This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Prosecute Climate Change Advocates

Jump to new
wayneL said:
[You have displayed your cognitive biases mightily, so I have concluded discussion (with you) is futile. It's not a personal attack, just answering your question.
Click to expand...
No capacity to discuss the science is symptomatic of the majority of your posts.
As I quickly noted, you readily dismiss a view that does not agree with yours, and without foundation find a justification for not indulging in further discussion.
I put it to you that the principles of forcings a pivotal to the science that abounds climate change discussion.
Your response is to conclude discussion.
It is little wonder that a large number of lay people so readily accept the pseudo science of an increasing number of non-climate scientists acting at the behest of conservative politics and the carbon energy sector.
 
"The threat of environmental crisis will be the 'international disaster key' that will unlock the New World Order." [Mikhail Gorbachev, quoted in "A Special Report: The Wildlands Project Unleashes Its War On Mankind", by Marilyn Brannan, Associate Editor, Monetary & Economic Review, 1996, p. 5.]
 
If we (Australia) account for 2% of global warming and we reduce our contribution by 50% and nothing else changes (as China, India and few other countries have dispensation, as they are developing countries) total pollution will drop from 100% to 99% of current level.


Hardly worth us committing billions of dollars plus damaging our industry.


The most stupid thing is Australia stepping in front of the orchestra !

Of course even if global warming is real.
 
:sleeping: More ad hominem... plus the good old oil lobby/conservative conspiracy theory.

Sneaky, your argument technique is disingenuous. You accuse me of being unable to discuss science, yet you offer none yourself apart from broad assertions drawn from IPCC propaganda and Gore movies. Then make outrageous misrepresentations of my views... nay, downright lies.

If it wasn't so boring it would be laughable.

I'm quite prepared for any discussion, if you'd care to raise your game to one of integrity and credibility. Thus far, you have shown the precise opposite.

The ball is your court. Show us why IPCC members who have misled the public and policy makers and enriched themselves at our expense should not be prosecuted.
 
"Global Warming" and/or "Climate Change" is code for a deontological ethical premise that all must pay regardless of their financial means to adapt to the environment. These words are pushed by the media in order to make a collective responsibility argument that all must pay for the environment.
I have already explained the Fallacy of Decomposition that this kind of linguistic manipulation creates. And I'm not buying it, no matter how it's dressed up to sound! There is no collective we in this, there is I the individual am responsible for what I do!

The words "Industrial Pollution" or "Environmental Pollution" have been erased from the record and are nowhere to been seen in this debate. Because this would involve taxing production at the source of the problem and that would affect profits and slow down industry. But if they use vague terms like Climate Change and Global Warming then everyone is compelled to pay extra taxes which is what the big polluters and derivative desk players like Turntable and his buddies want.

I'm totally down with what WayneL has to say about irresponsible land use and also what Smurf has already stated about the smokescreen of shifting the tax source of carbon emissions in order for it to become an instrument of profit.

This whole issue is bollocks because it has been hijacked by the marketing wordsmiths of big governments and business. It isn't going to help the enviroment.

END RANT! Ahh.. That feels better.
 
