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
1404626	2015-07-19 01:18:00	And this is how your Hard Evidence was derived. :lol: One of the hacked E-Mails. 6604 I get that there is some dodgy science on both sides of the argument, but you need to recognise you are just as closed minded on your side of the argument as anyone else, immediately dismissing any evidence of global warming as part of the larger conspiracy you've already decided is the truth. I don't think there is any evidence that would shift your point of view so it would be hypocritical for you to expect it of those that disagree. Also it's very unlikely any of us will live long enough to be proven right or wrong on the whole issue. Referring to those who tend to believe the mainstream scientific position as followers of a "Green Pagan Religion" would be the same as me dismissing any evidence you supply as the ravings of a "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist". Both tend to make people not really look at the evidence supplied and continue believing what they already believed. Incidentally religion by definition is the belief in a god or gods, believing scientists claims and wanting to see people care more about the environment is in no way a religion. It may have an element of faith but that's a different thing entirely. You've convinced me that there is a lot of misinformation on the subject and some scientists that have fudged their findings. You have not however convinced me those same scientists have or even could convince the rest of the scientific community to do the same or that climate change is not a reality. You ask us to believe that among those people that are smarter than you or I there is an large majority that are either mislead themselves or lying to all of us to support their cronies. I have more faith in Human nature than that. I tend to believe in climate change as a reality myself, but I also believe the extant of it is often exaggerated to push an agenda and that's the source of most of your evidence refuting it. I don't see how the massive amount of deforestation coupled with the ever escalating Human population and corresponding pollution problem can fail to have some kind of detrimental effect on the environment. I did really enjoy your link to George Carlin and I agree with what he said but I think I interpreted differently than you probably did. To me he's not denying global warming at all, just making the point that we are destroying ourselves and the planet will be fine whatever happens to us.	dugimodo (138)
1404627	2015-07-19 02:48:00	And this is how your Hard Evidence was derived. :lol: One of the hacked E-Mails. 6604 No idea of the context, or what they were adding it too, etc etc. Basically, you're making a ton of assumptions based on stolen emails. On the other hand, scientific studies are usually retracted if others cannot replicate the results, and you'll note that this hasn't happened ;) However, whether that study was legitimate or not is a small matter, because it does not change all the other studies, or the opinion of the vast majority of world experts. B.M, therse are experts in their field. You trust experts when you get in a car, when you use electricity, when you have a medical procedure. You trust scientists B.M, even if you choose not to admit it. So why stop trusting a particular set of scientists when they don't return the results you like? If a doctor said you needed a hip replacement, would you accuse him of lying, of fudging the figures, of standing to gain financially? Or would you trust him, because he's an expert in his field? You'd trust him, because you trust science. That's sensible. What isn't sensible is to stop trusting all environmental scientists when they return results you don't want to hear.	Nick G (16709)
1404628	2015-07-19 03:39:00	I get that there is some dodgy science on both sides of the argument, but you need to recognise you are just as closed minded on your side of the argument as anyone else, immediately dismissing any evidence of global warming as part of the larger conspiracy you've already decided is the truth . I don't think there is any evidence that would shift your point of view so it would be hypocritical for you to expect it of those that disagree . Also it's very unlikely any of us will live long enough to be proven right or wrong on the whole issue . Referring to those who tend to believe the mainstream scientific position as followers of a "Green Pagan Religion" would be the same as me dismissing any evidence you supply as the ravings of a "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" . Both tend to make people not really look at the evidence supplied and continue believing what they already believed . Incidentally religion by definition is the belief in a god or gods, believing scientists claims and wanting to see people care more about the environment is in no way a religion . It may have an element of faith but that's a different thing entirely . You've convinced me that there is a lot of misinformation on the subject and some scientists that have fudged their findings . You have not however convinced me those same scientists have or even could convince the rest of the scientific community to do the same or that climate change is not a reality . You ask us to believe that among those people that are smarter than you or I there is an large majority that are either mislead themselves or lying to all of us to support their cronies . I have more faith in Human nature than that . I tend to believe in climate change as a reality myself, but I also believe the extant of it is often exaggerated to push an agenda and that's the source of most of your evidence refuting it . I don't see how the massive amount of deforestation coupled with the ever escalating Human population and corresponding pollution problem can fail to have some kind of detrimental effect on the environment . I did really enjoy your link to George Carlin and I agree with what he said but I think I interpreted differently than you probably did . To me