Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...

But that aside How do you reconcile the ' Unreasonably Demonised' when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?

I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.

ah yes, the people that tries to warn the world against potential death and catastrophe are just like the same people who burn and torture people.

One group uses voodoo 'science" and research and tests... just like the other who uses the Bible and "confessions".


I guess if I spent hundreds of millions in the right places, I'd be able to influence some minds too.

 

[luutzu]

All climate activists are members of the climate brigade!

As is evidenced by the dearth of applied logic in their professed beliefs, precious few are scientifically literate.

A few claim to be scientists and climatologists and yet somehow manage to behave more like apacolyptic fantasists than would be seemly for true practitioners of science.

Just to clarify, anyone voicing support for reform, conversion and/or prosecution of heretics (a.k.a deniers) is most assuredly a member of the climate brigade!


Scepticism isn't limited to the questioning of others beliefs and agendas! It can also be used to question your own!


By the way, have you found a way to disprove the existence of Lucifer?

So I have an agenda now?

What's my agenda?

I already argued that God does not exist, hence Lucifer does not exist. How does anyone "prove" God doesn't exist? Go bring him here? Go to all the corners of the universe a few times and if God can't be found then god doesn't exist?

Anyway, scientists have done enough to show a highly likely cause of the current extreme weather that's been all over the world lately... If you don't think they know what the heck they're talking about, you present another reason and see if it make sense.

So far though, all I've seen and heard from "skeptics" is "we don't know", "it's the weather, it changes all the time".

That won't cut it.

 

[cynic]

The Spanish Inquisition comes to mind, good catholic boys. And about as enlightened as a few bods here ...

But that aside How do you reconcile the ' Unreasonably Demonised' when they hang themselves on their own petard of their own in house research?

I'll answer that for you with your own style of inquisitive metric.... You wont you can't and you don't.

Some years ago I got paid a bit of extra overtime searching for a "missing" file in the archives of an engineering branch of a major petroleum company. The file related to an oil spill, hence the reason for my suspicions regarding the true status of the file's misplacement. That same company tasked me with reverse engineering a number of charts of safe fill levels pertaining to bulk petroleum storage tanks at a terminal that had recently come under their purview. (They claimed they didn't have enough money left in their budget to send out a contractor to take fresh strapping measurements of the strakes of each of the tanks at that terminal.)

Needless to say, a couple of years later, that particular storage terminal made it into the news.

So do you really think that I am sufficiently unfamiliar with the petroleum industry to furnish my own answer to your question?

But of course, you've already taken the liberty of answering it for me! I would say it is a pity that you presumed to give yourself your preferred answer, rather than the truth, but then I know from experience such behaviour is fairly typical of evangelism.

 

[cynic]

So I have an agenda now?

What's my agenda?

I already argued that God does not exist, hence Lucifer does not exist. How does anyone "prove" God doesn't exist? Go bring him here? Go to all the corners of the universe a few times and if God can't be found then god doesn't exist?

Anyway, scientists have done enough to show a highly likely cause of the current extreme weather that's been all over the world lately... If you don't think they know what the heck they're talking about, you present another reason and see if it make sense.

So far though, all I've seen and heard from "skeptics" is "we don't know", "it's the weather, it changes all the time".

That won't cut it.

Your failed effort to disprove the existence of Lucifer won't cut it either, as it is relies heavily upon two unproven assumptions.

One being the assumption that the existence of Lucifer depends on the existence of God.

The second assumption being the non existence of God.

The unproven first assumption about a God dependent Lucifer is embraced by some religions, however, those same religions would totally reject the second assumption as they firmly believe in the existence of God.

Now, as to your question on agendas, could you tell me again exactly why it is you believe the onus is on deniers to disprove your climate religion?

 

[luutzu]

Your failed effort to disprove the existence of Lucifer won't cut it either, as it is relies heavily upon two unproven assumptions.

One being the assumption that the existence of Lucifer depends on the existence of God.

The second assumption being the non existence of God.

The unproven first assumption about a God dependent Lucifer is embraced by some religions, however, those same religions would totally reject the second assumption as they firmly believe in the existence of God.

Now, as to your question on agendas, could you tell me again exactly why it is you believe the onus is on deniers to disprove your climate religion?

