- Banned
- #626
Climate Change Arguing
- Thread starter Socrates2
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Banned
- #628
Mate, I was once greenest GW alarmist you could ever meet. I practiced what I preached at the time too. Bought into it hook line and sinker to the point where I sold my car and cycled everywhere. I don't think there's many global warming zealots on here who do the same.
Why does that matter?
- Banned
- #630
Why does it matter that people who think the world is ending partly because of our use of fossil fuels try to do their part in reducing the problem?
No. What does it matte that you tried harder than the "global warming zealots"
- Banned
- #632
Well it doesn't matter to me because I saw the light, but it should matter to people who supposedly believe as I used to. People like Zali Stegall for instance who not content with the hypocrisy of her driving around one of the thirstiest gas guzzlers around herself, also had Hummers of all things towing climate change billboards around during the election. Still can't see the hypocrisy?
Austoraisetheurn
Cancelled
- Aug 25, 2019
- 619
- 976
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
I cant believe, in this day and age, that there is even a debate on climate change. FFS, look around and see it happening.......fires, drought, supercharged storms.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Lol at the intelligent posters (i use that term VERY loosely) tearing into climate change activists for driving big cars or towing billboards.
If that is the best you have got then keep walking snowflake.
The gains from actively helping spread the word about climate change will offset any pollution that is produced by the vehicle.
Bigfooty is sure good for boosting one's confidence.
Keep em coming and i will keeping hitting em for six.
The evidence is overwhelming.
Lol at the intelligent posters (i use that term VERY loosely) tearing into climate change activists for driving big cars or towing billboards.
If that is the best you have got then keep walking snowflake.
The gains from actively helping spread the word about climate change will offset any pollution that is produced by the vehicle.
Bigfooty is sure good for boosting one's confidence.
Keep em coming and i will keeping hitting em for six.
- Banned
- #634
FMD that's your overwhelming evidence??
Not with that shit you won't mate.
Austoraisetheurn
Cancelled
- Aug 25, 2019
- 619
- 976
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
On the balance of probability, do you believe that man unduly influences the Earth's climate beyond what can be expected through variance and changes associated with the passage of time?
It is a simple question.
It is a simple question.
They generally don't individually or collectively reduce the problem?
Nuggs Bunny
Moderator
Essendon Player Sponsor 2024 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2023 - Archie Perkins and Nic Martin
Essendon Player Sponsor 2022 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2021 - Anthony McDonald-Tipungwuti and Archie Perkins
Essendon Player Sponsor 2020 - Orazio Fantasia, Anthony McDonald Tipungwuti, Shaun McKernan
- Oct 12, 2015
- 7,855
- 13,103
- AFL Club
- Essendon
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys
- Moderator
- #637
I reckon you've spent 50% of your effort in this post so far on semantics and etiquette. Not sure why it hasn't sunk in yet, but I don't care and I'm not apologizing for whatever grievance you think you have. You can keep posting about it all you like, it's not for me to decide what I'm being "exposed" as, that's for the rest of the forum to decide.Are you saying that in an effort to insinuate that I introduced the subject into the thread? If you are I'll just point out now that I didn't. I merely responded to this post#526. My response somehow got you all so twisted up you still can't unknot your knickers. Hard to work out why that particular post I made in a Climate Change thread somehow got you all worked up and yet this one
Yeah, that's correct. I mean, this shouldn't come as a surprise if you have ever been to university and have ever needed to write a report of any kind because intellectual honesty is paramount in the digital age. A scientific report is a formal document that clearly outlines the author, research he's drawing off, his methodology and his findings. A blog can be written in any way by any body. How am I to know the person is actually a climate scientist or if his views have actually passed the sniff test by people who are also actually climate scientists?
If he was a real scientists doing real science, he also would have written a research paper, and if it was worth a pinch of shit, it would have been published by an institution. Why don't you find it and post it for us?
Jeez, my sincere apologies for having a life.
I changed 'ignored' to 'virtually ignored' because I remembered that NASA did send a probe/lunar landing type vehicle into Erebus' crater to record chlorine levels during the ozone debate, before the Montreal Protocol was put into effect. They found high chlorine levels and then promptly ignored them.
LOL. That's it? Two isolated mentions of Erebus in the whole document? Like I said, virtually ignored.
Despite what they said in that decade old document, Erebus has been continuously erupting since 1972 and spews out 1000 tons of chlorine each day.
This sort of stuff (video footage) from 2005.
Link to a peer reviewed article written by real scientists doing real science follows.
