Abbott: "Warmer when Jesus was a boy"

[Doctor Jolly]

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 doubt there are many people who come in with an open mind, and after research decide to go into the deniers camp.

Most go the other way.

 

[Helicopter Punt]

I doubt there are many people who come in with an open mind, and after research decide to go into the deniers camp.

Most go the other way.

I'm not convinced either way.

My doubts come from the continued use of 'out of chaos comes order'.
Past MO suggests that we are being set up to be further regulated.

Just let me put my tin hat on...
To set up a global body to administrate and levy penalties is very concerning to me.
What do we call a body that represents and taxes?

We've been duped too many times into giving up more and more of our sovereign status to 'save ourselves'.
Terrorism legislation being a gilt edged example. If we spent one tenth of that money saving us from - for instance fatal unicycle accidents we would have saved a similar amount of lives without the risk of being legally 'disappeared' at the drop of a hat and have far less debt requiring further industrious, polluting endeavor. The definition of terrorist can include all of us if we annoy the wrong people.

Further our economic system needs to continue to grow so as to not collapse in on itself. Inflation isn't good - it robs savings, but unfortunately is required in this bastard child of old-money bankers. The austerity measures proposed are counter-indicative of any semblance of an ongoing functioning economy.

If we are concerned then it is simply a case of ride a bike more, grow your own fruit/veggies, consume less - industry wont keep pumping out what isn't bought/used. If the powers that be were as concerned as some punters they would advocate this, not try and force legislation.
Regardless of the merits of the argument, the use of statutory control is a grab for (even more) power, nothing more.

There are enough doubts by qualified scientists with nothing to gain to lead me to suspect same old bullsh1t.

Tragedy is if the 'believers' are right we will burn due to ignoring the boy who cried wolf once too often.

Like I said - not convinced but have my doubts with the official line. Then again I always do.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

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.

the point being he is not a denier. He supports AGW, thus he is hardly a poster boy for the deniers. Got it?

 

[Dippers Donuts]

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.

So you're a denier. Fine. Embrace it.
Be in the minority.

 

[TheBloods]

the point being he is not a denier. He supports AGW, thus he is hardly a poster boy for the deniers. Got it?

You have serious issues, mainly with respect to intellect.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

You have serious issues, mainly with respect to intellect.

What, not respecting yours? I will stifle a laugh whilst you explain that one.

 

[Doctor Jolly]

I'm not convinced either way.

Yes you are.

My doubts come from the continued use of 'out of chaos comes order'.
Past MO suggests that we are being set up to be further regulated.

Just let me put my tin hat on...
To set up a global body to administrate and levy penalties is very concerning to me.
What do we call a body that represents and taxes?

We've been duped too many times into giving up more and more of our sovereign status to 'save ourselves'.
Terrorism legislation being a gilt edged example. If we spent one tenth of that money saving us from - for instance fatal unicycle accidents we would have saved a similar amount of lives without the risk of being legally 'disappeared' at the drop of a hat and have far less debt requiring further industrious, polluting endeavor. The definition of terrorist can include all of us if we annoy the wrong people.

The solution is to price polution, therefore make a market for it. Anything that generates polution that will cost money in the futures to fix, should have to pay for that polution now. We have global markets for almost every commodity known to man, and that hasnt caused us to give up our sovereign status, or economic growth.

Moving from one technology to another (fossil to renewable) while momumental, is no different from moves in other areas. Horse to car. Carrier pigeon to internet. None of these caused growth to stop, or soverign status to erode.

 

[TheBloods]

What, not respecting yours? I will stifle a laugh whilst you explain that one.

It's your blind belief that this debate is purely and only about whether temperatures are increasing and nothing else, and you're either a believer or a denier based on this and nothing else - you bring a level of intellect to the debate to rival KC07!

Actually, this is the level of intellect you bring to it...

 

[Helicopter Punt]

Yes you are.

Ah, no I am not.
Quite sure I stated previously that I am fairly new to the debate and am not equipped to to argue relevant specifics.

The solution is to price polution, therefore make a market for it. Anything that generates polution that will cost money in the futures to fix, should have to pay for that polution now. We have global markets for almost every commodity known to man, and that hasnt caused us to give up our sovereign status, or economic growth.

Moving from one technology to another (fossil to renewable) while momumental, is no different from moves in other areas. Horse to car. Carrier pigeon to internet. None of these caused growth to stop, or soverign status to erode.

