-
AFLW 2024 - Round 10 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"
- Thread starter Doctor Jolly
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Because I think that the important debate is sidetracked into red herrings and the need to have a full and frank scientific discussion is overwhelmed by agendas. This thread is an example of that from a number of perspectives, as I commented in my first post.
As for temperature increases, I think they are a necessary but not sufficient condition for evidence of GW.
I understand your need to bring up religious beliefs since you personally believe all skeptics to be religious fundamentalists which is not true. I personally am religiously agnostic and support evolution theory and science based reasoning for the formation of the planet.
Your arguments for record breaking temperatures are all since the LIA began (a very cold period) and are for tenths of a degree. It has been established there are significant problems with the land based temperature record and contamination of the record by urban influences so I do not believe it is settled on the true nature of these records. Regardless skeptics support that there has been a mild global warming in tenths of a degree since the end of the LIA. Why you keep bringing this up is bizarre.
You seemed confused on what the argument really is, it is to the extent of the warming, the extent of future warming and the extent of human influences on it.
Then of course you make absurd statements regarding the tobacco industry and multi-national corporations. If you cannot stick to the topic maybe you should not comment on it.
Oh and I am also not a conservative.
So are there any other strawman arguments you would like to make?
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #179
CO2.
Put this in simple terms, as I doubt many on here have the scientific qualifications to interpret raw scientific findings (hence why many rely on blogs)....
The planet has had an amazingly efficient way of storing CO2, which is a known green house gas. This storage mechanism is known as coal, crude and gas (fossil fuels). They store C02 is such vast concentrations, that man could never hope to match with any sequestration techniques.
In the past 100 odd years, we have taken this storage, and released the Co2 into the atmosphere. The rate of release is increasing exponentially, and therefore any problems associated with it will increase exponentially.
The world has 2 main ways to re-absorb co2. Plants (forests), and the ocean. But man is also causing continued deforestation, so that will not be able to take the co2. The oceans, while vast, can absorb a lot of c02, but the consequence is the ocean becomes more acidic (carbonic acid), impacting life in it.
So, the earth is in a closed system, and the co2 has no where to go, and we are on track to double our emissions of it every 20 years or so.
Its really up to the skeptics, to tell us whats going to happen to this co2. Nothing is not an answer.
The comparison to the tobacco industry and their campain of misinformation and suspect research to create doubt is of course relavent to the current debate as it is many of the very same 'scientists' behaving in much the same way.
Just because you find it uncomfortable, doesn't make it a red herring.
Also I like how you attempt to pass off the FACT that global warming is occurring, as a straw man argument in a debate about global warming
.Haven't you got a Tea Party to attend.
So we've established that global warming is occuring
By how much?
The conspiracy theorists say not much.
But in reality it is enough to melt Icecaps to the point of opening a passage through the arctic
I understand that 1 or 2 degrees doesn't sound much to the unscientific and is another opportunity for pseudo scientists to cast some doubt.
Human cause?
The conspiracy theorists tell us to keep pumping CO2 into the environment, pump it as fast as we can in an exponentially increasing CO2 releasing orgy, as they are 100% sure that there has been no human input into global warming.
My beef with them is that, whilst they may not care about the future of their offspring in their desperation to score a shallow political point, people like me do care about the future welfare of our children and don't want to see it put at risk by nutters that claim global warming is some type of communist conspiracy to take over the world.
By how much?
The conspiracy theorists say not much.
But in reality it is enough to melt Icecaps to the point of opening a passage through the arctic
I understand that 1 or 2 degrees doesn't sound much to the unscientific and is another opportunity for pseudo scientists to cast some doubt.
Human cause?
The conspiracy theorists tell us to keep pumping CO2 into the environment, pump it as fast as we can in an exponentially increasing CO2 releasing orgy, as they are 100% sure that there has been no human input into global warming.
My beef with them is that, whilst they may not care about the future of their offspring in their desperation to score a shallow political point, people like me do care about the future welfare of our children and don't want to see it put at risk by nutters that claim global warming is some type of communist conspiracy to take over the world.
An excellent piece on CO2 and ipcc climate modeling.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm
Here is another link regarding greenhouse gasses which will give you and idea of how much of an influence man made CO2 has made to our climate since the Pre-industrial baseline as defined by the ipcc as the year 1750 A.D.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GW_5GH_IPCC_GHG.htm
Here is another link regarding greenhouse gasses which will give you and idea of how much of an influence man made CO2 has made to our climate since the Pre-industrial baseline as defined by the ipcc as the year 1750 A.D.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
So according to the BF global warming FUD merchants, the 0.117% man made CO2 tail wags the remaining 99.883% of the greenhouse dog. You guys better stop breathing in order to "save" the Earth.
