Climate Change Arguing

[Crankitup]

The real debate is how long will it take for the next intelligent lifeform to evolve on planet earth?

Because life on earth will not end - just the human species and all the other large living species are doomed. But something will survive - who knows what. Maybe a tiny creature at the bottom of the ocean, maybe a simple bacteria will survive feeding off the human carcasses until it evolves into something bigger and smarter.

It is an interesting question? Will it take a human form or will it be completely different?

Will this new intelligent life form scoff at the bible or will they dismiss Darwin?

 

[QuietB]

So fill your cup and go your hardest

 

[Crankitup]

So fill your cup and go your hardest

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.

 

[QuietB]

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?

 

[Crankitup]

Why does that matter?

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?

 

[QuietB]

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"

 

[Crankitup]

No. What does it matte that you tried harder than the "global warming zealots"

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]

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.

 

[Crankitup]

I cant believe, in this day and age, that there is even a debate on climate change.

The evidence is overwhelming.

.......fires, drought, supercharged storms.

FMD that's your overwhelming evidence??

Keep em coming and i will keeping hitting em for six.

Not with that shit you won't mate.

 

[Austoraisetheurn]

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.

 

[Sainteric]

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?

They generally don't individually or collectively reduce the problem?

 

[Nuggs Bunny]

It's not about offending me at all. I merely pointed out that you misrepresented what I'd said very early on in our discussion and then shortly after I pointed that out, rather than apologising (which I would do if I had misrepresented you) you then lied about something else I'd said. It speaks to the character of the person I'm dealing with. The hope is that since I've exposed you as a liar you'll be less inclined to continue doing so in the future. I've encountered many of your type before. They seem to love twisting peoples words to create a straw man argument they find easier to argue against but they also hate being exposed for doing so.

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 #462 didn't. Weird.

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.

Like I said the article was written by a climate scientist. Are you saying that climate scientists aren't real scientists doing real science?

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?

I must have been editing my post before I read your reply. Usually you take a day or so to respond so I thought I had plenty of time.

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.

 

[medusala]

That some how almost all the scientists in the world somehow got this one wrong and your just smarter than everyone?

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:

 

[pugsville]

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:

Not an argument I ever made, Vast Majority which is correct,

You just arguing meaningless details in the bigger picture.

 

[medusala]

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?

 

[Lebbo73]

If you'd prefer to hear the message from an older man David Attenbourgh is saying exactly the same thing.

David Attenborough knows nothing about man made climate change.

 

[skipper kelly]

It's pissing rain North of Brisbane.

 

[quotemokc]

David Attenborough knows nothing about man made climate change.

David Attenborough knows exactly what the BBC tells him he knows.

 

[Number37]

David Attenborough knows nothing about man made climate change.

Unlike world renowned climate experts like Andrew Bolt.

 

[QuietB]

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]

It’s not Bolt’s fault they didn’t include a chapter on climate change in the bible

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.

 

[medusala]

David Attenborough knows exactly what the BBC tells him he knows.

The good old BBC. Its not like they have faked any scenes in Attenborough shows and passed them off as reality

 

[skipper kelly]

It's stopped raining.

 

[JackOutback]

FMD that's your overwhelming evidence??

Not with that s**t you won't mate.

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.

 

[Crankitup]

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.

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.