Climate Change Arguing

[Messenger]

Well as you can see, underhandedly restricting my IP on this site without warning, doesn't go down too well with me!

Damn fascists caught up with you again.

Warm Regards,

Benito Mussolini.

 

[Chief]

Ohh and btw to the fascist that restricted my IP on this site without warning, I have a VPN!

This never happened.

 

[Jibroni]

I don't think there are going to be many jobs or economic benefits from coal going forward.

The LNP and Queensland voters have ****** big time.

Even the big mining companies are deleveraging from investment in coal.


BHP warns investors coal could be phased out 'sooner than expected'

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...coal-could-be-phased-out-sooner-than-expected
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...coal-could-be-phased-out-sooner-than-expected

Interesting to hear BHP have taken that position with fossil fuels. Greener technologies still seem a long way from being price competitive, early days in development granted.

 

[Fat Yak]

Some bed time reading for you https://www.pickeringpost.com/2019/03/25/the-biggest-lie-under-the-sun/

 

[Maggie5]

That’s environmental pollution you’re talking about. This has nothing to do with changing the climate of the planet. I’m all for reducing the rubbish we produce. Carbon emissions on the other hand as a pollutant is the biggest crock ever sold to mankind.

Actually you missed the point of my post which was heeding medical and scientific advice.

I forgot one, asbestos.

It seems that people either need to get sick, die or islands sinking before deniers will believe.

 

[hanma]

It's funny for me how some people are supportive of colonizing Mars, and want humans to terraform it, by releasing gasses into the Martian atmosphere that will trap heat and moisture ...

... And yet they're dismissive of anthropogenic climate change.

 

[Fat Yak]

We can all get behind this!


About This Website

CHANGE.ORG

Sign the Petition
Wind Farms for Warringah

 

[GoldenSky]

We can all get behind this!


About This Website

CHANGE.ORG

Sign the Petition
Wind Farms for Warringah

Haha, that's awesome, let's get it started! Too funny.

 

[Funkalicous]

Could just go nuclear... that would satisfy all parties, excpet the post-modernists. Failing that, at least show me a solution where we don't hand over millions to the UN

 

[HairyO]

Could just go nuclear... that would satisfy all parties, excpet the post-modernists. Failing that, at least show me a solution where we don't hand over millions to the UN

We could have gone nuclear 40 years ago. Will never happen now. No matter how sensible an option it is.

Wind farms over Manly and Bondi will happen first.

 

[Funkalicous]

We could have gone nuclear 40 years ago. Will never happen now. No matter how sensible an option it is.

Wind farms over Manly and Bondi will happen first.

Count me in for the lols!

 

[Better Loosen Up]

"Including many scientists"

3% or less
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Please don't tell me you're swallowing that ICCP, politically driven and funded trash?

 

[SSwans2011]

Please don't tell me you're swallowing that ICCP, politically driven and funded trash?

PoLliTiCaLlY dRiVeN aNd FuNdEd TrAsH

 

[Better Loosen Up]

It'd be nice to hear a moderate Liberal voters take on some of the garbage about climate change being spouted on here.

Ok. I consider myself a moderate Liberal.

I do "believe" in climate change

I do believe that we should do what we can. Ie: invest in renewables etc

I do not believe that we should be selling the farm on climate change at this stage until man made involvement is better understood.

I do not believe in the politically driven and funded ICCP trash on climate change.

This 97% you keep going on about has been proven long ago as being a massive fraud.

And it's not just me who questions the drivel that the ICCP sprout on climate change, it also some of the most renowned climate scientists in the world who are doing the same.

Instead of continuing with your hysterical rants, i suggest you carefully read both sides of the climate change debate ( ie: NICCP) and maybe you might have a more rounded view.

Lastly, i noticed an article the other day that stated that original climate change forecasts that predicted earth sea levels to rise by 1 meter in the next 100 years may be incorrect and they now believe it could be 2 METERS! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Adding a whole extra meter just like that! Maybe the wind changed? Who knows?

 

[SSwans2011]

Ok. I consider myself a moderate Liberal.

