Climate change another name for Weather

[2020hindsight]

I am happy to see your proof.

Cheers..

back there I posted a debate sponsored by intelligence squared. - that the matter was a crisis or not.

Even the team arguing that this was not a crisis agreed that man causes global warming.
(as do other natural factors of course)

 

[2020hindsight]

btw snake
read Flannery's book, the Weather Makers - or read any flaming book for that matter. I'd be interested to see evidence that you've researched this in the slightest.

That invitation goes for Wayne as well - especially as he proclaims an interest in saving wildlife. Read about the number of species of critters that have died / become extinct and are gonna die in the next 50 years or so.

 

[2020hindsight]

back there I posted a debate sponsored by intelligence squared. - that the matter was a crisis or not.

Even the team arguing that this was not a crisis agreed that man causes global warming.
(as do other natural factors of course)

post #215 refers :-

Michael Crichton (for the non-crisis team) :-
“Is the globe warming .. yes
Is the greenhouse effect real? yes
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas and is it being increased by man? Y
would we expect this warming to have an effect? Y
would human beings in general affect the climate? Y

and not only CO2 but albedo of course

 

[rederob]

I've sworn off arguing in this thread and will just post interesting titbits and articles from time to time.

This, a poll from today's Sunday Mail FWIW

Global warming (or not), by consensus.
Now that's compelling.
As I have repeated so often, you have demonstrated no understanding of the science, continue to post irrelevances, and now don't have the guts to "argue" this matter.

But to be fair, lets put your straw poll into perspective. Below is a selection of what Mail readers could vote on:

Top 20 Recent Polls
1 Do you think Vince Cable would make a good chancellor of the exchequer?
2 Does Ulrika deserve more money than other BB stars?
3 Would you reprimand unruly youngsters in the street?
4 Whose TV performance was better: Alexandra's or Elton's?
5 Should hospital parking fees be scrapped everywhere?
6 What's your mood for 2009?
7 With Chelsea at war, where will Scolari's Blues finish in the League come May?
8 Should Steven Gerrard play for England before his court case?
9 Has David Beckham taken his love for tattoos too far?
10 Should Britain join the euro now the pound is so low?
11 Should the Tories bring back 'big beasts' Ken Clarke and David Davis?
12 Do teachers take too many days off sick?
13 Should world leaders step in to halt the violence in the Middle East?
14 Are hospitals sending patients home too early?
15 Has the Government turned the welfare state into a monster?
16 Do you think New Labour is morally corrupt?
17 Does Rachel Riley have what it takes to be the new Carol?
18 Does the BBC's Robert Peston have too much power?
19 Is the Queen's speech still relevant?
20 Do you plan to overindulge this Christmas?

It's wonderfully scientific, and the results are a hoot. Like over 90% of readers want hospital parking fees scrapped- what a surprise!!!

And yet you, Wayne, accuse me of lacking "credibility".
What a hoot.

 

[explod]

This has probably been covered and nuked by the skeptics but thought the following letter published in the Weekend Australian 3-4thjan is worth noting by the faithful.

High school physics gives a simple explanation to the question why it is getting colder if the planet is overheating...(quote of previous letter) ...the polar icecap is melting. When ice melts, it absorbs an enourmous amount of heat from the environment (the latent heat of fusion ice) and the atmosphere in the polar regions becomes cold. The wind from the polar regions carries this "coldness" to the rest of the world. Once all the ice is melted, warming will set in and we will really feel the heat. By that time, it will be too late to save the world. We must act now. Bill of Parkville, Vic

 

[wayneL]

Rob

It was posted to demonstrate the public's perceptions FWIW, without any scientific connotations.

It shows that the alarmists are losing the PR war, that's all.

Have a nice day.

 

[Sean K]

Global warming (or not), by consensus.
Now that's compelling.
As I have repeated so often, you have demonstrated no understanding of the science, continue to post irrelevances, and now don't have the guts to "argue" this matter.

But to be fair, lets put your straw poll into perspective. Below is a selection of what Mail readers could vote on:

It's wonderfully scientific, and the results are a hoot. Like over 90% of readers want hospital parking fees scrapped- what a surprise!!!

And yet you, Wayne, accuse me of lacking "credibility".
What a hoot.

Crikey!!!

What an attack over a simple poll of the public's perception.

Can you say anything in this thread without someone wanting to 'put you to the question'?

 

[rederob]

Crikey!!!

What an attack over a simple poll of the public's perception.

Can you say anything in this thread without someone wanting to 'put you to the question'?

Can't help yourself kennas?
I voted "no" in that poll.
What does that say about its credibility?

I'm happy to debate the topic meaningfully.
Do you have anything worthwhile to add?

 

[Stormin_Norman]

im thinking of heading over to a science board to get an opinion on the stability of the australian housing market.

