Pack Specialist
Premiership Player
- Aug 31, 2013
- 4,643
- 7,738
- AFL Club
- Geelong
They're known for being a trustworthy bunch aren't they!
Emma Thompson on Global Warming
- Thread starter medusala
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Thread starter
- #252
Some people are more gullible than others. There is a prime example on this thread. He's probably still fretting over Y2K, acid rain, everyone dying from AIDS and imminent nuclear war.
fair enough. as i have said before i go with the scientific consensus on this one, but i don't feel it is 100% fact. if you are that certain that's great.You really should have taken the 30 seconds or so it took me to research this site
You're so easily fooled
http://www.desmogblog.com/fossil-fools-fund-latest-petition
Anyway.
It's been fun.
But arguing with you is about as pointless as arguing with an anti-vacc crazy.
as for your "anti-vacc crazy" attempt at a derogatory comment i take no offence as it does not affect me in any emotional or intellectual way. i do not know your character well enough to judge how much weight i should give your opinion of me, if you were a trusted and respected family member or friend who knows me well i may take notice of their opinion and work on any character flaws i may have. so in response i will not malign your character for the same reason.
i always conduct any discussions i have on BF or in general with mutual respect. i do not profess to know all and am always willing to admit mistakes and change my mind if conclusive evidence is presented. thank you for your feedback.
Sorry Jason
My bad
I thought I was replying to Pack Specialist
I don't quite agree with you, but I respect your opinion.
I apologise
Pack Specialist
Premiership Player
- Aug 31, 2013
- 4,643
- 7,738
- AFL Club
- Geelong
That reference wasn't evidence to build an argument for the scientific fact of man made global warming. Obviously.
It was a comment on a discredited list of "scientists" published in "peer reviewed Journals" aimed at tricking people and creating doubt about the scientific consensus (~98% - 99% of published experts in the field of climate science). Spending a few seconds digging into the 1% to 2% of scientists who are sceptical of man made global warming reveals that they are almost universally, hopelessly conflicted and are on the pay role of big polluters.
Please provide me a list of scientists who are experts in climate science who have been published in reputable journals and who aren't conflicted.
You love science so much and have obviously thought about this issue a lot, so finding a few dozen shouldn't be a problem.
I'll tell you what, how about just starting with 1/2 a dozen or so.
Pack Specialist
Premiership Player
- Aug 31, 2013
- 4,643
- 7,738
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Answer my questions first!
Where is your proof of man made climate change?
I have given you lists of world leading experts who dispute man made climate change which you dismissed as propaganda and you gave me a blog...hilarious.
Ahhhh
So thats the motive for the "myth" of man made global warming. A bunch of politicians from all over the world made it up and convinced about 98% of experts in climate science to fudge and fraud their research so that they could go on a junket some 20 or 30 years into the debate.
Sounds logical.
Sounds to me like you can't give that list of experts in climate science who have published in credible peer reviewed journals and aren't hopelessly conflicted.
I'm very surprised.
I thought you'd come up with plenty of names considering that, as you have said, there is no evidence at all for man made global warming.
I suspect that if I spent several hours putting together an anthology of evidence supporting man made global warming (and it would be massive), you would dismiss it like any other fundamentalist dismisses science and reason, and basic logic.
You've been told what to believe by those who do your thinking for you and you will believe it with religious fervour, in the face of any amount of evidence to the contrary.
But I will do it on one condition.
If I come up with, say, two recognised, non conflicted, experts in climate science, peer reviewed articles, in credible journals for every one of yours, will you change your opinion and recognise the fact of man global warming?
Being a self described lover of science, you will obviously jump at this challenge and agree to it's terms.
- Thread starter
- #260
Lol, still sticking with the 97% myth are you?
So those funded by the government aren't conflicted? How much funding would there would be for climate change research if there was no AGW scare?
How to destroy your own argument.
Pack Specialist
Premiership Player
- Aug 31, 2013
- 4,643
- 7,738
- AFL Club
- Geelong
Show me your proof of man made climate change.
Where is it?
I'm looking at lists of climate sceptics right now.
took me 5 seconds to find 98 peer reviewed papers against man made climate change of the numerous ones out there.
Where's your proof?
Pack Specialist
Premiership Player
- Aug 31, 2013
- 4,643
- 7,738
- AFL Club
- Geelong
His argument is terrible.
So again, what your saying is that pretty much every government in the world are involved in a massive conspiracy to make billionaire academics even more billions. Therefore any academic that receives government funding is conflicted and those funded by companies like Exon are independent.
As bat s**t crazy as that sounds to the sane, it's actually pretty standard 'logic' for you.
Take up my challenge then.
I'll be pretty busy this weekend (work and stuff) but if you post the name of your first non conflicted, expert in climate science, who has published peer reviewed articles, in credible journals, I'll try and get back with my 2, today.
Then we'll continue on from there.
(I'm starting to wonder if you can find even 1)
Remember you've got to agree that when you lose this challenge, you agree to recognise the fact of man made climate change.
Last edited:
no problems, i accept the apology.
Cool
This challenge should be easy for you then.
