That hoary chestnut of the 97% consensus again

USFREEDOM911 said:
There was a really good show on the Discovery Channel, about the Saharah Desert and how at one time it was green and had plenty of water; but continetal drift and the earth's wobble caused it all to die out.
Maybe it's the wobble that is causing this Global Warming; er: "Climate Change".
Click to expand...

It must have been talking about the Milankovitch Cycles of which the precession of the equinoxes is but one.

[h=3]
350px-Precession_animation_small_new.gif
[/h]
 
evince said:
what makes you think you are better experts than the vast majority of those in the field?
Dudes you have NOTHING to offer to convince anyone
Click to expand...

Once again Desh... your own link stated what I have said... that the majority (2/3) have not come to a conclusion as of yet. There is simply not enough data to support (or not support) AGW and 2/3 are in agreement with that. That is why you fear mongers running around shouting consensus are being mocked.
 
Rune said:
If you are so fucking smart, Why is Desh your main target?
Click to expand...

My main target?

My longest response was to Mott. He has not been on this thread since that point to continue discussing. Tom is of similar mind on this issue, thus not much to discuss with him. You are just on here in your normal whiny mode, thus not much to really address given you are not discussing the issue.
 
Rune, don't be a mindless groaner. I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything; I legitimately want to know if anyone has thought through what they'd really like to see on this issue.

Please feel free to try to answer that post, as well.
 
Superfreak said:
My main target?

My longest response was to Mott. He has not been on this thread since that point to continue discussing. Tom is of similar mind on this issue, thus not much to discuss with him. You are just on here in your normal whiny mode, thus not much to really address given you are not discussing the issue.
Click to expand...

It is what Rune does. Other than Desh, who cares about getting groaned or thanked?
 
Superfreak said:
My main target?

My longest response was to Mott. He has not been on this thread since that point to continue discussing. Tom is of similar mind on this issue, thus not much to discuss with him. You are just on here in your normal whiny mode, thus not much to really address given you are not discussing the issue.
Click to expand...


What horseshit. You are being disingenuous. It's not about this thread, this thread is just the latest example. Every day almost all you do is batter Desh, you post to her constantly. Seriously dude, get a hobby.
 
evince said:
No matter how you slice it your side is the minority in the field of sceince.

That means you PICK your science for political reasons.
Click to expand...
That's not really the point. Yes it's obvious that his argument has little scientific merit. The point is, is that his argument is intellectually dishonest.

The evidence for ACC is over whelming and those who deny it are doing so almost exclusively for pro-business or partisan political ideological reasons. Now why they feel compelled to the dishonest attempt at undermining the science is something I don't understand.
 
Last edited:
Aoxomoxoa said:
It must have been talking about the Milankovitch Cycles of which the precession of the equinoxes is but one.

[h=3]
350px-Precession_animation_small_new.gif
[/h]
Click to expand...

I missed the first part (about 5 minutes); but it began with the discovery of whale bone fossils and the question of how did they end up in the middle of a desert.
Showed how continental drift closed off part of the ocean, which explained the fossils.
Then it went on trying to discover how come huge amounts of fossilized fresh water shells were found and it turns out that a outerspace x-ray, of the Sahara, showed that at one time there was a vast network of above ground lakes and waterways.

Still leaves open the possiblity that all the recent ranting and raving, is due to nothing more then a continual process that the earth undergoes in cycles.
 
Rune said:
Do you get paid by the word? I am so sick and fucking tired of your novella posts. Do you really believe anyone reads them? My favorite is the ones that start "dear morons"...I mean, who reads further? Oh dear morons, that must be written to me. You know what, fuck you.
Click to expand...
Not only that but the clamis he's attributing to me are false. As far as I can tell he's talking nonsense. He's convinced with an absolute religious ferver of the fanatic that he's right.

His argument is based on the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack. He doesn't like the conclusion of science, which is so obvious any idiot can see the relationship. Emitting a 100 billion tons annualy of air pollutants has impacted climate. So instead he attacks the scientific community, scientist and the science in order to defend a view point that he tries to defend with data that fits his predetermined conclusions of which much of it comes from high questionable sources, that is, those with an economic vested interest who oppose change as it may hurt their industry.

So because of that he's unwilling to admit that the causal relationship between air pollution and ACC has been met and established and a wide consensus built around it. He's concerned about splitting hairs on minutae that only supports his argument. It's intellectually dishonest and is therefore a waste of time even discussing it with him.
 
anyone who denies these facts are either a dupe or a dupe wrangler.

I don't think even super believes what he says.


He just says whatever is required for him to be on the side of denying reality.

Money, insanity or whatever his reasons still makes him a liar.
 