I agree in principle with most of that, however...

If we price pollution with a view to substantially reduce it then my argument remains unscathed.
On the other hand if your suggesting that revenue from taxing pollution counters my point above then all we have is a new tax.

Moving from one technology to another makes sense but the only technology we currently have to do the job is nuclear - uranium/thorium.
To suggest that wind turbines and solar panels (whilst they certainly have their place) will replace the combined energy flux of oil/coal/gas is preposterous.
Until this solution is embraced or we quickly discover a suitable alternative we are in a catch 22.

With regards to pollution v. other commodities there is a small difference - but with big implications.
Any pinhead who stuffs up a commodity trade in any way wont affect me or my children unless I am directly involved (invested in company, employed by company etc.).
Pollution on the other hand leaves the sword of Damocles hanging over a NATIONS head.

Governments throughout history are remarkably consistent in their relentless pursuit of power, general incompetence/corruption, and looking out for themselves before their constituents. There is evidence everywhere you look that it continues to this day.

Any thinking person who suggests that their proposed solutions are solely for our benefit is a thinking person who believes in the healing power of magic pixie dust.

I'll repeat - my concerns come from how this is proposed to proceed, not whether it should. If I learn all the details I may well argue that point also but for now I defer to those better informed.

So you're a denier. Fine. Embrace it.
Be in the minority.

If the capacity to apply critical thinking to populist opinion spouted by mainstream media makes me a denier then I will embrace it. Thanks for the encouragement.
"if the single man plant himself indomitably on his instincts, and there abide, the huge world will come round to him"
They say there is strength in numbers so you can draw comfort from being in the herd. Say 'baa' to your friends for me.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

It's your blind belief that this debate is purely and only about whether temperatures are increasing and nothing else, and you're either a believer or a denier based on this and nothing else - you bring a level of intellect to the debate to rival KC07!

Actually, this is the level of intellect you bring to it...

Oh gawd, where does one go with such stupidity...
Sigh...the debate, if you will, is global warming.
The planet is warming, nobody doubts that (you wouldn't would you...?).
The issue is, what is causing this warming.
The majority of experts, in fact the overwhelming majority of experts, suggest man is driving this warming with the consumption of carbon based fossil fuels.
The pin head deniers like hawkermania on this site have to cobble together their own "experts" (insert laugh) to challenge the majority learning.
Their experts are generally older men, 60 + who are by and large, not experts. Some are weathermen for television, some are school teachers, some are engineers etc. You get the drift right?
There is no debate right? The debate is over. The question now is how the hell do we mitigate the damage and that's what the experts are doing. They've moved on to trying to minimize the impacts.
Youre quote "It's your blind belief that this debate is purely and only about whether temperatures are increasing and nothing else," is just so frigging stupid on so many levels.
Thats ALL its about!

 

[TheBloods]

Youre quote "It's your blind belief that this debate is purely and only about whether temperatures are increasing and nothing else," is just so frigging stupid on so many levels.
Thats ALL its about!

No - it's about why it is happening and what can or should be done about it. This was what I have said all along in this thread. That was exactly what Christy was saying. That's why your response below was stupid - 'he's not a denier, they're deniers'. That's all you have to offer, whereas I was trying to bring the debate back to its key points, as per Christy.

(Note - it is your not youre).

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.

the point being he is not a denier. He supports AGW, thus he is hardly a poster boy for the deniers. Got it?

What's the difference in the outcome between 'there is no global warming' and 'there is global warming but there are not catastrophic outcomes expected'?

 

[Hawkamania!]

What's the difference in the outcome between 'there is no global warming' and 'there is global warming but there are not catastrophic outcomes expected'?

That is what the alarmists on here fail to understand. If anyone is critical of the ipcc, the alp or the greens regarding their conclusions/beliefs, they are immediately are labeled deniers, or more appropriately in their own minds, heretics.

Its a shame as the real environmental problems humans do have a serious impact on are cast aside from the mainstream for a bogeyman that can be traded on markets as an inexhaustible commodity by bankers.

 

[Poptech]

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

Try checking wikipedia again, the page has been updated to correct the propaganda,

In a 2003 interview with National Public Radio about the 2003 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."