Lucifer is Satan right? The Devil? A fallen archangel or something?

If God does not exist, every fairy tales and belief systems that depend on his existence does not exist.

Anyway, we can save our sophistry and hot air for another day. Let's focus on the issue at hand...


97% of climate science studies on the dam thing concludes that it is highly likely that CC is real and most likely cause by human activities.

What's the denier's argument for the opposite?

I feel it in my gut that it doesn't. No way. Weather changes; storms and hurricane and drought and bushfire happens, big deal.

To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.

Deniers replies... na, can't be. I just don't believe it. Prove it.

----

Scientists have prove the correlation to the point that they can, and are trying to add to that knowledge everyday.

Deniers? Na, can't be. Just weather changing.

----

One question: Do you eat whatever food or non food you see? Just consume it?

No right?

Certain food you just won't touch... because you take something in it will affect your body, no?


So our factories, our vehicles, our power stations etc.... all pumping out non-organic, hazardous chemicals... doing it last couple centuries like never before in the history of the planet... and?

And all that just won't affect a living planet whatsoever.

Ok then.

 

[cynic]

Lucifer is Satan right? The Devil? A fallen archangel or something?

If God does not exist, every fairy tales and belief systems that depend on his existence does not exist.

Anyway, we can save our sophistry and hot air for another day. Let's focus on the issue at hand...


97% of climate science studies on the dam thing concludes that it is highly likely that CC is real and most likely cause by human activities.

What's the denier's argument for the opposite?

I feel it in my gut that it doesn't. No way. Weather changes; storms and hurricane and drought and bushfire happens, big deal.

To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.

Deniers replies... na, can't be. I just don't believe it. Prove it.

----

Scientists have prove the correlation to the point that they can, and are trying to add to that knowledge everyday.

Deniers? Na, can't be. Just weather changing.

----

One question: Do you eat whatever food or non food you see? Just consume it?

No right?

Certain food you just won't touch... because you take something in it will affect your body, no?


So our factories, our vehicles, our power stations etc.... all pumping out non-organic, hazardous chemicals... doing it last couple centuries like never before in the history of the planet... and?

And all that just won't affect a living planet whatsoever.

Ok then.

And where exactly did you get the idea that CO2 was a "non-organic, hazardous chemical"?

Are 97% of scientists saying this?

Or is this something that somebody tells you when informing beliefs and actions to be taken lest all humanity be doomed?

 

[luutzu]

And where exactly did you get the idea that CO2 was a "non-organic, hazardous chemical"?

Are 97% of scientists saying this?

Or is this something that somebody tells you when informing beliefs and actions to be taken lest all humanity be doomed?

Let's not get cute with organic and inorganic chemistry shall we.

Not all scientists know climate science dude. Specialised field of study. Something scientists take decade to master but you and Donalld Trump feel it in your heart it isn't so.

If climate scientist all want to scare people, I have a feeling they won't be leaving room for doubt about their claims.

They'll be as confident as the Avengelists and genius Donald in saying it is because we say so.

 

[cynic]

Let's not get cute with organic and inorganic chemistry shall we.

Not all scientists know climate science dude. Specialised field of study. Something scientists take decade to master but you and Donalld Trump feel it in your heart it isn't so.

If climate scientist all want to scare people, I have a feeling they won't be leaving room for doubt about their claims.

They'll be as confident as the Avengelists and genius Donald in saying it is because we say so.

So not 97% of scientists, only climate scientists then?

And the chemical distinctions are somehow irrelevant unless somebody is being fanciful?

 

[wayneL]

To which the scientists replied... no azzhole, these are happening more frequentl, on a bigger scale, all over the place. So drought are more severe, lasts longer; storms bigger and more often... These are anything but natural climate and seasonal change of the weather. And our studies all indicate that it is likely caused by human burning of fossil fuel - so switch to alternatives before it's too late.

You are regurgitating the mantra of alarmism Grasshopper. You need to check your facts on these points, real, risk adjusted data.

 

[luutzu]

So not 97% of scientists, only climate scientists then?

And the chemical distinctions are somehow irrelevant unless somebody is being fanciful?

Let say we have a proposal to build one of those sky-freeways going over your house. It will carry trucks, buses, tankers and freight rail.

