what truth am i distorting??
im they only one quoting evidence... and all you are saying is... i am wrong?
who is being rational?
This is typical of the socialist hijacked green movement. Truth is conveniently distorted as coherence theory, unfortunately, allows. Any form of rational logical debate is avoided and the word of choice is "denier" in the hope it will intimidate people to fall into the socialist line. May the skeptics come out in droves and let truth reign.
The parrots of the movement are repeating the distortion. They are repeaters. They should think more and respect truth. My post was not directed at you as a person. I have left all emotion out of it. Science allows critical skepticism and debate. That is what science is.what truth am i distorting??
im they only one quoting evidence... and all you are saying is... i am wrong?
who is being rational?
Why do you keep bringing up the 90% figure? Do you honestly believe that there is in act a 90% probability that humans are responsible for the majority of current climate change? Why do you take a model's calculation as fact? Why do you take these people's word as fact?
It has been raining solidly in N.Queensland for the last few days. Most dams are full. It dropped to 16 last night. I have to wear a jumper from about 4pm onwards.
If you want to know what the weather is like stick your head out the window.
Winter rain and low temperatures are a normal variant, as are rising tides and drought.
These jokers on the Goremobile know as much about the climate as Wayne Swan knows about economics.
gg
I'm unclear as to what you're talking about.you'll find, that the observations are of a small sample period... the 'effect' is science.
Why do you keep bringing up the 90% figure? Do you honestly believe that there is in fact a 90% probability that humans are responsible for the majority of current climate change? Why do you take a model's calculation as fact? Why do you take these people's word as fact?
Out Too Soon said:Maybe our brightest minds are wrong
Climate change & humanities effect on it is as plain as the nose on my face & becomes more so with each passing year.
I imagine few of our brightest minds are working on climate change, and even our brightest minds are not infallible.
How is it obvious to you? Is each year statistically significant? Perhaps you could prove it once and for all?
Beer, I have quoted no blogs, and am not acting irrational. Your comment doesn't make any sense.
well your basis of 'no climate change' is based on what then.... a gut feel... the weather outside?
look at the evidence... make a rational decision... thats all im doing.
- and its not that hard either...
Sorry beerwm but you simply havn't actually read or possibly understood the title for this forum. It says "Climate change another name for weather.". That means the originator and the most enthusiastic followers have decided that man made climate change is not real. End of story.
In fact it seems that even the possibility that we may be destroying the livability of our planet (at least for 99% of all current species ) is not open to discussion.
Don't waste your time here trying to talk about the consensus of almost the entire scientific community on the issue, the physical facts on how CO2 traps heat, the wealth of knowledge gained from drilling ice cores ect or the (terrifying) fact that Greenland is melting at an exponential rate. None of these fit the the underlying premise "Climate change is another name for weather ". So these statements are wrong or socialistic or bad models or whatever. Simple isn't it ? (but just a bit sad....)
Cheers
PS You could give up a few hours of your life reviewing this thread and fully appreciate how fruitless it is trying to introduce evidence, science or logic to the discussion in this particular thread....
I wish I could show you what I saw on our last fishing trip. It was a near windless morning with few clouds in the sky. Out over the water at an elevation of what I estimate to be 2 to 5 klms and visible length of about 10 klms was a brown haze. Now the only thing that produced that (and which I`m a guilty user) is one coal fired power plant. One, just one coal fired plant, and one day the evidence was undeniable.I'm not sure what you're reading, but you can't be reading my posts. I never suggested there was no climate change, and my position is based on what I perceive to be a lack of conclusive evidence.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?