Resisting Climate Hysteria

[luutzu]

There you go again totally misconstruing what I was saying in a vain attempt to defend your precious 97% illusion!

34.8% does not a consensus maketh!!

90 to 100% does maketh though.

Your logic is this...

I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"

I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.

What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.


Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.

 

[wayneL]

Troll basilio?

I am offended by your mythical creaturism and demand an apology

 

[Logique]

Do you ever wonder Noco why your views on this issue are regarded as totally delusional and completely separate from reality ?
( Of course not. Tha'ts the point of being totally delusional isn't it ?)

Noco is on the side of scientific evidence, not the received epithets of group think '..what we're saying today..' climate alarmism.

We will see who is 'delusional', and we will see who is a '..social media influencer'. Noco hasn't been influenced, nor has anyone with a Year 10 or beyond science education. Which excludes most of the alarmist commentariat.

The Arts Faculty shouldn't involve themselves in matters that are, let's face it, beyond their comprehension.

 

[basilio]

Indeed Logique your so 'rite' about the Arts Faculty not involving themselves in matters so critical as the survival of our current ecosystem.
So isn't it great to see that practically the entire scientific community has come out squarely behind the research and record efforts of reputable, peer reviewed climate scientists who are overwhelmingly sure that:

1) The planet is cooking
2) Humanity with it's release of billions of tons of extra greenhouse gases is the primary cause.
Perhaps you should invoke the classically (non) educated Lord BS Monckton as your chief denier and regal use with his alternative facts.

________________________________________________________________
Scientific Societies

• American Meteorological Society: Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society
  
  "Indeed, strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change." (February 2007)
  
  
• American Physical Society: Statement on Climate Change
  
  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (November 2007)
  
  
• American Geophysical Union: Human Impacts on Climate
  
  "The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system—including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons—are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century." (Adopted December 2003, Revised and Reaffirmed December 2007)
  
  
• American Association for the Advancement of Science: AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change
  
  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (December 2006)
  
  
• Geological Society of America: Global Climate Change
  
  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) supports the scientific conclusions that Earth’s climate is changing; the climate changes are due in part to human activities; and the probable consequences of the climate changes will be significant and blind to geopolitical boundaries." (October 2006)
  
  
• American Chemical Society: Statement on Global Climate Change
  
  "There is now general agreement among scientific experts that the recent warming trend is real (and particularly strong within the past 20 years), that most of the observed warming is likely due to increased atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, and that climate change could have serious adverse effects by the end of this century." (July 2004)
  

National Science Academies

• U.S. National Academy of Sciences: Understanding and Responding to Climate Change
  
  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)
  
  
• International academies: Joint science academies’ statement: Global response to climate change
  
  "Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring." (2005, 11 national academies of science)
  
  
• International academies The Science of Climate Change
  
  "Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified." (2001, 16 national academies of science)
  

Research

• National Research Council of the National Academies, America’s Climate Choices
  
  "Most of the recent warming can be attributed to fossil fuel burning and other human activities that release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere." America's Climate Choices, Advancing the Science of Climate Change, 2010
  
  
• U.S. Climate Change Research Program, Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
  
  "Global warming is unequivocal and primarily human-induced. Global temperature has increased over the past 50 years. This observed increase is due primarily to human-induced emissions of heat-trapping gases."

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warmin...nce/scientific-consensus-on.html#.WRqPgLitHkc

 

[noco]

90 to 100% does maketh though.

Your logic is this...

I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"

I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.

What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.


Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.

Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.

That is old hat and proven to be wrong.

Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.

The debate is over.

 

[luutzu]

Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.

That is old hat and proven to be wrong.

Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.

The debate is over.

I thought it's red and green

Oh man! That's why we're all on to this CC thing. We're working for the Chinese Communists!

See, the comrades are getting ahead because they don't care for clean this and not poison that... Thank God for Trump and his we-also-don't-care-if-you-poor-all-die policies. Make merka great again!

 

[luutzu]

Lu are your feathers pink and grey or white with a yellow crest, because you keep squawking on this 97%.

That is old hat and proven to be wrong.

Give up man...you are fighting a losing battle.

The debate is over.

btw, it's not "Lu"... that word mean "water tank", water pot. Add a "u" and my name have a very awesome meaning to it.

 

[noco]

I thought it's red and green

Oh man! That's why we're all on to this CC thing. We're working for the Chinese Communists!