 

[rederob]

Rob

It was posted to demonstrate the public's perceptions FWIW, without any scientific connotations.

It shows that the alarmists are losing the PR war, that's all.

Have a nice day.

There are more meaningful polls that could be quoted, especially if they use sampling techniques that allow consistency of tracking attitudes over time:

 

[wayneL]

There are more meaningful polls that could be quoted, especially if they use sampling techniques that allow consistency of tracking attitudes over time:

Of course, much is in the phrasing of the questions.

The Daily Mail poll, though unintelligently simplistic, not allowing for more complex and accurate attitutes, is absolutely unambiguous and posted with the qualification "FWIW". It should also be pointed out that it is UK centric.

This is in a country where we are assaulted daily with AGW rhetoric from all parties as well as Socialist think tanks like the Fabian Society, via their mouthpiece, a certain Mr Monbiot.

I'm sorry you saw that as a platform to launch yet another malicious straw man assault when you could use the information for your own benefit.

Clearly, with all the preposterous junk science and obvious spinmeistering of any weather event as GW, has almost completely destroyed the credibility of the IPCC political movement.

The public, quite rightly, doesn't believe you any more.

To win the PR war, you have to be believable. To be believable, you have to tell the truth. But then there would be no scare if the truth be known.

Pretty soon, politicians in this country will have to drop their cynical green tax agenda as it is going to cost them votes.

On BBC radio4 last night, a scientist was asking for a measly £7mil for research into the drop in honey bee populations, potentially a devastating and imminent problem that can precipitate mass starvation... SOON.

They can't get it while the alarmists are monopolizing billions in funding for a covert political agenda.

Cheers

 

[rederob]

Of course, much is in the phrasing of the questions.

The Daily Mail poll, though unintelligently simplistic, not allowing for more complex and accurate attitutes, is absolutely unambiguous and posted with the qualification "FWIW". It should also be pointed out that it is UK centric.

This is in a country where we are assaulted daily with AGW rhetoric from all parties as well as Socialist think tanks like the Fabian Society, via their mouthpiece, a certain Mr Monbiot.

I'm sorry you saw that as a platform to launch yet another malicious straw man assault when you could use the information for your own benefit.

There remains a deep gulf between us.
If you want UK-centric, and a reliable poll, how about reading this:
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/_assets/pdfs/public attitudes to climate change - for website - final.pdf
With over 75% of respondents either "fairly" or "very" concerned about climate change, it challenges the tripe you keep dishing up.
As you say:

To win the PR war, you have to be believable. To be believable, you have to tell the truth.

 

[wayneL]

There remains a deep gulf between us.

This makes me very happy...

...it challenges the tripe you keep dishing up.

...because I would hate to be singularly unable to have a reasonable debate without some sort of ad hominem insult included in nearly every post

Unbelievable!

 

[wayneL]

The ...Mori.com is probably a fair reflection of people's attitudes. But there are some interesting observations to take away from it.

* Newspaper readership is most interesting and quite proportional to that papers bias in GW reporting.

* The public is still overwhelmingly skeptical, suspicious, or believe GW is exaggerated.

* It still shows alarmists losing the PR war, particularly with green taxes.

 

[Stormin_Norman]

public opinion will stop global warming.

 

[wayneL]

public opinion will stop global warming.

That's not the point here Norman. We are talking about public attitude at the moment. This is independent of whether or not there is warming, cooling, and the apportionment of human causes of such.

 

[rederob]

...because I would hate to be singularly unable to have a reasonable debate without some sort of ad hominem insult included in nearly every post

Unbelievable!

Cut out the the crap and get involved in some reasoned debate.
Posting more and more articles from the mainstream media adds nothing to this thread.
However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.

Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.

ps. an ad hominem insult is an attack on you, personally. I am more concerned with the material you put up, which is mostly rubbish. If you want to insinuate an extension to yourself, that's your call. I haven't met you, I don't know you. I simply read your posts.

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

I'm happy to debate the topic meaningfully.
Do you have anything worthwhile to add?

Perhaps you could explain why the scientists still do not know everything with regard to this topic.

Something to read:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml

 

[Stormin_Norman]

Perhaps you could explain why the scientists still do not know everything with regard to this topic.

Something to read:
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/8/6/100434.shtml

does that explain how non scientists know everything though?

 

[It's Snake Pliskin]

Red Sir,

However, if you want to keep it up, I'll keep pulling it apart.

Please try your hardest because it is a hard hilll to climb pushing a storyline that can be countered by other science.

Ultimately this whole matter hinges on the science - which will be proven one way or another in the fullness of time, to the masses.

Impossible. The universe is infinite and the boundaries are not known. Mistakes will continue to be made so proving will be harder than disproving.