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
Mr Gumnut
Why not quote the science?
Almost 250 years to orbit the sun.
Gets closer to the sun than Neptune.
Seasons that last over 100 years.
Its climate destined by its very place in the universe.
Not a man on the horizon.

Climate, of course, is not of itself man made.
But can we discount man's influence completely?
Remain skeptical, very skeptical.
 
SmellyTerror said:
IThere's no arguing with you lot, is there?

I've posted a link that shows what a fraud and liar Monckton is - does anyone make the slightest effort to respond, to refute? Nope. Just wave his name around and you'll be right.
Click to expand...

Sorry Smelly between all the emotion and name calling I cannot seem to find that link on fraud and liar Monckton.
 
wayneL said:
I'd really like to know if cognitive biases such as those above and attitude polarization is just all round embarrassing e or just selectively embarrassing. I'd also like to know if hypocrisy exposed is embarrassing.

Embarrassingly yours....
Click to expand...
Is it embarrassing to make statements one is unwilling to defend, or to suggest one understands something, but it's really too much trouble to explain?
Is it a cognitive bias to make a statement that is abundantly defensible?
Is attitude polarisation an excuse for people who are unable to comprehend an alternative?
Who are the hypocrites?
 

100% agree with that comment. That pretty much sums it up.

I read a few books on the "greenhouse effect" about 8 years ago, they had the evidence back then to disprove it. Never been on this bandwagon and have copped alot for it.

But i agree with you wayne, we are not doing our planet any favours with the way we treat it.
 
Trembling Hand said:
Sorry Smelly between all the emotion and name calling I cannot seem to find that link on fraud and liar Monckton.
Click to expand...

...and now you're quoting Monckton as a reliable source??? Dear GOD, people!

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/glob...ming/monckton/
Click to expand...

Form post #94, which is, I think, a good one. Links to explanations of the science, but also a discussion of why understanding the particulars of the science isn't really necessary to see that the conspiracy is dumb.
 

My own politics is some where left of the commie party hugging trees.

So clearly being a normal person I have no bias

But seriously I have plenty of respect for a great many on the right side of politics and their commentary even if I don't agree.

And yep plenty on the left that make me cringe. Not all can be perfect like us.

Unlike my opinion about youself of Andrew I am definitely not an admirer
 
SmellyTerror said:
Form post #94, which is, I think, a good one. Links to explanations of the science, but also a discussion of why understanding the particulars of the science isn't really necessary to see that the conspiracy is dumb.
Click to expand...

That links broken. But I have found plenty on http://scienceblogs.com about Monkckton. Will peruse it at my leisure lata as there seems to be a mountain of posts about him.
The circles this argument takes one on!!

Oh I wish we could go back to the good old days when the Church just told us all what to believe. :
 
Sorry, link works for me... oh! Sorry, copy-pasted the abbreviation instead of the full link. Here 'tis.

Scienceblogs is interesting: fun to read because they're opinionated cocks, but they link absolutely everything, so you can dig back to the documents they're talking about.

Angry scientists: biased, of course, but they compulsively log their bias to you can check.
 
SmellyTerror said:
You know he claimed to Congress that he was a member of the House of Lords, right?
Click to expand...
Any reference I've heard to him in this respect, including his own words, has clearly been that he is an hereditary peer, not that he sits in the House of Lords at all.

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND THE SCIENCE. You don't come close.
Click to expand...
Since you clearly do, would you be generous enough to post a link which will clearly explain to all of us who do not understand the science that climate change is caused by human behaviour and will therefore be ameliorated by the reversing of that human behaviour.
Thank you very much.



Refreshing to see some objective thinking.


SmellyTerror said:
Sorry, link works for me... oh! Sorry, copy-pasted the abbreviation instead of the full link. Here 'tis.
Click to expand...
Thank you for that link. I looked at it, plus some of the references.
Seems to me to be just another blog by someone with a sarcastic turn of phrase. Hardly the sort of authoritative message which I'd take any more seriously than the rhetoric of the right.
 

Wasn't directed at you, since I don't think you've claimed that you did understand the science. I also say that I'm NOT the person to explain it ("Not me - the scientists of planet earth.").

But yeah, see Sneak above. Half the point of the scientific method is that others can follow exactly how you come to your conclusions. It's all on the public record.

...and if it does get more complicated than the lay person is going to be able to understand, then I go back to my point: why not listen to the people who do understand? On what basis do you doubt them, if you don't understand?

Any reference I've heard to him in this respect, including his own words, has clearly been that he is an hereditary peer, not that he sits in the House of Lords at all.
Click to expand...

Here y'are. On the public record.

From that one: Finally, you may wonder why it is that a member of the Upper House of the United Kingdom legislature, wholly unconnected with and unpaid by the corporation that is the victim of your lamentable letter, should take the unusual step of calling upon you as members of the Upper House of the United States legislature either to withdraw what you have written or resign your sinecures.