he's not denying global warming at all, just making the point that we are destroying ourselves and the planet will be fine whatever happens to us . Let’s examine what you have written . Firstly you say “I get that there is some dodgy science on both sides of the argument” . Not true, the only dodgy figures have come from your side that produced the same figures but cooked the books to meet their needs . The bottom line is nobody now wants to argue there has been any global warming for 20 odd years . Secondly you say “but you need to recognise you are just as closed minded on your side of the argument as anyone else, immediately dismissing any evidence of global warming as part of the larger conspiracy you've already decided is the truth . I don't think there is any evidence that would shift your point of view so it would be hypocritical for you to expect it of those that disagree . Not true either because the only reason I see it differently is that I had an open mind and made up my mind on the evidence before me . Thirdly you say “ Referring to those who tend to believe the mainstream scientific position as followers of a "Green Pagan Religion" would be the same as me dismissing any evidence you supply as the ravings of a "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" . Both tend to make people not really look at the evidence supplied and continue believing what they already believed . Incidentally religion by definition is the belief in a god or gods, believing scientists claims and wanting to see people care more about the environment is in no way a religion . It may have an element of faith but that's a different thing entirely . ” Well not really, my dictionary says the following: “Paganism represents a wide variety of traditions that emphasize reverence for nature and a revival of ancient polytheistic and animistic religious practices . ” Given the Greens indulgence in Tree Hugging and other strange activities I figure it pretty much sums them up . Fourthly you say “You have not however convinced me those same scientists have or even could convince the rest of the scientific community to do the same or that climate change is not a reality . You ask us to believe that among those people that are smarter than you or I there is an large majority that are either mislead themselves or lying to all of us to support their cronies . I have more faith in Human nature than that . ” Well, firstly they haven’t convinced the rest of the Scientific Community, far from it . Nobody refutes Climate Change, the Earth has been doing it since day dot and even the plants understand it . It’s just that it isn’t a problem now and in all probability never will be . Finally you say, “I did really enjoy your link to George Carlin and I agree with what he said but I think I interpreted differently than you probably did . To me he's not denying global warming at all, just making the point that we are destroying ourselves and the planet will be fine whatever happens to us . ” I saw it a swipe at the “Save the Planet Brigade” with the message “The planet will be just fine” and whilst he didn’t refer to Global Warming directly he did make reference to plastic bags, aluminium cans, plastic and other inferences . Anyway, if you can produce some evidence other than the “Eminent Scientist spin”, that the planet is warming and won’t cool of its own accord, as it has done so many times in the past, I’m prepared to consider it . :)	B.M. (505)
1404629	2015-07-19 03:58:00	The bottom line is nobody now wants to argue there has been any global warming for 20 odd years. It's a hotly debated topic, what do you think we are doing? plenty of people want to argue it Not true either because the only reason I see it differently is that I had an open mind and made up my mind on the evidence before me. The important point here is "made up my mind" past tense, not reconsidering, no longer open minded. Well not really, my dictionary says the following: “Paganism represents a wide variety of traditions that emphasize reverence for nature and a revival of ancient polytheistic and animistic religious practices.” Given the Greens indulgence in Tree Hugging and other strange activities I figure it pretty much sums them up. your own definition disagrees with your statement, and in any case is not relevant. I shouldn't have pointed it out in the first place. It's science not religion. Well, firstly they haven’t convinced the rest of the Scientific Community, far from it. Not all of them surely, I refer only to the large majority that support the claim. Anyway, if you can produce some evidence other than the “Eminent Scientist spin”, that the planet is warming and won’t cool of its own accord, as it has done so many times in the past, I’m prepared to consider it. This thread would seem to be evidence to the contrary, but you are denying that also so here's a few links for you to ignore. While you are not reading any of them or dismissing them all as lies bear in mind please that the 3% of environmental scientists who agree with you mostly accept that global warming is happening but dispute our ability to affect it or our role in causing it. fusion.net www.theguardian.com www.icr.org www.skepticalscience.com environmental-issues.yoexpert.com	dugimodo (138)
