Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Jump to new
Trembling Hand said:
I never take the excess reduction insurance when hiring a car because I know it will cost me 100 times more in the long run. Although I know at some time I will probably have a car prang. :D:p:

Insurance doesn't always add up. Mostly its a fear thing.
Click to expand...

Insurance when hiring a car probably not a good example because I assume it is mandatory. The question is do you have insurance on your house or insurance on yourself?
 
RamonR said:
I agree.
It doesn't matter in the slightest if Global warming is caused by man or not.
All that matters is if we can do something about it.

No one seems to be arguing that we can't do something about it merely that the costs of doing something about it are too prohibitive.
Click to expand...

Hang on! What you are proposing here is none other than man-made climate change. You want to change the natural cycles of climate?

Oh brother, we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.

Plus there are a number of other ways we damage the environment in an unsustainable way.

While the co2 gravy train continues, doable mitigation and moves to a more sustainable resource management is ignored.

In other words, focus on co2 means we keep moving towards less sustainability, not more. My consistent point is that we humans should forget about all the carbon BS (apart from energy security and preparing for a world with less oil) and focus on real stuff.

Unfortunately, nobody is going to get rich that way. The Gorists have done exceptionally well from the co2 MMCC ruse.
 
wayneL said:
Hang on! What you are proposing here is none other than man-made climate change. You want to change the natural cycles of climate?

Oh brother, we have gone from the sublime to the ridiculous.

In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.
Click to expand...

Apart from the fact that you seem to be simultaneously arguing that man changing the climate is ridiculous yet agree that man is changing the climate, we seem to agree.
I don't advocate any one mitigation action. Merely that we should be doing something.
 
wayneL said:
In any case you are missing my argument. The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed. However humans are responsible for climate change in other ways, such as land use changes.
Click to expand...
If you change the characteristics of a fluid, such as by adding salt to water, you change the capacity of that fluid to absorb energy.
Our atmosphere is a complex fluid that, through the addition of various greenhouse gases, has steadily absorbed more energy and expressed this globally through mean temperature rises. There are no credible scientists that disagree with the concept of forcings.
Land use changes have both macro and micro climate impacts, with the overall balance falling the way of reducing nature's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, notably through massive destruction of forests.
There are various camps of scientists that actively market climate pseudo science in a supposedly credible guise. What they remain unable to demonstrate is that the earth is is cooling in sustainable terms.
Mr L's argument reminds me of Tony Blair justifying his nation's war footing with the US against Iraq. Not because there was legitimate reason (through any legal definition one chooses) to go to war, but because Saddam was not a nice man.
 
RamonR said:
Apart from the fact that you seem to be simultaneously arguing that man changing the climate is ridiculous yet agree that man is changing the climate, we seem to agree.
I don't advocate any one mitigation action. Merely that we should be doing something.
Click to expand...

No.

The Goreists are running with the hypothesis that we will be crowded on mountain tops surrounded by boiling oceans because of co2. (That's hyberbole BTW)

The science indicates no such thing, it's bunkum. However, climate change is a fact of life and humans can influence climate on a regional scale. Chop down a few forests and voila, there will be different dynamics acting on the local climate.

As Pielke Snr says - There can be climate change without warming or cooling.

What is clear is that the IPCC model(s) is(are) bunkum.
 
sneak'n said:
If you change the characteristics of a fluid, such as by adding salt to water, you change the capacity of that fluid to absorb energy.
Our atmosphere is a complex fluid that, through the addition of various greenhouse gases, has steadily absorbed more energy and expressed this globally through mean temperature rises. There are no credible scientists that disagree with the concept of forcings.
Land use changes have both macro and micro climate impacts, with the overall balance falling the way of reducing nature's capacity to absorb greenhouse gases, notably through massive destruction of forests.
There are various camps of scientists that actively market climate pseudo science in a supposedly credible guise. What they remain unable to demonstrate is that the earth is is cooling in sustainable terms.
Mr L's argument reminds me of Tony Blair justifying his nation's war footing with the US against Iraq. Not because there was legitimate reason (through any legal definition one chooses) to go to war, but because Saddam was not a nice man.
Click to expand...

Oh please.

Why do the warmists always resort to inappropriate analogy, non-sequitur and a whole host of such logical fallacies?

Another zealot refusing to behold science in entirety and content in his little world of confirmation bias.

pffft
 
satanoperca said:
Isn't the question, has man contributed to global warming or is it just another natural cycle of the planet?

And if global warming is happening, how much has man contributed to it?

If it is a small percentage, do we really believe that man can change a natural cycle?

If man has significantly contributed to global warming through emissions shouldn't we also be address the issue of increasing world populations?

KRUDD and the govnuts have totally lost me on this issue when they talk about doubling of the population in 25 years. This simply means that what each individual produces in emissions today will need to halved within 25 years to maintain the current level of Oz emissions.