Thing1 said:
I'm all for accelerating the transition to green technology as quickly as we can - without compromising our economy. But does anyone think there is anything we can actually do to lessen the impact of climate change?
Click to expand...
Not unilaterally, no. In fact we are one of the few industrialized nations that has recently decreased its carbon emmisions footprint.
 
Superfreak said:
See Mutt... the above highlights the brain trust on your fear mongering side of the AGW theory. Enjoy the company.
Click to expand...
Again, you're the one with the religious fanaticism on "global warming". You're lack on understanding of both how science works and the nature of this issue are both appalling.

As I said earlier......over 100 billion tons of air pollution, that's a trillion tons per decade, are emmitted annually. Nearly 40% of that is Carbon Dioxide emmisions alone. Please explain to me, who could those emmision levels not impact climate?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Not only that but the clamis he's attributing to me are false. As far as I can tell he's talking nonsense. He's convinced with an absolute religious ferver of the fanatic that he's right.

His argument is based on the logical fallacy of the ad hominem attack. He doesn't like the conclusion of science, which is so obvious any idiot can see the relationship. Emitting a 100 billion tons annualy of air pollutants has impacted climate. So instead he attacks the scientific community, scientist and the science in order to defend a view point that he tries to defend with data that fits his predetermined conclusions of which much of it comes from high questionable sources, that is, those with an economic vested interest who oppose change as it may hurt their industry.

So because of that he's unwilling to admit that the causal relationship between air pollution and ACC has been met and established and a wide consensus built around it. He's concerned about splitting hairs on minutae that only supports his argument. It's intellectually dishonest and is therefore a waste of time even discussing it with him.
Click to expand...

The actual amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere annually from human activity is around 6 gigatonnes, whereas that from natural causes is around 300 gigatonnes. just thought you ought to know.

Again I ask why hasn't there been any warming in sixteen years,? Surely if the science is so settled then that ought to be very easy to answer. Whilst you are about it, maybe you could answer why an organisation as prestigious as CERN is backing research into the impact of muons from deep space on cloud formation? Surely they could have just consulted Evince and saved themselves a shedload of money. How could such obvious fools manage to build the Large Hadron Collider?
 
Superfreak said:
No. There is nothing wrong with trying to find alternative resources for energy or ways to more efficiently burn the fossil fuels and reduce pollution. I encourage both of those.

That said, the fear mongering regarding CO2 and man made global warming is just that... fear mongering.
Click to expand...
To an extent it may be......but Warming is just one aspect of climate change. What about increased desertication? What about sea level rising? What about Shrinking ice sheets? What about declining Arctic sea ice? What about glacial retreat? What about the increased frequency of extreme weather events? What about ocean acidification? How do you explain this evidence climate change?
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Again, you're the one with the religious fanaticism on "global warming". You're lack on understanding of both how science works and the nature of this issue are both appalling.

As I said earlier......over 100 billion tons of air pollution, that's a trillion tons per decade, are emmitted annually. Nearly 40% of that is Carbon Dioxide emmisions alone. Please explain to me, who could those emmision levels not impact climate?
Click to expand...

Wrong, see post 94.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
To an extent it may be......but Warming is just one aspect of climate change. What about increased desertication? What about sea level rising? What about Shrinking ice sheets? What about declining Arctic sea ice? What about glacial retreat? What about the increased frequency of extreme weather events? What about ocean acidification? How do you explain this evidence climate change?
Click to expand...

Mott, regarding desertification see post 41.

Regarding glacial retreat, the answer is that some are and others are increasing, the claim that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would be gone by 2035 has been totally debunked.

http://articles.timesofindia.indiat...1_1_glaciers-global-warming-himalayan-geology

There is some evidence for a slight lowering og oceanic pH but the evidence is tenuous at best.

[SIZE=+1]Are oceans becoming more acidic?[/SIZE]
Measurements done during two NOAA voyages in the Pacific, about a decade apart, are the cause of the whole ruckus about ocean acidification. From these two voyages (one experiment) it is claimed that the average alkalinity of the ocean decreased by just 0.025 pH units amounting to an increase in DIC (CO2) of 15µmol/kg (0.73% of a total of 2050µmol/kg). I have not been able to ascertain whether adequate precautions have been followed, because measuring an absolute difference of 0.1pH borders on the margins of the possible, let alone 0.01. In the decade between the two voyages, also the pH measuring apparatus has changed, and so on. But a pH unit of 0.025 on a rather exponential (logarithmic scale) amounts to antilog(-0.025)=0.944 or 5.6% more hydrogen ions. Note that this is the only accurately measured value.

[SIZE=-1]1. Feely, R A (2006):Carbon dioxide and our ocean legacy in PMEL/NOAA[/SIZE]
Click to expand...

http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/acid2.htm#how_acidic
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top