Please post the names of these 98 non conflicted, experts in climate science, who has published peer reviewed articles, in credible journals.
i think this discussion is going around in circles, which is a given on almost any BF thread. the history of my view on this particular subject.
1. was at first a total skeptic in the belief of man caused climate change, mainly through on line accounts of people like john coleman (formerly of the weather channel), prof. ian plimer (geologist), lord monkton etc.
2. to add to this i had and still do have a deep mistrust of the mainstream media and politicians, who in the main are the ones pushing this message. i think they both operate with (as all people do to varying degrees) their own agendas.
3. my thinking on the "scientific consensus" was (a) i could not get my head around how a reliable model could be constructed to predict such a complex scenario as the planets likely climate in 10/20/50 years. and still do to a certain extent. (b) climate scientists have a vested interest in the hypothesis re. government grants. (c) the IPCC- are all the scientists who sign petitions who dispute their findings and methods they use to come to those findings completely wrong? linked one of many online, i know many could be frauds but is this one? no climate scientists listed but i do feel that their opinion should carry a fair bit of weight given their background and i feel they would have a pretty good understanding of the scientific process.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
4. i have come gradually over a few years become a "believer" although i still have a level of skepticism.
some great quotes here. but i really like michael crichtons first 2 quotes on scientific consensus.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/scientific-method
1. was at first a total skeptic in the belief of man caused climate change, mainly through on line accounts of people like john coleman (formerly of the weather channel), prof. ian plimer (geologist), lord monkton etc.
2. to add to this i had and still do have a deep mistrust of the mainstream media and politicians, who in the main are the ones pushing this message. i think they both operate with (as all people do to varying degrees) their own agendas.
3. my thinking on the "scientific consensus" was (a) i could not get my head around how a reliable model could be constructed to predict such a complex scenario as the planets likely climate in 10/20/50 years. and still do to a certain extent. (b) climate scientists have a vested interest in the hypothesis re. government grants. (c) the IPCC- are all the scientists who sign petitions who dispute their findings and methods they use to come to those findings completely wrong? linked one of many online, i know many could be frauds but is this one? no climate scientists listed but i do feel that their opinion should carry a fair bit of weight given their background and i feel they would have a pretty good understanding of the scientific process.
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/nasa-scientists-dispute-climate-change-2012-4
4. i have come gradually over a few years become a "believer" although i still have a level of skepticism.
some great quotes here. but i really like michael crichtons first 2 quotes on scientific consensus.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/scientific-method
So what's your theory behind the man made climate change propaganda? What's the agenda?
I don't quite understand, anthropogenic climate change has little visible benefit for anyone with power. It goes against oil, mining, mass production and over consumption. Perhaps those who are investing in green energy, that is about it. Carbon tax I suppose, but that has now been repealed.
Do you believe in greenhouse gases? Or are they like Santa Claws and Y2K as well?
Being a climate change researcher such as yourself you must have seen this graph before. Have a look at the spike in CO2, coming along when us little humans begin our industrial age. So we're putting a bucket load of carbon into the atmosphere, more than has been in there for hundreds of thousands of years. What else are we doing and been doing more so in the past 200 years? Deforestation. Releasing more carbon and destroying carbon storage. I don't know why people don't believe this isn't going to have an effect on the earth. We're polluting like crazy and destroying the earth's forests, key to the carbon cycle and we're just sitting here pretending everything is okay.
Sure, the earth does naturally cool and warm. We go through ice ages, and rising oceans. The earth has seen it all before. But I think it's naïve to think Humans have no impact in the current day. We basically dominate the whole thing!
RICHOLEGEND12 do you really think we dominate the whole thing? is that what the science says ie. dominate.
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
graphs can be manipulated and cherry picked depending on the start point.
by the way i am a skeptical believer in the "scientific consensus".
http://joannenova.com.au/2010/02/the-big-picture-65-million-years-of-temperature-swings/
http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/07_1.shtml
graphs can be manipulated and cherry picked depending on the start point.
by the way i am a skeptical believer in the "scientific consensus".
I do think we dominate the earth at this current time, so much deforestation, pollution, the supposed 6th mass extinction. I wouldn't say we're doing much good for the earth. We'll leave quite the footprint when we're done. I didn't mean as in we dominate climate itself. I do get the earth has seen much greater climate events than what we are currently experiencing, it always changes periodically and there are other factors than just carbon, but I do believe we are contributing now. And thanks I'll check out those links when I get a chance.
like your post, this part especially "when were done". thought you might get a bit of a chuckle from this link. george carlin on mans hubris.
http://www.theguardian.com/science/...-researcher-dissects-2013-statement-australia
Yet another takedown of myths spouted by science deniers
Yet another takedown of myths spouted by science deniers
Gough
Moderator
- Sep 29, 2006
- 71,989
- 133,641
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Moderator
- #273
I think it's telling that any number of different studies, or sources confirming the existence of ACC, and our role in it's existence can be cited, while the same old sources are rolled out every time someone wishes to disprove it's taking place, or that is somehow nothing to do with us.
If you look up NASA they can point you in the right direction http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
And who do you rely on for information regarding the matter? please dont tell me its the hearland institute pawns
Similar threads
- Poll