Or how about this one where he claims to have a Nobel prize.

From that second link, Monckton in the third person: His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate.

These are open letters.

Seems to me to be just another blog by someone with a sarcastic turn of phrase. Hardly the sort of authoritative message which I'd take any more seriously than the rhetoric of the right.
Click to expand...

Might have missed the point: it's snarky, but there are links to every statement, so you can go back and see what they're commenting on. Such as both of the links I just provided.

---
PS: sorry for being an offensive ass, btw. I painted with too broad a brush, and it was posts like yours that made me bother to put up my last couple of points. It was other posters I was thinking of in my crankiness, not everyone on the skeptic side.

If I thought no-one at all was thinking critically then I wouldn't have bothered posting in the first place.

Sorry for implying otherwise.
 

Clearly, after all that has been said, sneak'n has issues with wayneL.

I don't know whether I should be embarrassed, or edified. Being humble, I'm going with the current them of embarrassment... just because I am subject the the cognitive bias of "social proof". It's the current theme .

But, for the record, the defence of my statements resides in the narrative of credible scepticism. There is no requirement for me to regurgitate what has been written elsewhere. One is either open to both sides of the debate or not. I think I have been open to both sides as my view has evolved over time, taking in points from wherever I feel they are valid.

Re cognitive bias - I am human, subject to cognitive bias, but so are you. Everybody is biased. Denial of such is the height of stupidity, no matter what the person's purported IQ. Therefore I can categorically state that yes I am a hypocrite. Equally, I can confidently accuse you of the identical shortcomings and be assured of being 100% correct.

But the current momentum of evidence has been a "king hit" to the Warm Monger's position. Warmist "science" is in deep doo-doo, irretrievable from the abyss of discredited junk science. Fancy language and argumentive fallacy cannot change this simple empirical truth. Warmist climate science is in a state of overriding failure. Only the faithful remain, just like the American style fundamental Christianity remains faithful to the absurdity of young earth creationism. An article of faith rather than scientific method.

On can never accuse me of attitude polarisation as I sit right in the middle of the two extreme positions. I argue with the the preposterous assertions of the warmist extremist hypothesis with regards to co2; equally I argue with the outright proposition that our earth can sustain current levels of consumption. I regard both positions as untenable.

I am not a proponent of "wenn alles gut geht", yet I am selected as a target for attack by the likes of zealots such as yourself. This is instructive for the dispassionate observer... as well as those on the receiving end of illogical invective.

It is interesting that zealots select the middle position for particular ad hominem attack, more so than unscientific denialists (of which there are very few). Like any church, they choose to defend the status quo and current power base from within, over the overriding search for truth.

The motivation is self evident, yet unstated.

Hypocrite? Yes, i am a member of that club - we all are. But there are degrees of of hypocrisy. The absurdly highest level resides with the warm mongers, because their solution is for others to bear, rather than themselves.

There is no better example of this than one Nobel Laureate who lives in Tennessee, whose award single handedly destroyed (well, with the help of the most recent travesty of awarding Obarmy the peace prize as well) the credibility of the whole award process, now hopelessly politicized.

Basically, any attacks from you and your ilk come from a very shaky premise and a position of gross hypocrisy, with agreemnet only from the "disciples of Gore". As such, I disregard your sleights as preposterous, ludicrous, ridiculous, unscientific, puerile, disingenuous (choose your own pejorative adjective) etc.

Ergo, I am totally at ease with my views and conduct. Apart from the pull of social proof (which I have battled off successfully for the most part), I have no compunction over my position on co2 based global warming.

However, you should.
 
There is a marked difference between "attacks" and repeated requests that you substantiate your case. This you refuse to do in this thread; and repeatedly.
I am concerned that you spend much effort on posts in reply that are quite off topic. Yet you say you understand the science. So be it.


Ergo, I am totally at ease with my views and conduct. Apart from the pull of social proof (which I have battled off successfully for the most part), I have no compunction over my position on co2 based global warming.

However, you should.
Click to expand...
I was not aware that there was need for "social proof" as you put it. And I am curious as to why I would need to regret any position I have have put in this thread.

Whatever contention you make, I am not a zealot, nor a warmist. You do not do yourself any favours suggesting that I am.

I do not know what, if any, position you hold in maintaining forum posting standards, but my recollection from reading them when I joined is that you have breached them in replies to me.

Is it possible to engage in discussion with you such that we just keep to the issues?
 
sneak'n said:
There is a bit to read, for those who want to see how the IPCC reaches its position:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf
Click to expand...
Thank you. I appreciate the response. The 106 pages look somewhat daunting but I'll read it.

