Thread: Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

100 meters Tim, yep I'm sure we all agree that the seas will rise 100m LOL.

But I am glad to hear you hope AGW is not happening because at least you will feel relieved. But at what point will you feel reassured? What will the evidence be that reassures you? How long will Temps have to stay down or decrease before you feel safe again?

Will it be when the Media changes their story? Or when the pollies come out and say the threat has receeded? Will it be when the scientist who are desperatly trying to find some empircal evidence to support the theory finally give up?

I dont have the answeres to relieve the stress and worry of AGW but others do and they are already all over the internet, we just need the Media to catch up eh!

I firmly believe that many people simply accept what the media are telling them and are silent on the issue. Then there is a minority of people that add the fuel for the media with sensational claims about AGW. Like Brumby blaming last weeks wind on Global Warming etc. It sells papers. The Age forced its Journo's to only report positive stories on Earth Day, directed by the greenies what to publish and when. The BBC were harassed into changing an anti AGW story by green groups.

Why is this all needed if their claims are true? Surely the truth is good enough to stand up on its own?

The web of untruths and hysterical claims about AGW are slowly comming unravelled as the internet provides the platform for common sense even if the Media wont pick up the ball.

Why not read up on all the aritcles from BOTH sides and form your own opinion based on facts. There are very few provable scientific facts that support AGW not least empirical evidence over the past 10 years.

There are more and more people speaking out against AGW and more should.

Rod, fer chrissake give it a break!. Just because you haven't got the brains to understand anything that disagrees with your unfounded beliefs doesn't mean you've got the right to bore those of us who have an IQ greater than room temperature into extinction.

Alex if it bores you dont read it!

You degrade yourself with those comments Alexs. I'm sure my beliefs are well founded are yours? Not agreeing with someone does not mean a lack of understanding. I presume you dont agree with my views, so I suppose anyone who does not agree with your view has a low IQ is that right?

Yep this is a bee under my bonnet for sure, give it a break? nup.

So Rod.

You had the opportunity right there to tell Len you were sorry for dumping on him about the melting icecap thing, because woodbe has pointed out some evidence that you agree is factual that supports disappearing summer ice.

You want people to listen to your views, but you're not prepared to admit some tiny detail like this. It's not hard to admit to someone that you were wrong, it just takes a bit of guts, and you'll feel better after, I promise.

Go for it. I'm sure Len is listening.

woodbe.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Len are you really serious! The polar bears have lost 90% of their range?

I dont think so.

Ice caps Melting?

Nope stike that one out this year too.

Chrisp, just stoking it up for the cold winter ahead!!

Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.

Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!

Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.

The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.

I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.

Originally Posted by woodbe

That is what I responded to.

Pharmaboy, the only way of measuring summer ice is to measure it in the summer. If you tried it in the winter, it wouldn't be a measure of summer ice now, would it?

There has been a one year change to a trend that has been going for some years, and you two are trumpeting it as a revolution. Isn't that the sort of thing you accuse the other side of?


woodbe.

to the first question, because there are 2 or a multitude of options, the one that fits the arguement is chosen, fair? each changes the outcome - its a filter.

To the second - thats exactly the point I am making - I'm trumpeting a one season anomaly, and the GW promoters are going on about a decade trend - a one year trend change is more relevant to a decade, than a decade is to climate.

Anthroprogenic warming should (needs?) to correlate with co2 changes, even if one builds a lag in to that effect (the lag is assumed due to observations not fitting theory - not empirically observed btw). We should be seeingan arctic melting trend of 3o years duration to help the AGW cause.

What is happening is that people believe so strongly in AGW that when they see some change, it is immediately laid at the door of AGW - doesnt matter if its glacial retreat that started in the nineteenth century, or an ice shelf in the last 10 years.

We are just at the end of an almost unprecedented el nino pattern, that has correlated with all manner of ocean current effects and quite possibly a global climate driver - now it can be argued that el nino is a result of atmospheric warming - but thats not whats been argued.