The Antarctic ozone depletion caused by Erebus volcano gas emissions
Nah, it's time to put up or shut up.
You've made this assertion several times now that Mt Erebus has been "ignored" or "virtually ignored" or whatever other spin you want to put on it. You haven't said who in particular has ignored it, but you've been insistent that it's been ignored nonetheless.
I'm now asking you to prove it. Prove which agency has deliberately ignored the emissions of Mt Erebus in their studies and clearly display to the extent of which those emissions are missing from the model. Either go through the paper yourself and find the holes or find me a research paper produced by a research institution of good standing that debunks the ESRL reports regarding the source and quantity of chlorine in the stratosphere.
I'll note that in my last post, I linked you to the the 1998 report on the ozone depletion as created by NOAA, NASA and other leading atmospheric research bodies and you deliberately left that section out of your reply. I'm not sure why, you seem to think since it's 20 years old that it's not worth very much so surely your superior knowledge of the matter can easily dissect and disprove the paper's theorised sources of atmospheric chlorine.
And that research paper you've linked clearly states even in the abstract:
"Thus, Erebus volcano is the natural and powerful source of additional stratospheric HCl and SO2, and hence, the cause of the Antarctic ozone depletion, together with man-made chlorofluorocarbons."
I'm not sure what you're trying to prove with this; that anthropogenic CFCs don't harm ozone at all, which is clearly false as noted by your own source, or that Mount Erebus contributes chlorine to the atmosphere, in which case feel free to show who ever denied that it did in the first place.
I'm guessing it's the latter and you're wasting your time strawmanning again.
There is hardly a consensus re future outcomes. The models vary wildly.
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
www.forbes.com
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
There is hardly a consensus re future outcomes. The models vary wildly.
'97% Of Climate Scientists Agree' Is 100% Wrong
Think about how many times you hear that 97 percent or some similar figure thrown around. It’s based on crude manipulation propagated by people whose ideological agenda it serves. It is a license to intimidate.
Unfortunately, in the case of 97% of climate scientists agreeing that human beings are the main cause of warming, the researchers have engaged in egregious misconduct.
One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges
Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn’t.
The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists whose papers were classified by Cook protested:
Not an argument I ever made, Vast Majority which is correct,
You just arguing meaningless details in the bigger picture.
Oh so it doesnt matter in the big picture if the earth warms 1c or 3c?
Just a meaningless detail?
- Oct 20, 2014
- 18,466
- 19,635
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Liverpool
David Attenborough knows nothing about man made climate change.
It's pissing rain North of Brisbane.
quotemokc
Brownlow Medallist
David Attenborough knows exactly what the BBC tells him he knows.
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,295
- 24,324
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Unlike world renowned climate experts like Andrew Bolt.
It’s not Bolt’s fault they didn’t include a chapter on climate change in the bible
Number37
Anyhow, have a Winfield 25.
- Oct 5, 2013
- 22,295
- 24,324
- AFL Club
- Sydney
Wouldn't stop him from claiming it did.
And his readers would believe him.
"The bible says climate change is the work of the loony left"
Exclusive by Andrew Bolt.
The good old BBC. Its not like they have faked any scenes in Attenborough shows and passed them off as reality
It's stopped raining.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 31,937
- 48,864
- AFL Club
- West Coast
No, the evidence is in the two most recent decades being the warmest on record and getting warmer. There’s graphs and everything. The fact you can actually see the evidence in action is just gravy.
- Banned
- #650
I've stated my position at various points throughout the thread. Like at post #462 for instance, a snippet of which I'll copy and paste here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There seems to be a popular idea perpetuated that CO₂ levels are at an unprecedented high. In reality there has been periods when there has been 18 times the levels of CO₂ that we presently have, with no cars, factories etc around to blame for it. The levels can rise & fall markedly without mankind's help. As seen above, approximately 96.5% of CO₂ emissions are from natural sources. Thinking that by fiddling around with the remaining 3.5% emissions for a gas that makes up 0.05% of our atmosphere, when many argue that CO₂ isn't the major driver of our climate, seems a bit silly.
CO₂ gets all the limelight whilst a GHG that exists in MUCH higher concentrations in our atmosphere (water vapour) gets largely ignored by AGW believers. The excuse most often given is that its effect is hard to quantify but the reality is that its effect is so large that it makes a nonsense any discussion of CO₂.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've also expressed the fact that initially I was the most ardent greenie warmist you could ever imagine. I then later became agnostic on the issue. This was about 10 years ago as discussed here
#325. I'm less agnoistic now but still open to be convinced. Maybe you'll be the one to convince me.
Last edited:
