Thread: Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

Thanks Woodbe.

I am not trying to win an argument or debate I am simply bringing awareness that there is not conclusive evidence supporting the claims made on AGW.

However in doing so I am quite prepared to rebutt any claims to the contrary that I disagree with.

I don't mind in the slightest when someone makes a claim like the polar bears thing, as this has been reliably debunked and shows a lack of understanding of the person making the claim. That is if you choose to believe the facts on Polar Bear numbers and not someone's theory on their numbers based on a what if scenario.

The issue about AGW that really gets under my skin it that people claim the science is in and is final. Where any sensible person would understand that every scientific theory that is unproven remains a theory that is to be further investigated by science until the theory is proven. The fact that this work is going on demonstrates this. However those that are pushing the AGW agenda the hardest refuse to acknowlege this. If they are so certain they are right why would they not welcome any attempt to disprove it? If you are right any attempt to dissprove it would only solidfy your position, while suppression only weakens it and creates justifiable suspicion.

The models used by the ipcc to form their opinions have been proven wrong they have not and cannot accurately predict Climate Change.

Given the doubt that has been created, the most sensible thing to do, before committing trillions of $, is to look at all the science in an objective manner without the blinkers on. Then let the facts speak for themselves.

The 2nd thing that annoys me is all the wild claims that borders on hysteria that assume global temperature WILL rise, and the Media's glee to jump on and give these claims full exposure, when empirical evidence is to the contrary. Yet the wild claims keep comming and with the media support the general public come to view these claims as fact, as that is how it is presented to them.

Yet still you will have those that refuse to see beyond what they read in the paper.

If a 13 year old German school boy can find errors in NASA modeling to the tune of 2 zeros, then perhaps their climate modelling isn't all that crash (excuse the pun) hot either?

Originally Posted by Gra

has anyone considered global warming might be caused by the continuous waffling on about global warming?????

Gra for PM!

And the debate goes on, "Ice Age" anyone?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

There was a program on SBS about the Gulf Stream the other day. It didn't seem alarmist, but the language was more accepting of GW as a fact rather than a load of bollocks, but that is not what was interesting.

They were basically repeating what I think is generally accepted - the Gulf Stream is like a circulatory system that feeds warm water from the tropics up into the north Atlantic, warming Europe and keeping the winters mild.

Anyway, the thrust of the program was that the warm water sinks up north due to it's high saline content and this process is the engine of the current, pushing water down and back to the tropics, completing the loop. The melting icecap is dumping pure water into the Atlantic, reducing the saline content and potentially stalling the Gulf Stream. Timeframes in the 100s year range were talked about.

Hope you guys are right about the icecap not melting..

Mt Cook glacier melting away: scientists

Posted 3 hours 0 minutes ago
Scientists in New Zealand say most of their country's largest glacier could melt away within the next 20 years.
The Tasman Glacier near Mount Cook is retreating by almost 200 metres a year.
Researchers who have been re-surveying the area say that rate is accelerating and could at least double in the years to come.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin



We were at Fox Glacier (also NZ) last year, and they told us that it and Franz Josef were the only Glaciers on the planet that were growing at the current time. I didn't think to ask about the Tasman Glacier




woodbe.

Thats what glaciers do Woodbe, grow. receed, grow, receed. Nothing at all surpising there.

Note the "could" melt away. When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

I will starts listening when they start saying "will" melt away and here ist he reason why!

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

We can only hope

Richard

Rod, you've got to remember that this 'GW' stuff is for all intents and purposes a religion, and you know that any criticism of the myth will only bring about heated responses.

Unlike most other subjects which can be debated and discussed sanely, GW seems to bring out certain passion in some people. If it is on TV or written in a newspaper, it becomes gospel or worse still, if some clown (Al Gore's name springs to mind), gets a brownie point so he doesn't look too stupid to his fellow countrymen, it just has to be fact.

I see it as the non-religious version of 'the world is ending'.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

Well, it's language. Language of moderation, actually. They're not saying 'will' because they do not have the benefit of precognition or a time machine.

No-one can know any of this stuff 100% for sure, Rod. That's why they use those words. They are saying they have measured the rate of melting, and they have calculated where they think it might be heading.

I'm having trouble seeing the problem. Can you suggest how this information might have been delivered that you would be happy with?

woodbe.

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

Had a listen to a climatologist on ABC National the other day and what was interesting was he was saying forget discussing whether or not climate change is going to happen but to prepare for it to happen.

Because historically it is going to happen. Has happened before, will happen again and again and again.

He said whether it is man made is a side show to overpopulation and overtaxing the planet which is what needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

You misunderstand me again.

I never said I believed them, or expected anyone to believe them. I merely explained the use of the language of moderation. Did you 'get' that?

Again, how would you report this information?

woodbe.

We are lucky just to still be here to debate this global warming considering the Y2K bug was going to wipe us all out