See, the comrades are getting ahead because they don't care for clean this and not poison that... Thank God for Trump and his we-also-don't-care-if-you-poor-all-die policies. Make merka great again!

Red and green stands for the Water Melon team.

 

[cynic]

90 to 100% does maketh though.

Your logic is this...

I walk down the street and randomly ask people 'Do you think this guy call Cynic is right about CC?"

I don't know, I haven't look into his opinion so I have no position on it.

What? Alright, that's a negative then. One more person saying Cynic is wrong on CC.


Not looking good Cynic, lots of people who have never heard of you are saying you're wrong man.

Exactly which part of 34.8% is beyond your mathematical comprehension?

 

[Tisme]

While we are on the subject of Juice Medias take on Government policies check out where Koalas and Forests are going.



______________

That's a nice little line on the evironmental value of CO2 you have there Wayne. I won't bite because you are almost as good a troller as Noco and that is especially smelly bait.

By the way I understand the other CC (concentration camps) were excellent at curing obesity problems. 100% success I believe.

20 years ago the bay area had koalas everywhere to be seen, now days you see zip. nada, zilch, zero, nil, nought, ...... progress and sustainability in process.

 

[noco]

This thread is really becoming one big joke.

CC is all to do with the Sun and is going through its cycle....Many articles have been posted on the subject but unfortunately the Alarmist will not accept it and will continue on with their scam......They will never admit they could be wrong.......

 

[Tisme]

This thread is really becoming one big joke.

CC is all to do with the Sun and is going through its cycle....Many articles have been posted on the subject but unfortunately the Alarmist will not accept it and will continue on with their scam......They will never admit they could be wrong.......

If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?

 

[SirRumpole]

The debate is over.

Yes it is, and you lost.

 

[noco]

If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?

Probably from North Korea with love.

 

[noco]

Yes it is, and you lost.

Just LMAO.
Time will tell.......Unfortunately I may not live long enough to witness the truth about about the AGW scam.

 

[cynic]

If a missile is heading towards our shores, should we try to mitigate the risk or just agree it was launched by someone we can't control and allow it through our defences?

How many wind farms and batteries of solar panels do you think we'd need to repel it?

Or maybe a 10% missile tax, yeah that'll fix it for ya!

 

[Tisme]

How many wind farms and batteries of solar panels do you think we'd need to repel it?

Or maybe a 10% missile tax, yeah that'll fix it for ya!

Don't know what the camel's back load is at the moment, but worth a crack given it's spawning new industries. enthusiasm and employment anyway.

 

[luutzu]

Exactly which part of 34.8% is beyond your mathematical comprehension?

The part where 34.8% is the actual 100% of papers with a position on AGW, 97% of which said Yay. Wait, I can comprehend that confusing bit about 34% is the actual 100% of relevant papers.

Again, if we follow your logic, we might as well cite all scientific papers on all things ever published and say that 0.000000000001% if science holds no position on AGW.

 

[luutzu]

Don't know what the camel's back load is at the moment, but worth a crack given it's spawning new industries. enthusiasm and employment anyway.

A bit risky isn't it McGee? I mean, cleaner air? Come one. Cleaner waterways? Who needs that? Cheaper energy because once the infrastructure is established, the raw material are delivered by nature pretty much on time and around the clock... are we going to relay on the Sun rising with chances of clouds, or are we going to rely on Aurizon delivering coals on time whether it rain, hail, flooded, or shine?

Then there's the unnecessary waste of building flood barriers, flood pumps, sea walls. Why risk and waste that when if CC does raise sea level, we'll just move all the world's ports and cities and farmland a bit higher up.

 

[noco]

A bit risky isn't it McGee? I mean, cleaner air? Come one. Cleaner waterways? Who needs that? Cheaper energy because once the infrastructure is established, the raw material are delivered by nature pretty much on time and around the clock... are we going to relay on the Sun rising with chances of clouds, or are we going to rely on Aurizon delivering coals on time whether it rain, hail, flooded, or shine?

Then there's the unnecessary waste of building flood barriers, flood pumps, sea walls. Why risk and waste that when if CC does raise sea level, we'll just move all the world's ports and cities and farmland a bit higher up.

Oh dear Mr. luutzu....Please stop romancing with yourself....It ain't gonna happen.