How should the Council review such proposal? Just from an engineering perspective. How?

Send the engineering plans to all engineers? Or only to Civil Engineers? Structural Engineers? Road Engineers?

Should the engineering plans be sent to Electrical Engineers too? Chemical Engineer?

Maybe we should just ask what the developers think of it. It's safe. No worries, she'll be right.


Would you do that? I bet you wouldn't.

And if 97% of the engineer studies, with each examining different aspect of the proposal, come to the conclusion that the bridge is not safe and changes better be made... Will you be asking about the other 3% that didn't prove it safe otherwise - just that they can't be sure... Whose words are you going to take?

Oh yes, let's not appeal to authority. Those idiots with their fancy degrees trying to con the world.

Con the world into what?

Con us towards caution? Towards a cleaner alternative? To seriously start thinking that maybe all the extinction of spcecies we're seeing, all the major castastrophe might not be natural.

Frickin evil scientists.

----

Yes, you and friends apparently know more about atmospheric chemistry than them climate scientists.

Maybe you forgot I also use the word "hazardous" with those adjectives on the chemicals the burning of fossil fuel releases. Hazardous is fine but whether it's organic or inorganic is the sticking point here?

I guess the important thing is whether the cause can be pinpoint with precision. The possibility that life on Earth may end, mehhh.

 

[luutzu]

You are regurgitating the mantra of alarmism Grasshopper. You need to check your facts on these points, real, risk adjusted data.

There's no need to be alarmed? Maybe just be alert?

As I've point to other studies before, over the past 100 years, an average of one species goes extinct per year.

Before industrialisation, the average was estimated to be 1 extinction every 100 years.

That is a 100 fold increase.

The last time Earth experience this rate of extinction, the dinosaurs were being wiped out.

But we shouldn't be too alarmist about that?

Then there's war over resources, drought and famine, lives lost, lifetime's savings wiped clean if a "freak" storm hit...

Don't worry, be happy.


The climate scientists are telling us the potential problem; there are technology and ability to do something about it - and doing it will also create jobs and lift people out of poverty... naaahhh... why bother.

 

[wayneL]

There's no need to be alarmed? Maybe just be alert?

As I've point to other studies before, over the past 100 years, an average of one species goes extinct per year.

Before industrialisation, the average was estimated to be 1 extinction every 100 years.

That is a 100 fold increase.

The last time Earth experience this rate of extinction, the dinosaurs were being wiped out.

But we shouldn't be too alarmist about that?

Then there's war over resources, drought and famine, lives lost, lifetime's savings wiped clean if a "freak" storm hit...

Don't worry, be happy.


The climate scientists are telling us the potential problem; there are technology and ability to do something about it - and doing it will also create jobs and lift people out of poverty... naaahhh... why bother.

Strawman argument.

Conflating separate issues.

Don't insult our intelligence Grasshopper

 

[cynic]

Let say we have a proposal to build one of those sky-freeways going over your house. It will carry trucks, buses, tankers and freight rail.

How should the Council review such proposal? Just from an engineering perspective. How?

Send the engineering plans to all engineers? Or only to Civil Engineers? Structural Engineers? Road Engineers?

Should the engineering plans be sent to Electrical Engineers too? Chemical Engineer?

Maybe we should just ask what the developers think of it. It's safe. No worries, she'll be right.


Would you do that? I bet you wouldn't.

And if 97% of the engineer studies, with each examining different aspect of the proposal, come to the conclusion that the bridge is not safe and changes better be made... Will you be asking about the other 3% that didn't prove it safe otherwise - just that they can't be sure... Whose words are you going to take?

Oh yes, let's not appeal to authority. Those idiots with their fancy degrees trying to con the world.

Con the world into what?

Con us towards caution? Towards a cleaner alternative? To seriously start thinking that maybe all the extinction of spcecies we're seeing, all the major castastrophe might not be natural.

Frickin evil scientists.

----

Yes, you and friends apparently know more about atmospheric chemistry than them climate scientists.

Maybe you forgot I also use the word "hazardous" with those adjectives on the chemicals the burning of fossil fuel releases. Hazardous is fine but whether it's organic or inorganic is the sticking point here?

I guess the important thing is whether the cause can be pinpoint with precision. The possibility that life on Earth may end, mehhh.