Climate Change is real - Agreed
Global Climate changes are the result of natural factors. Lets leave that one for a moment.
Climate change does have some human involvement as well, but mostly on regional scales. Regional climate & global climate is decoupled is it? One has no bearing on the other?
There has been global warming, but it is not clear whether this has been natural, man made, or a combination of both. You state above that global climate change is the result of natural factors. Which is it? Its not or it's unclear? If it's unclear, then the rest of your arguments below are only an opinion, as they can't be proven according to your own statement "unclear" actual reasons for warming. I suggest you stop making absolute statements as again by your own admission you cannot prove you are right.
The actual warming has been overstated by a number of invalid techniques. - The actual warming is well documented.
Co2 may have had some influence in the warming, but its effect minor and grossly overstated - .....
Sea level rise has been overstated and on a natural trend that has been relatively constant since the end of the little ice age - Natural? Caused by? Do tell.. Lay a little science on us all.
Ocean acidification is a furphy - Its a rumour? pre-industrial values of 280 parts per million (ppm) to 383ppm today, This is verifiable, therefore not a rumour.
Land use changes have a significant effect regionally. - Not disputed. However, unless you are stating you think regional climate & global climate are decoupled, this statement has zero relevance to a discussion on global climate change. If you are stating they are not, then global climate change is clearly affected by man. Influenced regardless of Co2. Please see above in regard to your "natural causes" statement Which is it?
Non co2 air pollution has significant effect regionally. -
See above, your use of language is quite good, but neither it nor your logic is that good rhat you can just throw in completely irrelevant sentences as filler to obfuscate the discussion without it being noticed.
There are hundreds of environmental concerns not relating to climate which are more threatening to humanity. - More threatening to humanity than changing the whole globes climate? I would point out that this problem is bigger than humanity. Humanity is not the only thing on this planet. Nor are we the most important to the majority of species as a requirement to continued life. Remove us the planet would get along just fine. You cannot decouple the rest of the ecosystem from this problem.
These concerns are ignored while the co2 AGW fraud is perpetuated and dominates discussion and policy - This is a total nonsense. Local issues are still on everyone's agenda. The war In Afghanistan is still going. Hospitals still need money, water for the Murray is till in everyone who cares minds.
None of these things has gone away or are they being ignored.
We should reduce carbon fuel use, but for reasons of particle pollution and energy security, but should guard against jumping from the frying pan and into the fire. Doh! as Co2 in these quantities IS & has been defined as particle pollution. You yourself are saying that this should be reduced... this is good, a step forward at last. The last part of your sentence is empty semantics.

 Still unable to post links to hard science to back up your argument I see.
 
Vizion, last year we was traveling around the USA, we came across this town that had Indian towns built in to the Cliff face, this kept them warm in Winter, and made it hard to be attacked from any enemies, now I asked the guide we had why the Indians moved out, he said that around BC they had a for over one thousand years a drought, and they all moved south. Now the Indians was not driving V8s, had no coal fired powered stations, this whole global warming is a money making exercise for the governments.
 
I'd have thought the global warming thing would have been pretty reasonably shot down by the fact that


IT IS GETTING COLDER, NOT WARMER


even without the evidence of fraud by scientists being paid to perpetuate the fraud. But then I guess I'm not a scientist.
 


Yes even the scientists agree that some places are getting colder, which is why the whole world now calls it "climate change", not "global warming". This does not mean we are not responsible or that nothing needs to be done either. Don't get frustrated Vizion most of the people on this forum are either completley brainwashed by the crap that people like lord monckton (and others) dribble, or they have some other reason they want to believe that climate change is a big conspiracy.
 
RamonR said:
I assume you are talking about temperature in Northern Europe.

read the following link if you are interested in educating yourself on this issue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shutdown_of_thermohaline_circulation
Click to expand...



Thank you for the opportunity to educate (via the "anyone can edit" and therefore certainly propoganda-free wikipedia, right?) I will go to your link, to blast from my mind any notion that a large firey ball of gas, from which we get all our heat, also known as THE SUN, may just have something to do with our fluctations in temperature

Oh, and that sunspot activity coincides with recent rises/falls in temperature

If I do, can I stick my hand out for some grant money and a cushy UN job?
 
Atlas79 said:


Thank you for the opportunity to educate (via the "anyone can edit" and therefore certainly propoganda-free wikipedia, right?)
Click to expand...

Here's one from the Geological Society of America 1999 that has nothing to do the that crazy, world wide leftist, conspiracy, one world Govt site wiki (yep that's right 1999, this discussion is nothing new for some of us)

What If the Conveyor Were to Shut Down? Reflections on a Possible Outcome of the Great Global Experiment.

http://faculty.washington.edu/wcalvin/teaching/Broecker99.html

Yep the ice caps are melting because its getting warmer. the thing is that i guarantee that if the northern conveyor shuts down, or is disrupted or shifts south, the deniers will just say its a natural phenomenon and Europe freezing is just a natural event....after all Europe has frozen in lots of ice ages.
 