SmellyTerror said:
...and if it does get more complicated than the lay person is going to be able to understand, then I go back to my point: why not listen to the people who do understand? On what basis do you doubt them, if you don't understand?
Click to expand...
I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.


Thank you. That's pretty clear. And pretty unacceptable.


I did hear this discussed on the radio a while ago. He claimed that "it was all just a joke".
Perhaps. But lined up with the above suggestion of being a sitting member of the British House of Lords, it's at the very least not a good look.


Might have missed the point: it's snarky, but there are links to every statement, so you can go back and see what they're commenting on. Such as both of the links I just provided.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I did indeed miss the point. The links I did follow (certainly not all of them) did appear to be more in the same tone as that of the bloggers.
My problem, I expect, but I do get put off when such a partisan attitude is so obvious.

No problem. It just seemed to me that the thread had developed into nothing more than a personal slanging match and it's hard to see how this benefits anyone.

If those of you who are completely sure of the warming science display a more accepting attitude toward those of us who - undoubtedly through our ignorance - remain to be persuaded one way or the other, then perhaps the level of ill feeling all round would be diminished.

My own resentment and concern arose from the government's urgency to introduce an ETS that they had failed to explain to the Australian people.
There was something quite unseemly about the haste to have this passed before Copenhagen. I found it difficult not to ascribe at least some of this to Mr Rudd's personal ambitions on the world stage.

Given Australia's very small contribution to global emissions (and I understand this includes such as bush fires) - alongside Mr Rudd's determination to have a much expanded population -it's difficult not to see some hypocrisy from Mr Rudd. I have found it difficult to see the value in Australia pursuing such a scheme in the absence of the rest of the world doing likewise. Particularly in view of the recognised risk of damage to our economy.

Now the government is essentially 'going through the motions' of putting the legislation up again, presumably purely to reinforce their double dissolution trigger.

And then, although I like the idea of planting trees and encouraging renewable energy etc, I have no idea whether Mr Abbott's scheme has real substance either, or whether he's being his usual populist self and presenting something which sounds simple enough to appeal to the average Australian who has been so put off by the complexity of the government's scheme.

So, if I'm tempted to just shrug my shoulders and consider that I just can't be bothered being interested while they ride out their primary aims to score points off one another, I expect much of the electorate will be feeling similarly.
 
Julia said:
I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.
Click to expand...
In science it is good to have robust debate, and the peer review process remains the foundation stone for this in relation to written works.
It is moot as to whether or not "consensus" is relevant in settling a position, particularly when all we have is a theory that needs many more decades of data before being determined one way or the other.
Despite what we might read about climate change, very little of it focuses on the science relating to our earth's net energy balance.
Instead, there is a media side show that is regularly fed something that seemingly suggests the science is wrong. More often than not it is a misquote, a crackpot, or just poor checking of the sources.
In the case of general circulation models, which do little more than test the theory and hypothesise future outcomes, there are literally thousands of details that can be criticised, over and above whether or not the model was a valid construct to begin with.
In a fashion those issues/complexities can be put aside as what becomes critical is if we believe or not that radiative forcings for increasing levels of greenhouse gas emissions will raise average temperatures into the future.
What, then, does one choose to accept or reject?
 
Julia said:
I think the difficulty some of us are having is that there seems to also be a clear group of scientists, presumably somewhat qualified to comment, who are disputing the widely accepted views.
Click to expand...

I think a mistake a lot of people make is assuming that *any* scientist is qualified to comment. I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no-one on the anti-GW side who's qualified to comment, but there are a LOT of scientists out there who know nothing about climate science and are not qualified to comment.

If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?
 
Sneak'n, SmellyTerror,

Actually the anomaly shows a decrease of about one million square kilometres or, about 6% less ice now than on average.
Click to expand...

In April 1980 the total sea ice was over 1 million sqkm less than the 30 year average from 1979-2008. Right now the total sea ice is about 1 million sqkm less than the average from 1979-2008, so yes I would say it is exactly the same.

But seeing as you guys want to look in more detail, lets compare April 1980 with April 2008, or maybe April 2009, nah... no point. The statistics are too little, too short in time.

What the graph really shows is that there is no real change over 30 years. If it was a graph of some trading vehicle/contract, you would be a fool to put your money on anything based on it. Basically you would be guessing.

brty
 

Well that counts most of the proGW lobby out then. LOL
 
Sidamo said:
If you had a brain tumour, would you ask a gastroenterologist for a second opinion?
Click to expand...
Rather an extreme example, don't you think?
No, I wouldn't consult a gastroenterologist, but I would probably seek a second opinion from a General Specialist Physician, i.e. a doctor who has the capacity to look at the overall physiology without becoming obsessed with one organ.
 
Climate science tries, wherever possible, to use 30-year averaged data as it overcomes a range of multi-decadal cyclical anomalies.
 
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...