There are several problems with your apocalyptic religion. The foremost is that you don't actually seem to be basing this on actual science. This is evident from your repititious regurgitation of the 97% consensus fiction. Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.

Another problem is the way you demonise CO2 emissions with words like non-organic and hazardous. It's as though you are oblivious to the fact that you physically exhale CO2 gas! Mother nature has been accommodating CO2 emissions since before we emerged from our caves!

But the biggest problem, is that this religion that you've chosen to embrace, is so zealous that it somehow manages to contort any meteorological or biological event into evidence of impending doom and then claim that their apocalyptic vision somehow entitles them to command the support of the entire human populace.

Now getting back to that Lucifer character that you don't believe exists...

 

[SirRumpole]

Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.

Who by ?

Amateur scientists or the real thing ?

 

[cynic]

Who by ?

Amateur scientists or the real thing ?

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Edit: Some more info here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#33e516685909

 

[luutzu]

There are several problems with your apocalyptic religion. The foremost is that you don't actually seem to be basing this on actual science. This is evident from your repititious regurgitation of the 97% consensus fiction. Check back through this thread and you'll find that the purported scientific consensus has been thoroughly debunked.

Another problem is the way you demonise CO2 emissions with words like non-organic and hazardous. It's as though you are oblivious to the fact that you physically exhale CO2 gas! Mother nature has been accommodating CO2 emissions since before we emerged from our caves!

But the biggest problem, is that this religion that you've chosen to embrace, is so zealous that it somehow manages to contort any meteorological or biological event into evidence of impending doom and then claim that their apocalyptic vision somehow entitles them to command the support of the entire human populace.

Now getting back to that Lucifer character that you don't believe exists...

So these are the same stuff we all breathe out.






Maybe there's CO2 and a bunch of other hazardous chemical and gases among these smog?

Yah dude, Mother Nature have been cleaning up CO2 long before... With what? Trees and rainforest? The stuff human seem to not be cutting down?

How else does Mother Nature clean up CO2 or carbon and other toxics?

Maybe she burried it under layers and layers of rock, clay and ice...

So the main mechanism to remove carbon and leave oxygen behind are being depleted; the chemicals and all those wonderful fossilised natural stuff are being extracted and burnt - releasing it back into the atmosphere.

But she'll be right. Nothing in nature has been changed or affected much.

Just like how you would be a bit careful in what you consume because it have an impact on your health; Mother Nature is fine with fumes and toxic that's burried for millions of years being pumped back up at unprecedented rate... OK then.


Oh, the 97% is debunked? Wow. By whom? People at NASA or the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil?

 

[luutzu]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052702303480304579578462813553136

Edit: Some more info here
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/#33e516685909

ha ha... Bloody Wall St and Forbes.

Those guys aren't taking any money from fossil industry at all.

 

[luutzu]

Strawman argument.

Conflating separate issues.

Don't insult our intelligence Grasshopper

Circle of Life stuff Sifu.

Canary in the coal mine.

 

[cynic]

So these are the same stuff we all breathe out.

View attachment 67082

View attachment 67083


Maybe there's CO2 and a bunch of other hazardous chemical and gases among these smog?

Yah dude, Mother Nature have been cleaning up CO2 long before... With what? Trees and rainforest? The stuff human seem to not be cutting down?

How else does Mother Nature clean up CO2 or carbon and other toxics?

Maybe she burried it under layers and layers of rock, clay and ice...

So the main mechanism to remove carbon and leave oxygen behind are being depleted; the chemicals and all those wonderful fossilised natural stuff are being extracted and burnt - releasing it back into the atmosphere.

But she'll be right. Nothing in nature has been changed or affected much.

Just like how you would be a bit careful in what you consume because it have an impact on your health; Mother Nature is fine with fumes and toxic that's burried for millions of years being pumped back up at unprecedented rate... OK then.


Oh, the 97% is debunked? Wow. By whom? People at NASA or the Koch Brothers and ExxonMobil?

How cute! You have holy pictures to show me. Now tell me what gases are visible in those pictures?

 

[cynic]

ha ha... Bloody Wall St and Forbes.

Those guys aren't taking any money from fossil industry at all.

Perhaps.

Is that your sole reason for disputing the reported findings of those scientists?