First; Science is an inherently self-correcting system where ideas are continuously being peer reviewed and tested. Hence we tend to zero in on the truth. This is not a simple process but involves research and replication of data by anybody who can do the work and publish the results. The results have to be able to be independently reproduced. To suggest that there is some vast conspiracy or delusion abroad is just silly.
Second; This thread isn't really about global warming is it ? It is a series of self-confirming circular arguments backed by blunt assertions. The subtext is male posturing. Dare to stand out from the crowd anyone ? Somebody who can take it ?
I'm done.

Len it is about awarness that AGW as a theory is being seriously challanged by scientists on many fronts.

Because the main stream media choose to ignore these papers challanging the AGW theory it is left to other means of circulating the information to the public.

My intention is to raise awareness of the fact these challenges are out there, are seriously challenging the core belief that many hold on AGW, that is, that the science "is settled". There is no way the science is settled!

Forums such as this are one of those means. I posted a link for people to read and comment on. The ensuing debate here does not reference to any challenge of the validity of the information in that link. It has been others that have tried to shoot down the "denialists positon" by posting rheteric that claims to support the "believers position" without addressing any of the issues raised within the link I provided.

So the thread has been taken off course from the original intent. Rebuttal of the responses as outlined above has got to be expected.

Why not try to read the original link and come back with your views on that?

Easy to say I'm done and ignore the issue.

I really don't know what it is that prevents people from wanting to find out the truth about AGW. Simply ignoring the challenges to AGW is not going to work!

I don't know whether this article will get put down as "journalism", but one can't walk away from the fact that more and more scientists are expressing some doubt about the cause of AGW.

Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.


If we are the ones causing it, we should be doing something about it, if we are not, then all that money and economic hardship people are talking about is just so much wasted effort.

What I do know is that cleaning up our act one way or another would be a good thing.

This does not include doing irrational things, such as buying a Toyota Prius, which costs 22 tons of emissions to produce and saves 1.5 tons of emissions per year. That is the sort of thing that gives "greenies" a bad name. Worst thing is the Victorian Govt seems to be running quite a few of them.

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.

I must admit, that i became a contrarian after 2 things - one was when I started to hear "the science is settled" and "consensus" - they ring very loud alarm bells for anyone with scientific training. teh second was upon reading Richard lindzens Wall street journal series - particularly on albedo, and water vapor considerations.

Now for something very interesting for BOTH SIDES of the discussion - last year there was a debate held in NY between some of the biggest names in this debate - the household ones been Richard lindzen and Gavin Schmidt (co-owner of realclimate with Mann).

I wondered why i hadnt heard of it again as on realclimate they were a bit apprehensive about participating because it would "imply the science isnt settled" (there's those words again) - here's a pdf of the transcript - really a good read, and I think there is a link to a pod cast on realclimate.org as well.

It is totally equal and unbiased as both views are given equal time, with responses, questions, and also a vote as to who won to keep ACA happy!

www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

I like to think I have an open mind regarding 'global warming'. Isn't that convenient? Well it is for me.
BUT.....the physics doesn't add up to what the GW groupies are espousing. Al Gore has re-invented physics for the world as we know it and some computer boffins have put together a progam to back up the new Laws of Physics. It's referred to as GIGO, in computer speak.

It's like a religion. One must not criticise or question the proponents. Just read back through this thread and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, having said that, I will be expecting some zealot to accost me in the street and beat me until I repent or whatever one must do regarding this subject.

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.

Originally Posted by Toyboy

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.

I'll drink to that! (from a bottle of course, never from the tap!)

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.

Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!

Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.

The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.

I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.

Rod, I'm not discussing AGW, I think I've already made that very clear, but you and Pharmaboy continue to spruik your own anti-AGW mantras back at me despite what has been said.

There's an old saying, I'm sure you have heard it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am being pedantic, yes. What I have been doing is pointing out that both sides of this 'debate' choose their words and data very carefully, as you have done with Len, to support their own point of view. It happens on both sides, and as usual, it would be a rare occasion for someone to admit it. I thought you might be up to it, but I was wrong.

Sorry for wasting your time.

woodbe.

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.