1404630	2015-07-19 03:59:00	No idea of the context, or what they were adding it too, etc etc. Basically, you're making a ton of assumptions based on stolen emails. On the other hand, scientific studies are usually retracted if others cannot replicate the results, and you'll note that this hasn't happened ;) However, whether that study was legitimate or not is a small matter, because it does not change all the other studies, or the opinion of the vast majority of world experts. B.M, therse are experts in their field. You trust experts when you get in a car, when you use electricity, when you have a medical procedure. You trust scientists B.M, even if you choose not to admit it. So why stop trusting a particular set of scientists when they don't return the results you like? If a doctor said you needed a hip replacement, would you accuse him of lying, of fudging the figures, of standing to gain financially? Or would you trust him, because he's an expert in his field? You'd trust him, because you trust science. That's sensible. What isn't sensible is to stop trusting all environmental scientists when they return results you don't want to hear. A car or for that matter hip replacement surgery are both things that can be easily seen and understood. Climate change is more like religion in that you can pick which version of it you wish to believe and nobody can provide proof that you are right or wrong. Read Dugimodo above, his Post is a good summary of the current situation in my opinion. I am quite open to changing my mind should I be shown convincing evidence that I should. Unless I am completely misunderstanding your posts you have made up your mind and that is the end of the matter.	CliveM (6007)
1404631	2015-07-19 05:20:00	A car or for that matter hip replacement surgery are both things that can be easily seen and understood. Climate change is more like religion in that you can pick which version of it you wish to believe and nobody can provide proof that you are right or wrong. Read Dugimodo above, his Post is a good summary of the current situation in my opinion. I am quite open to changing my mind should I be shown convincing evidence that I should. Unless I am completely misunderstanding your posts you have made up your mind and that is the end of the matter. You are indeed, completely misunderstanding my post. I have absolutely not made up my mind, and I am always open to changing it. However, my view will be based on scientific evidence, and the consensus of the scientific community. Given the evidence is almost irrefutable (I say almost because no science is beyond reproach), and the vast majority of scientists agree, I see no reason to withhold holding an opinion about the matter. If the evidence and opinions of the scientific community change, so will my viewpoint/ Maybe a hip replacement is more tangible than climate change, however the point is still the same. Maybe you can see results, but you're entering the procedure trusting in the methods and knowledge of the scientists, engineers, and doctors who built the machines, designed the procedure, and are well trained enough to perform it. You can see the result immediately, sure, but you're still trusting in scientists. The principle is the same.	Nick G (16709)
1404632	2015-07-23 20:33:00	Some more interesting reading HERE (www.nzcpr.com) In 2009, Professor Ian Plimer, a geologist at the University of Adelaide, outlined some facts: “This century temperature has been decreasing, yet CO2 has been increasing. Over the last 150 years, temperature has increased (1860-1880, 1910-1940, 1976-1998) and decreased (1880-1910, 1940-1976, and 2002 to the present), yet CO2 has been increasing. If CO2 has been increasing, how can CO2-driven warming have driven cooling? Over historical times, there were the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval warmings, when temperature was a few degrees higher than at present. Sea level did not change. Over archaeological time, ice cores show that temperature peaks some 800 years before CO2 peaks, hence CO2 could not have driven temperature rise. “In geological time, there have been six major ice ages. During five of these six, the CO2 content of the atmosphere was higher than now, and for two of these six, the CO2 content has been up to 1,000 times higher than now. If high atmospheric CO2 drives warming, then how could there be an ice age during times of high CO2?” Dr Matt Ridley, a Member of the British House of Lords and former Science Editor for the Economist, believes it is now time to question the theory: “the length of the pause is now past the point where many scientists said it would disprove the hypothesis of rapid man-made warming. Dr Phil Jones, head of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, said in 2009: ‘Bottom line: the no upward trend has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried.’ It now has.”	B.M. (505)
1404633	2015-07-24 05:36:00	www.stuff.co.nz Here is our national bird, been around for 30,000,000 years, why so few today! something must have restricted the population growth, besides our Maori cousins. Same with David ATTENBOROUGH and dinosaurs for the past 500,000,000 years, there should be a lot of bones lying around the place. lurking.	Lurking (218)
1404634	2015-07-24 08:28:00	www.stuff.co.nz Here is our national bird, been around for 30,000,000 years, why so few today! something must have restricted the population growth, besides our Maori cousins. Same with David ATTENBOROUGH and dinosaurs for the past 500,000,000 years, there should be a lot of bones lying around the place. lurking. No surprises with either of those, introduced predators for the kiwi - rats, cats, weasels, stoats, dogs, you get the picture. As for dinosaur bones, fossils are the exception not the rule. All animal remains disappear quite quickly normally. It takes just the right conditions to preserve bones for millions of years. And I must admit B.M., after reading the two articles on that last link I'm starting to doubt the seriousness of the whole climate change issue although not that it's happening (at least in some degree) or that continuing on as we are is a good Idea. I never disagreed on the stupidity of the political side of it all.	dugimodo (138)
1404635	2015-07-24 12:20:00	No surprises with either of those, introduced predators for the kiwi - rats, cats, weasels, stoats, dogs, you get the picture. As for dinosaur bones, fossils are the exception not the rule. All animal remains disappear quite quickly normally. It takes just the right conditions to preserve bones for millions of years. Introduced maybe last 200 years by us whities and dogs by Maori 800 years back. Plenty of tundra about to preserve animal bones eg mamoths. A good example is our human race explosion over the last 200 years. lurking	Lurking (218)
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