Forum Home
PC World Chat
Thread ID: 139767	2015-06-24 19:51:00	Global Warming - Carbon Tax	B.M. (505)	PC World Chat

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1403617	2015-06-25 21:53:00	Then prove it. Let's see that logical, rational, reasoned position I asked for, backup up by valid scientific evidence. Or in less polite terms: Put up, or **** off. :lol: That’s easy. That eminent climate scientist Michael Mann did it for me when he fudged the figures because they didn’t give him the answer he wanted. HERE (www.globalclimatescam.com) and better still HERE (www.youtube.com) :lol:	B.M. (505)
1403618	2015-06-25 22:33:00	Its the warmoligist scaremongers who get all the research grants & all the media publicity. So naturally thats all we hear. Claims that there is not 1 scientist who doesnt believe the climate change hype, thats so obviously false I dont know why so many still keep spitting it out. There is PLENTY of research & evidence debunking/negating it , easily available for those not too closed minded, lazy & easily duped by media BS Also plenty of evidence 'proving' it, however its well known that to keep your research grants you have to provide the required positive proof. Hardly unbiased then is it , and tampering of results is a pretty damning proof that perhaps the 'proof' is not really there. Adjusting the evidence has also happened in NZ, historical temps were adjusted upward. as for no evidence negating human caused climate change could start here, earths wobble causing climate change www.scoop.co.nz want more, look up discussions on variation in the suns output (as received by Earth) . Its not constant , as seen by the mini Ice ages in the past 2000 years www.eh-resources.org	1101 (13337)
1403619	2015-06-25 22:49:00	Then prove it. Let's see that logical, rational, reasoned position I asked for, backup up by valid scientific evidence. Or in less polite terms: Put up, or **** off. Unfortunately that was the problem in the beginning anyone could say there is a problem the planet is doomed..!!! no scientific evidence required. But to dispute the facts you needed to be a scientist. I think the way so called facts were "adjusted" to someones benefit unfortunately left the whole issue in doubt and everyone is now overly skeptical Just want to encourage this great debate ;) .	Gobe1 (6290)
1403620	2015-06-25 23:03:00	:lol: That’s easy. That eminent climate scientist Michael Mann did it for me when he fudged the figures because they didn’t give him the answer he wanted. HERE (www.globalclimatescam.com) and better still HERE (www.youtube.com) :lol: Is this your idea of a rational argument?	Jayess64 (8703)
1403621	2015-06-26 00:07:00	Is this your idea of a rational argument? Absolutely, what's yours? :D	B.M. (505)
1403622	2015-06-26 00:15:00	Unfortunately that was the problem in the beginning anyone could say there is a problem the planet is doomed..!!! no scientific evidence required. But to dispute the facts you needed to be a scientist. I think the way so called facts were "adjusted" to someones benefit unfortunately left the whole issue in doubt and everyone is now overly skeptical Just want to encourage this great debate ;) . Yea, that's definitely a challenge. Ideally, anyone can contribute to the debate, but using scientific data. Pushing a political agenda, whether it be for or against, is really unhelpful. Global warming + climate change is separate to politics. A main issue is when people don't like a policy, or do like a policy, and use their dislike of or favour for a policy as the reason behind their stance on climate change. Just my :2cents:	Nick G (16709)
1403623	2015-06-26 00:27:00	:lol: That’s easy. That eminent climate scientist Michael Mann did it for me when he fudged the figures because they didn’t give him the answer he wanted. HERE (www.globalclimatescam.com) and better still HERE (www.youtube.com) :lol: Wrong again B.M. Firstly, in any scientific area, there are studies that conclude one thing, and studies that conclude the exact opposite. Following 'B.M. logic', as soon as one study says one thing, it rules all others that say the other invalid and wrong. Have a look through here - http://climate.nasa.gov It's far less biased than anything you've linked to (seriously, anything that's called 'globalclimatescam' isn't exactly a reputable source of information). You'll find it contains useful and factually true information (referenced of course, and not just to a single study). Hopefully, if you don't click on the tab 'solutions', you'll be able to read some facts and get an idea of what actual scientific analysis looks like, without getting too defensive in case it suggests some action you don't like.	Nick G (16709)
1403624	2015-06-26 00:41:00	B.M. appears unable to assemble a cogent argument. Pathetic. :(	KarameaDave (15222)
1403625	2015-06-26 00:46:00	Its the warmoligist scaremongers who get all the research grants & all the media publicity. So naturally thats all we hear. Claims that there is not 1 scientist who doesnt believe the climate change hype, thats so obviously false I dont know why so many still keep spitting it out. There is PLENTY of research & evidence debunking/negating it , easily available for those not too closed minded, lazy & easily duped by media BS Also plenty of evidence 'proving' it, however its well known that to keep your research grants you have to provide the required positive proof. Hardly unbiased then is it , and tampering of results is a pretty damning proof that perhaps the 'proof' is not really there. Adjusting the evidence has also happened in NZ, historical temps were adjusted upward. as for no evidence negating human caused climate change could start here, earths wobble causing climate change www.scoop.co.nz want more, look up discussions on variation in the suns output (as received by Earth) . Its not constant , as seen by the mini Ice ages in the past 2000 years www.eh-resources.org Nicely sumed up.	CliveM (6007)
1403626	2015-06-26 01:14:00	Its the warmoligist scaremongers who get all the research grants & all the media publicity. So naturally thats all we hear. Wrong. The scientists get the funding. If the majority of them happen to agree that humans are, at least in part, responsible for global warming + climate change, then tough luck mate, you're wrong. Also, some people claiming not one scientist is currently unconvinced does not make what most scientists believe false. Just like one scientist misusing figures and tampering with results does not make the conclusion of most scientists false. I'll pass on 'evidence' provided by sites such as 'globalclimatescam', quite probably run by someone with no scientific background, and quite obviously possessing a political agenda thanks ;)	Nick G (16709)
1 2 3 4