While it would seem many scientists have evidence that global warming is occurring there are just as many that support the earth is cooling.

Cheers
Click to expand...
Good post. The only factor you have omitted is that there is no proof that any change in climate is anthropogenic in nature.

The following extract is from today's "Weekend Australian""
The British university at the centre of the climate change row over stolen emails broke the law by refusing to hand over its raw data for public scrutiny.
The University of East Anglia breached the Freedom of Information Act by refusing to comply with requests for data concerning claims by its scientists that man made emissions were causing global warming.
Britain's Information Commissioner's Office decided that UEA failed in its duties under the Act but said it could not prosecute those involved because the complaint was made too late.

The ICO is now seeking to change the law to allow prosecutions if a complaint is made more than six months after a breach.
Click to expand...

And there is much more about the deceptive practices of the UEA scientists.



RamonR said:
If it is a tired old argument then surely the answers to my question our already out there any you could easily quote them instead of calling it a tired old argument.

I assume from your answer you don't carry any insurance as you are arguing against insuring against risks.

I am not arguing for insuring against risks without any evidence. I am merely pointing out that the people saying do nothing are saying we need proof before taking any action. Whilst not holding the same standards when the risk involve only themselves.

I would say that there is overwhelming evidence that Mars in not going to invade the world.
Click to expand...

To use your own argument, you will therefore need to produce this 'overwhelming evidence' that Mars is not going to invade the world.

You cannot know this, or demonstrate it, any more than any scientist has been able to demonstrate conclusively that any climate change is induced by human behaviour.

And your suggestion that we 'do something' just in case is specious in the extreme. Do what? With what guaranteed outcome? If you can explain this, then we might start considering your argument.
 
The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed.
Click to expand...

You guys keep saying that, but you're not linking to anything, or explaining anything. Why do you think this is so? It is not true, but I can't really begin to explain why it is not true if you won't say why you think it is.

"Is so!"

"Is not!"

"Is so!"

"Is not!"

....is the the level of discussion that works for you?

Oh! It might just be natural climate change! Of COURSE! If only all those sceintists who have spent decades studyig this had thought of that! We'd better send them an email. They'll all slap their heads and breath a sigh of relief. What a bunch of idiots, not even considering something that any school kid with a dinosaur obsession could have told them.

Let's see.
CO2 known to be a greenhouse gas for over 100 years.
Human activity produces a massive amount of CO2.
CO2 increasing in atmoshpere.
Temperature is going up.
CO2 levels are preceding temeprature rise, instead of lagging it by a couple of hundred years as it has every time in the past.

As I said: the vast majority of the people who actually study this stuff, who are qualified to give an expert opinion, say AGW is happening. For you forum readers at home to say they're wrong, you must have something SPECTACULAR.

So what is it?
 
Julia said:
.





To use your own argument, you will therefore need to produce this 'overwhelming evidence' that Mars is not going to invade the world.

You cannot know this, or demonstrate it, any more than any scientist has been able to demonstrate conclusively that any climate change is induced by human behaviour.

And your suggestion that we 'do something' just in case is specious in the extreme. Do what? With what guaranteed outcome? If you can explain this, then we might start considering your argument.
Click to expand...

I take the fact that no life has been shown to exist on Mars as overwhelming evidence that Mars is not going to invade.
Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

Do What? I am not sure what the best mitigation factors are. I am just sure that I am unwilling to take the risks and want action taken.
Very few things in life come with a guaranteed outcome.
There was no guarantee that not pumping out ozone depleting gases would have repaired the hole in the ozone layer we humans created. But at costs we did it anyway and we are no longer so vulnerable to solar radiation.

If we could stop the arguments about the need to do something, we could begin the one we need about what we need to do. But that is exactly what the climate change skeptics want, to never have this argument because they will be long dead before most of the adverse effects become obvious.

The ozone hole is one way in which human activity has changed natural cycles.
 
wayneL said:
The CO2 causes climate change hypothesis has been thoroughly trashed.
Click to expand...

According to who?

I find it odd that many here, who, if they were offering advice on this forum, would place DYOR right at the top of the list, are happy to accept sensationalist journalism as prima facie evidence that a whole branch of science is either wrong, or a global conspiracy. wayneL, do you have any *evidence* that the above hypothesis has been trashed - by actual climate scientists, not some journos or people publishing from think-tanks?

Regarding the East Anglia fiasco: they didn't release the data because much of it was not theirs and they were not legally permitted to release it under the terms of the data sharing agreements. Nothing sinister there.

As for the "trick" that everyone assumed meant a 'sleight-of-hand designed to produce a particular result', what it actually refers to is a computational shortcut, a way of simplifying the maths involved without compromising the result, and the "trick" was fully documented and explained in the actual paper which was published.