Yeah I know, I was waiting for the deniers to come up with their response. This one always stumps them. Given all other natural factors are accounted for, there is only one answer for the current warming - the 40% increase in CO2 in industrial times.
That you randomly term people "deniers" if they disagree with anything at all you say (usually arising because you don't understand what they are saying) is again symptomatic of the problems with this debate.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #185
Hawkamania, please stop showing links to blogs.
As has been proven through this thread, blogs written by unqualified people say whatever you want them to. They are worthless to this debate.
So please stop this noise, so the rest of us can debate the facts.
Passages through the artic have existed before. How so ?
Lumping everyone who doesn't want an ETS or doesn't believe the science is settled as people who 'tell us to keep pumping C02 into the environment, pump it as fast blah lbah blah ... ' or people who don't care about their offspring is very disengenious.
If the world does not act on C02, then nothing we do will stop it. Why should I hurt my hip pocket before the only countries that matter, the US, China and India do anything. It makes no sense apart from a feel good sense, and if you want to feel good, install solar and get on a bike.
So far I have linked to articles with scientific papers as references while you and your global warming crew have done nothing more that present straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, zero scientific references and, this is the real laughable part, linked from blogs such as greenfyres.
If you guys can't have a respectable debate, then do the honourable thing and stay quiet while the adults on here share info and discuss matters intellectually.
Appart fro the fact that the world is warming.
Like I said It's not rocket science. Just look at recorded temperatures since records began. Especially the past few decades.
So you agree that global warming is possibly caused by CO2 emissions and that the world must reduce CO2 emissions?
they deny irrefutable scientfic facts, therefore they are deniers.
I liken them to the last holdouts of the cigarettes-don't-cause-cancer-brigade from the 60s. Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, they held on grimly for as long as they possibly could. Generally they had a vested interest to do so. Eventually the tide overwhelmed them.
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #191
Helicopter Punt
Team Captain
John Christy, a lead author of the IPCC.
Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center in
Huntsville, Alabama, is one of the founders of the satellite system
of global temperature measurements.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 1, 2007, Christy told
the world that he does not believe that it is proven that humans cause global
warming, and he also refused his slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize awarded to IPCC (Christy 2007).
He said:
". . . the award honor promoting the message that the
Earth’s temperature is rising due to human-based emissions
of greenhouse gases . . . but I see neither the
developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that
human activity is to blame for most of the warming we
see."
This guy wrote IPCC reports not blogs.
Christy, the director of the Earth System Science Center in
Huntsville, Alabama, is one of the founders of the satellite system
of global temperature measurements.
In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal on Nov. 1, 2007, Christy told
the world that he does not believe that it is proven that humans cause global
warming, and he also refused his slice of the 2007 Nobel Peace
Prize awarded to IPCC (Christy 2007).
He said:
". . . the award honor
Earth’s temperature is rising due to human-based emissions
of greenhouse gases . . . but I see neither the
developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that
human activity is to blame for most of the warming we
see."
This guy wrote IPCC reports not blogs.
Helicopter Punt
Team Captain
edit: deleted double post.
Helicopter Punt
Team Captain
A few others:
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are
supposed to soon disappear because they’ve put out too much
carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a
variograph record, from 1978, so it’s 30 years. And again, if
you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past
president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
At least the decision makers know the truth....
• Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary
of State for Global Issues, seconded
Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride
the global warming issue. Even if the
theory of global warming is wrong.”
• Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state
who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department,
stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even
if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.”
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies
Professor, Department of Biology
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Professor, by courtesy, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University in an interview
with Discover magazine:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to
the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but. . . . On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well . . . we
need to get some broadbased support, to capture the
public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads
of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to
decide what the right balance is between being effective
and being honest.
The science is in
I also have trouble taking claims about the last few decades seriously. I mean what does a couple of decades look like as a percentage against 4,600,000,000 years? It is incomplete to say the least as a reference for the GW claims - especially as the temperature had been jumping around prior to industrialisation.
Another famous place is the Tuvalu Islands, which are
supposed to soon disappear because they’ve put out too much
carbon dioxide. There we have a tide gauge record, a
variograph record, from 1978, so it’s 30 years. And again, if
you look there, absolutely no trend, no rise.
Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner has studied sea level and its effects on coastal areas for some 35 years. Recently retired as director of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, Mörner is past
president (1999-2003) of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution, and leader of the Maldives Sea Level Project.
At least the decision makers know the truth....