In a 2009 interview with Fortune Magazine about signing the 2003 American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement, he said: "As far as the AGU, I thought that was a fine statement because it did not put forth a magnitude of the warming. We just said that human effects have a warming influence, and that's certainly true. There was nothing about disaster or catastrophe. In fact, I was very upset about the latest AGU statement [in 2007]. It was about alarmist as you can get."

In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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."

Damn that has to hurt. I hate it when alarmists do not get their facts straight.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Try checking wikipedia again, the page has been updated to correct the propaganda,

Damn that has to hurt. I hate it when alarmists do not get their facts straight.

Oh look its the spam bot.
Christys wiki link still says this.

"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."

Epic fail spam bot.

 

[Wonaeamirri33]

Dynamite drop-in Dippers - and kudos for having the stamina to keep on speaking truth to tinfoil

 

[Dippers Donuts]

We must keep reminding these fools of the truth Wona!

 

[Poptech]

"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."

You seem confused. Most skeptics believe it is possible for man to influence the climate in "some way". Just like throwing a rock in the ocean can have some effect on the waves. It looks like you just got owned as Dr. Christy is one of the most influential skeptics around and his position is very clear,

"I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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."

- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama State Climatologist, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, Former Lead Author, IPCC

So do you support his position Dipstick?

 

[Grin]

The science is in. The evidence has been assessed and evaluated by the experts. The expert consensus is that global warming is occurring and that it is man made.

Despite what Andrew Bolt tells the stupid to believe.

 

[Poptech]

The science is in. The evidence has been assessed and evaluated by the experts. The expert consensus is that global warming is occurring and that it is man made.

The science is not in,

Climate Change Reconsidered (PDF) (868 pgs)

700 Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skepticism of "Man-Made" Global Warming

...and the evidence has been manipulated by the so called experts to get the results that they wanted. There is no consensus outside of a mild warming since the end of the LIA.

 

[Grin]

O dear.

We've bee through this many times now on this board

I'm not going to waste my time and make the argument again so go to Ockham's razor on May 9 and listen to a piece called 'The importance of evidence'. It only goes for about 12 minutes



Another one (which goes for about an hour) from the science show (April 3), talks about the level of evidence employed by the climate change conspiracy theories called 'Climate change scepticism - its sources and strategies'.
http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow...10/2859986.htm

If you listen to the above you will find yourself less easily tricked by those funded by vested interests.

 

[Poptech]

O dear.

We've bee through this many times now on this board

Yes we have been through the posting of lies in regards to the skeptics as you have done again.

Give Me a Break: Global Warming (Video) (8min) (ABC News)

 

[Hawkamania!]

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy

In a 2007 editorial in the Wall Street Journal, he wrote: "I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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 quote was taken from the Wall Street Journal on November 1st, 2007 from an article titiled "My Nobel Moment" (unfortunately behind a paywall).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119387567378878423.html

Comment is confirmed here: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1919858/posts

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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.

Also here: http://blog.tomevslin.com/2007/11/cause-for-globa.html

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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.

Also here: http://hectorowen.blogspot.com/2007/11/ipcc-scientists-against-gore.html

I'm sure the majority (but not all) of my IPCC colleagues cringe when I say this, 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.

So once again, the brainwashed congregation of the global warming religion have been debunked and their bodies of posts strawn in tatters much like their beliefs.

How sad is it when grin continues to push robyn william's propaganda over and over again after it has been shown that williams is nothing more than an another global warming cultist with beliefs that defy what the science is showing.

Poptech has won this argument and its time that the penny wong fan club move on before they are embarrassed any further by their blunders.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

You seem confused. Most skeptics believe it is possible for man to influence the climate in "some way". Just like throwing a rock in the ocean can have some effect on the waves. It looks like you just got owned as Dr. Christy is one of the most influential skeptics around and his position is very clear,

- John R. Christy, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, Professor of Atmospheric Science, Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville, Alabama State Climatologist, NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal, Former Lead Author, IPCC

So do you support his position Dipstick?

try bigger fonts spambot

 

[Poptech]

Dipstick, so I take it you do support Dr. Christy's explicity position on the issue. Good at least you can now stop spreading lies about him due to your lack of research abilities. Glad I could be of service to correct more of your misinformation.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Dipstick, so I take it you do support Dr. Christy's explicity position on the issue. Good at least you can now stop spreading lies about him due to your lack of research abilities. Glad I could be of service to correct more of your misinformation.

you are a fool spam bot and belong in the deniersphere with that other denier idiot hawker.
No facts.