I do "believe" in climate change

I do believe that we should do what we can. Ie: invest in renewables etc

I do not believe that we should be selling the farm on climate change at this stage until man made involvement is better understood.

I do not believe in the politically driven and funded ICCP trash on climate change.

This 97% you keep going on about has been proven long ago as being a massive fraud.

And it's not just me who questions the drivel that the ICCP sprout on climate change, it also some of the most renowned climate scientists in the world who are doing the same.

Instead of continuing with your hysterical rants, i suggest you carefully read both sides of the climate change debate ( ie: NICCP) and maybe you might have a more rounded view.

Lastly, i noticed an article the other day that stated that original climate change forecasts that predicted earth sea levels to rise by 1 meter in the next 100 years may be incorrect and they now believe it could be 2 METERS! LOLOLOLOLOLOL

Adding a whole extra meter just like that! Maybe the wind changed? Who knows?

Point out some of those scientists or **** off. I'm done arguing with people who have no evidence. Or find a study which backs up your POV, because there are plenty which back mine.

Supply some worthwhile evidence or I'm not responding to you.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Point out some of those scientists or **** off. I'm done arguing with people who have no evidence. Or find a study which backs up your POV, because there are plenty which back mine.

Supply some worthwhile evidence or I'm not responding to you.

Have a read of the NICCP as i quoted...

Then maybe a lie down

Or perhaps we'll head back over to the supercoach forums.

 

[SSwans2011]

Have a read of the NICCP as i quoted...

Then maybe a lie down

Or perhaps we'll head back over to the supercoach forums.

Hahaha. You point out that the IPCC receives government funding, but neglect to point out who the NIPCC (can't even get their name right - emblematic of how factual your argument is) is bankrolled by.

The IPCC considers both views, but acknowledges that the views of sceptics are comprehensively outweighed. That NIPCC reports are prepared by small groups of sceptics with limited expertise and do not consider alternative views. The NIPCC deserves no time or consideration.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

Hahaha. You point out that the IPCC receives government funding, but neglect to point out who the NIPCC (can't even get their name right - emblematic of how factual your argument is) is bankrolled by.

The IPCC considers both views, but acknowledges that the views of sceptics are comprehensively outweighed. That NIPCC reports are prepared by small groups of sceptics with limited expertise and do not consider alternative views. The NIPCC deserves no time or consideration.

Lol. Whoops. NIPCC

The leading writers of the NIPCC could hardly be described as having "limited expertise".

 

[Frank Bunn]

Point out some of those scientists or **** off. I'm done arguing with people who have no evidence. Or find a study which backs up your POV, because there are plenty which back mine.

Supply some worthwhile evidence or I'm not responding to you.

You are not posting evidence you are cutting and pasting diagrams of stuff that has been debunked many times.

eg

Oreskes 2004 was a one pager that didn't conform to the standards of any academic discipline and had zero scientific rigour.

Cook 2013 - when you look closely at his data and exclude papers that did not take a position and those who said that humans are only one of the causes then of the 11,944 abstracts only 1.6% of them claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming.

 

[SSwans2011]

You are not posting evidence you are cutting and pasting diagrams of stuff that has been debunked many times.

eg

Oreskes 2004 was a one pager that didn't conform to the standards of any academic discipline and had zero scientific rigour.

Cook 2013 - when you look closely at his data and exclude papers that did not take a position and those who said that humans are only one of the causes then of the 11,944 abstracts only 1.6% of them claimed explicitly that humans are the main cause of global warming.

No. I'm posting diagram which shows that there is a scientific consensus that man-made climate change exists.

You are very welcome to present evidence on the contrary. Thus far literally none has been presented other than "read the NIPCC" (i.e. the organisation bankrolled by the Heartland Institute). I'll wait for evidence that suggests there is no consensus.

 

[Better Loosen Up]

No. I'm posting diagram which shows that there is a scientific consensus that man-made climate change exists.

You are very welcome to present evidence on the contrary. Thus far literally none has been presented other than "read the NIPCC" (i.e. the organisation bankrolled by the Heartland Institute). I'll wait for evidence that suggests there is no consensus.

Lol

Let's face it. You are not interested in anything that doesn't support what you want to believe.