Of course that big ball of gas has something to do with it.
As you say it is the source of all ( not quite but most ) of our heat.

I see that straying from investment discussions has been contour productive.
No one is going to change their minds , so not much point in discussing this issue.
 
Getting involved in this thread was like inviting JW's into the living room, pouring drinks for them and then trying to convert them to atheism.

Very well - I will leave you to your articles of faith. Enjoy
 
P.s., does the fact that global warming scientists were, um, conspiring to fudge their results not make it an, um, conspiracy?

So call it a conspiracy theory. You're quite right, except for the theory part, it's now established fact.

Over and out.
 
RamonR said:
I see that straying from investment discussions has been contour productive.
No one is going to change their minds , so not much point in discussing this issue.
Click to expand...

If you enter a debate with your mind already made up, shouldn't you expect the same of others? Why is your mind made up anyway, are you an expert? Do you know for certain? Few of us, if any, have any idea of what is going on - of that much I'm certain. This would be funny if it wasn't going to cost us one way or another (okay, it's still kind of funny : ).
 
Al gore needs to be put in the dock and prosecuted for causing untold misery to the world.

His scam about the Weather has now been shown to be unproven.

A heavy sentence should be imposed by an International Tribunal to deter similar entrepreneurs from leeching public funds for their own benefit in the future.

gg
 
wayneL said:
:sleeping: More ad hominem... plus the good old oil lobby/conservative conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...
I made observations about your posting style, and they are now well reflected in each one in reply to me.
I have not raised anything that suggests a conspiracy theory. There are, however, well established links between conservative politics and the carbon energy sector and those that actively deny global warming. Lord Monckton's alliances would bear this out.


I have raised the issue of forcings, which lie at the foundations of global warming theory. In simple terms this scientific principle suggests that adding greenhouse gases to the earths' atmosphere must make it warmer. It is your choice not to discuss it.
I have not mentioned Gore or the IPCC in any posts to date, so please take care not to misrepresent my views.

If it wasn't so boring it would be laughable.
Click to expand...
Not sure what value this adds to your post.

I'm quite prepared for any discussion, if you'd care to raise your game to one of integrity and credibility. Thus far, you have shown the precise opposite.
Click to expand...
Please see my point above on forcings.

The ball is your court. Show us why IPCC members who have misled the public and policy makers and enriched themselves at our expense should not be prosecuted.
Click to expand...
That is not what I have raised in my posts. However, the overall theme of the IPCC's case is that there is man made global warming, and they have presented a wide range of evidence in support. It may not measure up in every instance, which is always regrettable. That may not diminish their principal findings, and it would be premature to suggest at this point in time that anyone has been misled.
 
Pot, Kettle and Black come to mind. Ref Gore, Pachauri et al. The vested interests involved in the warmist camp are probably greater than any VIs in the Realist's camp

Gore and the IPCC are intrinsic to co2 based global warming belief. You have not presented any science whatsoever, only regurgitated assertions that are in dispute and sufficiently doubtful to look to other factors as the major forcings in climate.

I have repeated a number of times now, if you present some actual science, I'm quite prepared to discuss it to the extent of my understanding.

You talk science, yet present opinions. There is nothing wrong with that if you admit to it. My opinions are just that, based on my readings of both sides of the issue - my opinion.

BTW - Global Warming Theory does not qualify as theory. It is merely a hypothesis. It is certainly not fact, nor the science settled.


They have cherry-picked evidence, this is irrefutable. In fact I posted evidence in another post that showed that the conclusions were decided before the results were in. In other words, only research that agreed with the hypothesis would be accepted.

This is not science.

I has also been shown elsewhere that the funding process makes for skewed results. Basically, only research that supports the hypothesis will win funding.

This is a prostitution of scientific process and intellectually fraudulent, not to mention politically motivated...

...not to mention criminally fraudulent in a number of cases.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...