Sure, there are mistakes in the IPCC reports (hardly surprising given the amount of data examined), notably the inclusion of the Himalaya claim without confirming its source, but out of the claims that have been made so far, there's nothing that invalidates the underlying argument.

As is usual, don't believe all the **** you read in the newspapers. DYOR.
 
Sid,

My problem with Global Warming is dyor as well.

I can see no evidence of Global Warming.

I find it difficult to believe that anyone can predict the weather 1 year ahead, let alone 50 years.

I find that most of the advocates are left wing and in the last 100 years of argument on economics and social capital they have been proven wrong.

I am appalled by the sloppy science applied by the advocates.

I dislike the demonisation of anyone who opposes their view, which has all the thin veneer of religious belief and propagation.

I mistrust their computer modelling.

I do believe the University of East Anglia have behaved criminally in this matter and only escaped prosecution due to a loophole in the law.

And lastly it has been pissing rain in Townsville for the past 10 days, as it often does in January, high winds and Olga is heading towards you southerners. So look out the window and not at some computer model or the opinions of some ****forbrains like Al Gore for proof of anything about the weather forecast.

gg

gg
 
wayneL said:
Oh please.

Why do the warmists always resort to inappropriate analogy, non-sequitur and a whole host of such logical fallacies?

Another zealot refusing to behold science in entirety and content in his little world of confirmation bias.

pffft
Click to expand...

I took a little time to read from several related threads elsewhere on this forum and noticed you are not one that is particularly good at debating.
What I found most interesting is your quick replies that actually play the man, yet that is your very contention against the original poster.
It is a tactic that does not wash with me.
To begin, I am not a warmist, nor a zealot.
So if you are interested in the actual science I welcome something more meaningful.
 
I find it difficult to believe that anyone can predict the weather 1 year ahead, let alone 50 years.
Click to expand...

Sir, I can tell you that January 2015 in southern Australia will be hotter that July 2015. I am willing to take a bet. Predicting day-to-day weather is not the point. This is climate.

Based on the science of climate change they predicted that the world would warm. It has warmed . That's a pretty bloody spectacular evidence of the effectiveness of the science, isn't it?

And lastly it has been pissing rain in Townsville for the past 10 days, as it often does in January, high winds and Olga is heading towards you southerners. So look out the window and not at some computer model or the opinions of some ****forbrains like Al Gore for proof of anything about the weather forecast.
Click to expand...

Global climate is GLOBAL. See? It's right there in the name. It doesn't matter what's happening out your window, unless it's one hell of a big window.

And the reason they tried to shift the terminology over to "climate change" rather than "global warming" is to address just that kind of misinterpretation. Some places will get colder. Some places will get wetter. Extreme weather of all kinds (including cold events) will increase in frequency and intensity. This has been part of predictions for decades now.

Your "looking out the window" advice just shows your ignorance of the very science you dismiss. You mistrust the climate modelling even though you clearly have no idea what it is modelling.

I do believe the University of East Anglia have behaved criminally in this matter and only escaped prosecution due to a loophole in the law.
Click to expand...

And you're right. Totally agree.

...but, since I'm not sure exactly what flavour of misinterpretation you're following to think this had any bearing on the science of climate change, would you be willing to explain why you think it did?

They were guilty of fending off FOI requests. They get a ton of FOI requests from idiots who don't understand the science. They don't like it, because they've got better things to do with their time than answer FOI requests from people well known to be serial pests. Most are answered anyway, but you can see how they'd get cranky after a while.

eg from the leaked emails:

From: Caspar Ammann <ammann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>
To: t.osborn@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
Subject: Re: request for your emails
Date: Tue, 27 May 2008 17:36:26 -0600
Cc: "keith Briffa" <k.briffa@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>, p.jones@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Oh MAN! will this crap ever end??

Well, I will have to properly answer in a couple days when I get a chance digging through
emails. I don't recall from the top of my head any specifics about IPCC.
I'm also sorry that you guys have to go through this BS. You all did an outstanding job and
the IPCC report certainly reflects that science and literature in an accurate and balanced
way.
So long,
Caspar
Click to expand...

So eventually someone said: screw this guy - just delete his emails. Which is gross misconduct, and yeah, illegal. But hardly earth-shattering evidence of a conspiricy, and has NO BEARING on the science.

And I'll just note the seriousness of this blokes request for information by pointing out that he didn't issue a complaint when his emails were just being deleted and ignored. Not a peep until more than a year later when the emails were leaked that showed they were ignoring him.

Suggests something about how much he was actually interested in the data, doesn't it?
 
sneak'n said:
I took a little time to read from several related threads elsewhere on this forum and noticed you are not one that is particularly good at debating.
What I found most interesting is your quick replies that actually play the man, yet that is your very contention against the original poster.
It is a tactic that does not wash with me.
Click to expand...
Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique.