 

[SSwans2011]

Lol

Let's face it. You are not interested in anything that doesn't support what you want to believe.

Still waiting for your evidence, mate.
http://theconversation.com/adversaries-zombies-and-nipcc-climate-pseudoscience-17378

How does the NIPCC spread doubt, given the temperature record and consensus of professional scientists? The answer is manufactured partisanship.

The IPCC (no N) produces a comprehensive and critical overview of climate change science for governments. It is written by hundreds of scientists, anyone can volunteer to review drafts, and those comments appear online.

IPCC reports openly discuss the strengths, weaknesses, criticisms and uncertainties of the science. The reports provide policy makers with a range of plausible outcomes given rising atmospheric CO2.

Heartland’s NIPCC partially mimics the IPCC, but with key differences. It is written and reviewed by dozens of people, almost exclusively drawn from the “sceptic” community, and is consequently highly partisan.

Indeed, the NIPCC advocates an adversarial approach to assessing climate science, with partisan “teams” arguing for different positions.

---

Does the NIPCC fairly and robustly assess the science? No. It is all too easy to find “debunked” papers getting a second life in latest NIPCC report.

Sea levels around Australia have risen by roughly 100mm during the past century, but Boretti (2012) claimed sea levels rose by only 50mm over that period. However, John Hunter and I found that Boretti’s own flawed analysis gives an answer of 78mm. While Boretti himself grudgingly accepts that 50mm is wrong, this erroneous value is reported as fact by the NIPCC.

IPCC AR4 concluded that CO2 is the cause of increased global temperatures, with natural variability not playing a major role. It was thus surprising when McLean et al. (2009)concluded that global temperatures were varying largely in response to the El Niño–Southern Oscillation.

However, McLean’s analysis effectively subtracted out the long-term trend caused by CO2, so they only measured the (natural) causes of short-term variability.

Foster et al. (2010) thoroughly debunked McLean et al., and McLean perhaps debunked himself by predicting 2011 would be the coolest year since 1956. That year was anything but cool. However, the McLean et al. conclusions are reported as fact in the latest NIPCC report, with no mention of the Foster et al. commentary.

Dead science lives in the NIPCC reports: Boretti and McLean are just the tip of the iceberg. Houston & Dean (2011), Scafetta & West (2005) and others also appear, all without mention that these papers were followed by highly critical commentaries.

It is this deliberately partisan, selective, and uncritical approach to evidence that marks the NIPCC report as a work of pseudoscience.

 

[Frank Bunn]

No. I'm posting diagram which shows that there is a scientific consensus that man-made climate change exists.

You are very welcome to present evidence on the contrary. Thus far literally none has been presented other than "read the NIPCC" (i.e. the organisation bankrolled by the Heartland Institute). I'll wait for evidence that suggests there is no consensus.

You posted some simplistic diagrams. It's not evidence of anything. Those claims have been rebutted many times as I explained about Oreskes 2004 and Cook 2013.

There is of course the question of why some people imagine consensus matters in science. These meta studies of consensus tend to be highly subjective and designed to score political points rather than contribute in any way to the science.

As Michael Crichton said.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.​

​

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.​

​

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.​

 

[SSwans2011]

You posted some simplistic diagrams. It's not evidence of anything. Those claims have been rebutted many times as I explained about Oreskes 2004 and Cook 2013.

There is of course the question of why some people imagine consensus matters in science. These meta studies of consensus tend to be highly subjective and designed to score political points rather than contribute in any way to the science.

As Michael Crichton said.

I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you're being had.​

​

Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.​

​

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus. Period.​

The diagrams show that a majority of scientists agree on the existence of man-made climate change. You continue to provide no evidence on the contrary, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you. Frankly, arguing about the existence of man-made climate change in 2019 is a waste of my time.

 

[Frank Bunn]

The diagrams show that a majority of scientists agree on the existence of man-made climate change. You continue to provide no evidence on the contrary, so I'm not going to bother arguing with you. Frankly, arguing about the existence of man-made climate change in 2019 is a waste of my time.

Your diagrams are not evidence of a consensus - and as I said these claims have been refuted many times.

And even if there was such as consensus it's scientifically worthless.