• Timothy Wirth, U.S. Undersecretary
of State for Global Issues, seconded
Strong’s statement: “We have got to ride
the global warming issue. Even if the
theory of global warming is wrong.”
• Richard Benedick, a deputy assistant secretary of state
who headed policy divisions of the U.S. State Department,
stated: “A global warming treaty must be implemented even
if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced]
greenhouse effect.”
STEPHEN H. SCHNEIDER
Melvin and Joan Lane Professor for Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies
Professor, Department of Biology
Senior Fellow, Woods Institute for the Environment
Professor, by courtesy, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University in an interview
with Discover magazine:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to
the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth,
the whole truth, and nothing but. . . . On the other hand,
we are not just scientists but human beings as well . . . we
need to get some broadbased support, to capture the
public’s imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads
of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little
mention of any doubts we might have. . . . Each of us has to
decide what the right balance is between being effective
and being honest.
The science is in
I also have trouble taking claims about the last few decades seriously. I mean what does a couple of decades look like as a percentage against 4,600,000,000 years? It is incomplete to say the least as a reference for the GW claims - especially as the temperature had been jumping around prior to industrialisation.
Nice way to ignore the important questions in my post. Feel free to answer them instead of the usual diverion you guys do when presented with questions that go against the 'scientific proof'.
But as I keep stating, I am not convinced by the science and even if the science is true, which is being debated), Australia leading the way on an ETS will only hurt our hip pocket and have 0 impact on global warming. Glad you agree with me on that.
Not sure why you would quote this guy as some sort of sword carrier for the deniers.
From his wikipedia page;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy
In an interview with National Public Radio about the new American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "It is scientifically inconceivable that after changing forests into cities, turning millions of acres into irrigated farmland, putting massive quantities of soot and dust into the air, and putting extra greenhouse gases into the air, that the natural course of climate has not changed in some way
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #197
The science is in
I also have trouble taking claims about the last few decades seriously. I mean what does a couple of decades look like as a percentage against 4,600,000,000 years? It is incomplete to say the least as a reference for the GW claims - especially as the temperature had been jumping around prior to industrialisation.
Science only has accurate temperature readings for the last couple of hundred years (using thermometers) Everything prior to that is measure using more abstract measurements from core samples. Hence there is a greater error in that.
Therefore is is incorrect to say the "temperature has been jumping around prior to industrailisation", because it implies we have accurate temperature measurements for the past couple of thousand years. We dont. The error in measurements swamps the so called jumps, making the jumps furphies.
What this early data shows is the very long term ( millions of years )correlation between Co2 level and planet temperature. Thats were we come to the hockey stick graph. Co2 levels are easier to measure long term.
And that is why claiming MWP or hotter when Jesus was a boy, is total bullsh1t. There is no accurate data to support that.
Because it also says "While he supports the AGU declaration and is convinced that human activities are one cause of the global warming that has been measured, Christy is "still a strong critic of scientists who make catastrophic predictions of huge increases in global temperatures and tremendous rises in sea levels."
He recognises global warming, however he's not sure of the potential effects or the relative contribution of all the causes.
Helicopter Punt
Team Captain
I'm not. In fact I didn't even know who he was 30 min before I posted it.
I took an interest and did some reading after reading this thread. Very surprised at what the non 'deniers' had to say.
Re: DENIERS. A fact can be denied not an argument/debate. Whether or not global warming is man made is far from established fact.
Using the term alludes or suggests otherwise.
I think the subtle psychological crutch of needing to calling non believers 'deniers' is rather telling. If an argument is strong enough to stand on it's own feet there would be no need to play the man.
For what it's worth I was on the fence previously although I now have a foot in the 'deniers' camp.
As I stated above I'm fairly new to the debate so I am not equipped to argue either way - yet.
I love it when wikipedia is used by the global warming alarmists to back up their claims. Here is the history page for
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Christy&limit=500&action=history
Once again we see william "stoat" connolley's fingerprints all over an article linked to the climate debate. As we know, connolley is responsible to polluting the climate debate as a wikipedia admin. See below post for details.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17725985&postcount=30
Another day and still no real citations from the global warming propagandists defending the dodgy practices of the ipcc and their non-scientific reports.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=John_Christy&limit=500&action=history
Once again we see william "stoat" connolley's fingerprints all over an article linked to the climate debate. As we know, connolley is responsible to polluting the climate debate as a wikipedia admin. See below post for details.
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/showpost.php?p=17725985&postcount=30
Another day and still no real citations from the global warming propagandists defending the dodgy practices of the ipcc and their non-scientific reports.