BTW I must point out, in general and specific terms, the absolutely monumental hypocrisy in your contention. Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic... hmmmmm. :rolleyes:

Indeed I sometimes play the man. This is necessary when "the ball" is so far out of play that it becomes irrelevant. After cheating and making up the rules as they go along for so long, the co2 warmists are still losing the game. Truth outs in the end.

I played the man in this instance because your points were... ridiculous. Simplistic and not reflective of the big picture, not one iota. The ball was nowhere to be seen, out of bounds somewhere in the press galley.

Again BTW. I have no contention against the original poster. GG and I are in broad agreement on this issue. A serious mistake in comprehension on your part.

To begin, I am not a warmist, nor a zealot.
So if you are interested in the actual science I welcome something more meaningful.
Click to expand...

By you actions ye shall be judged.

If you would be so kind to run right over the the sidelines, find "the ball" (wherever it is) and bring it back into play, I'd be happy to play ball.

Your choice.
 
Yet you are happy to use the tactic by criticizing my debating prowess and technique ... Ad hominem is the prime tactic of the warmists against skeptics and you have immediately reverted to type, despite dissing the tactic
Click to expand...

Saying you're bad at debating is not ad hominem unless he's drawing unfounded conclusions from it. It's irrelevant, but not ad hom.

...but since you've consistently failed to give any reasoning at all for your assertions, I'm not sure how any argument can be framed against you at all. If you say a field of science is bunk, but give no reason for thinking so, we can only point to the entire body of that science and say: behold.

Not very productive, which might be why he's dissing your debating skills.
 
SmellyTerror said:
Saying you're bad at debating is not ad hominem unless he's drawing unfounded conclusions from it. It's irrelevant, but not ad hom.

...but since you've consistently failed to give any reasoning at all for your assertions, I'm not sure how any argument can be framed against you at all. If you say a field of science is bunk, but give no reason for thinking so, we can only point to the entire body of that science and say: behold.

Not very productive, which might be why he's dissing your debating skills.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

I've posted so much on this board. But what you guys have to do is click on the links and actually read it. Ignoring it all and then saying I haven't justified my assertions is just a tad disingenuous, don't you think?

As I said to the other guy, bring the ball back into play, and we'll play ball. Right now you're still playing the man as well.

I'm ready for any game you want to play.
 
Well this is a new thread, so I figured people should at least mention what they think is wrong with climate science. I could go digging through other threads to post what I think you think, or you could just say it.

anyway, re: ad hominem

This is a logical fallacy. It means that you apply perceived characteristics of the person to their argument.

Ad hominem: you are an idiot, therefore your argument is wrong.

NOT ad hominem (however rude): your argument is wrong, therefore you are an idiot.

The first is a logical fallacy, since properties of the speaker have no bearing on the correctness of the argument. An idiot can be right. The second is not fallacious, depending on your definition of "idiot" and assuming you've come to the conclusion of "wrong" in a sound manner.

So saying "you have failed to present any real argument, therefore you are bad at debating" might be overgeneralising, but it is not ad hom. If he'd said "you are bad at debating therefore you are wrong", that WOULD have been.

...and if you're accusing me of ad hom now, I can't even tell how. I've pointed out that you've presented nothing to support your arguments in this thread. This is a statement of fact (unless you'd care to refute it?). A statement of fact can't be a logical fallacy, can it?

Now you want me to go research your arguments and bring them to this discussion? Would it be easier for you to tell us what you think than for me to tell you what I think you think?
 
Well there are some strange twists of logic there. :sleeping: whatever.

But if you're not playing the ball, you're playing the man. Isn't that logical?

My position is well known here and it is actually off topic. More than willing to discuss in other threads where my position is on record.

The topic is:

Garpal Gumnut said:
It would appear that the global warming debate has been a combination of ignorance, misguided science, greedy opportunists and gullibility in equal measure, by those who argue in its favour.

It is becoming increasingly apparent that it is a load of codswallop.

Those who have profited from it; in a monetary, political or the gaining of career advantage, need to be prosecuted when it is finally debunked.

Billions of dollars, megalitres of petrol and avgas, and huge tracts of trees for documents have been wasted in its propagation.

The gullible I would leave be, they will find some other orthodoxy to follow no doubt once this silliness is over. Fools are fools.
Click to expand...

My opinion is yes they should be prosecuted. They have perpetuated a massive fraud and enriched themselves at the expense of a trusting public.

Now if you guys would like to talk science, I'll see you on another thread.
 
you have to be very carefull in prosecuting someone for being wrong in a democracy. However if you can prove that they used the misinformation on purpose for personal gain that is probably fraud particularly if they knew it was wrong info
 
Top