www.ncdc.noaa.gov data.giss.nasa.gov	Nick G (16709)
1404657	2015-07-26 03:27:00	Yeah, but not as much as you. :lol: No. You cannot get out of what you do by turning criticism on someone else. In another thread you've already agreed coal stations produce pollution. However, you still produce images of coal fired stations going 'hey look at this guys it's steam and not smoke and all the greenies are wrong'. It's beyond belief how you believe this is ok.	Nick G (16709)
1404658	2015-07-26 03:31:00	It's also important to remember that we're talking about climate change. Some areas will experience increases in temperature; others will experience decreases. In other regions, the average temperature may remain the same, however temperatures are more extreme. It's important to remember that if half the earth is 5 degrees warmer than average (an astronomical amount, and used purely for theoretical purposes), and the other half 5 degrees colder than usual, certain types of people could argue that climate change is a hoax, because the average temperature is the same.	Nick G (16709)
1404659	2015-07-26 05:19:00	http://climate.nasa.gov earthobservatory.nasa.gov www.arctic.noaa.gov www.ncdc.noaa.gov data.giss.nasa.gov Is that your best shot? :D You’re telling me that those with vested interests are wringing their hands over a lousy 1.4°F or 0.777°C rise since 1880 - (135 years). :eek: Whoopy do, I wonder what their margin of error was given it’s far from an exact science. :lol: As for the ice melting, try this. Get a handful of ice cubes out of the freezer and put them in a bowl so they’re floating. Then fill the bowl with water up to the rim. Now stand there and watch carefully how much water runs over the top of the bowl as the ice melts and that’s the amount the oceans will rise if every iceberg melts. ;)	B.M. (505)
1404660	2015-07-26 06:05:00	Is that your best shot? :D You’re telling me that those with vested interests are wringing their hands over a lousy 1.4°F or 0.777°C rise since 1880 - (135 years). :eek: Whoopy do, I wonder what their margin of error was given it’s far from an exact science. :lol: As for the ice melting, try this. Get a handful of ice cubes out of the freezer and put them in a bowl so they’re floating. Then fill the bowl with water up to the rim. Now stand there and watch carefully how much water runs over the top of the bowl as the ice melts and that’s the amount the oceans will rise if every iceberg melts. ;) So Nasa, which isn't even saying what we should do, but just listing the facts, the predictions, and what we could do, is unreliable - whereas a site called 'Global Climate Scam', which you so frequently link to, is to be treated as gospel? Give me a break.	Nick G (16709)
1404661	2015-07-26 06:09:00	dailycaller.com It is hard to take the whole "shock horror, climate change/AGM" business seriously when there are so many conflicting reports being published. Chicken Little springs to mind, perhaps the human race likes to always have some impending disaster to worry about. I am deeply sceptical of those who only tell half the story, those who have the prime motivation of financial gain and those who wish to tell everybody else what to do but do not do it themselves ie. fly around in their private jet producing more greenhouse gases than a small town all on their own while telling the rest of us to ride a bike and use public transport. It is noticable that we are not starving due to overpopulation, we are not all dead from bird flue or ebola, we have not been frozen to death in the ice age predicted back in the 70s or anything else that has been predicted by experts over the years. It is patently obvious that you can buy an expert to tell you anything you like if you wish to pay them enough. Unless a report has been peer reviewed and accepted by all it is of little value. The real answer is that nobody knows and will not know for many, many years. In the mean time it is a good idea to follow best practice conservation policies but not to the exclusion of progress.	CliveM (6007)
1404662	2015-07-26 07:05:00	Just in passing, in the late 1970's to mid 80's I lived at Whenuapai and the winters there were reminiscent of the Antarctic. The cold air from the Waitakeres hills out West funneled down the harbour and created a mini ice-age for us Whenuapai-ians, and I don't believe it has changed much since. In my opinion it is the topography of the land and the cold air flowing down from the higher areas of the Waitakeres that causes the low temperatures in the lower-west. In my present micro-climate on the other side of the harbour, which is close enough to watch the Airforce planes on their final approach, frosts are virtually unknown and we have seen just one during the recent chill, but only in the shaded area of our neighbour's lawn, our lawns were frost-free. Cheers Billy 8-{) :2cents:	Billy T (70)
1404663	2015-07-26 08:31:00	Come on BM, you know full well as does everyone else, that the concern about rising sea levels is not about icebergs melting, it is about ice on land melting and adding to the ocean's level. That sort of silly statement weakens your arguments.	Terry Porritt (14)
1404664	2015-07-26 09:36:00	Come on BM, you know full well as does everyone else, that the concern about rising sea levels is not about icebergs melting, it is about ice on land melting and adding to the ocean's level. That sort of silly statement weakens your arguments. That’s not what they’re telling us with their photos of Polar Bears hanging onto blocks of ice. :D 6616 6617 6618	B.M. (505)
1404665	2015-07-26 10:53:00	That’s not what they’re telling us with their photos of Polar Bears hanging onto blocks of ice. :D 6616 6617 6618 What they're arguing there is more on the lines of conservation - receding sea ice will damange the habitats of polar bears. But it does neatly sum up how you argue your points. You cherry pick a person; a sentence; an image; a phrase - anything you can, that was either incorrect, incorrectly placed or used, or open to interpretation - and use that one thing as the backing for your opinions. A couple of examples you've used: A controversy regarding Michael Mann - in which, I note, he was cleared of scientific misconduct - forms the basis for you concluding that all scientists who issue findings you don't like, are flawed, biased, and not to be believed. An image of a steam cooling system from a coal fired plant is proof that anything anyone says that may be remotely considered pro conservation or 'greenie', can be disregarded at will. An image of a polar bear on floating sea ice means that anything to do with ice melting can be safely disregarded. That's how you argue B.M. Not with facts or figures - except when they come from people who have little to no scientific background, or write articles which appear on the site 'Global Climate Scam' - which, because they do not come from scientists, are not bound by the principles of good conduct and scientific procedure. Rather, you argue by cheery picking, selective ignoring, by claiming all scientists who disagree with you are biased and/or wrong, and by refusing to accept that facts, claiming that the figures have been doctored.	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25