wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,944
- Reactions
- 13,232
Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.
The cleanest most accessible document I have found was put together by a group of scientists at the Skeptical science blog.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Guide_to_Skepticism.pdf
Yep, that's if you like a one sided and biased view.
The critical problem with the anti AGW case is it's rejection of almost the whole body of climate science in favour of people who cherry pick data, deliberately distort evidence and refuse to use logic.
There is enough oil in the ground to deep-fry the lot of us, and no obvious means to prevail upon governments and industry to leave it in the ground. Twenty years of efforts to prevent climate breakdown through moral persuasion have failed, with the collapse of the multilateral process at Rio de Janeiro last month. The world's most powerful nation is again becoming an oil state, and if the political transformation of its northern neighbour is anything to go by, the results will not be pretty.
But right now I'm not sure how I can look my children in the eyes.
Basilio's hero George Monbiot is complaining bitterly that oil reserves in the ground are huge.
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...e-lot-of-us-20120703-21fbi.html#ixzz1zctFdgvR
Wayne that summary didn't troll the net for mindless distortions and downright lies. It uses the work of 68 peer reviewed papers to back up its explanations. They probably could have multiplied it by 10 or 100 but that would be rediculous.
In cases where hard science is available, it increasingly favours the moderate 'lukewarm' view.
Awaiting your next troll post in eager anticipation. </sarc>
Joe Bastardi said:Global temps remain below normal for the year
http://policlimate.com/climate...
and if not for the Warm AMO, it would be even be colder ( forces the warmth north of Russia)
notice most land masses are colder than normal
3 year trend is jagged and down since pdo shift
http://policlimate.com/climate...
The US is less than 10% of the globe. Moral is you are being deceptive using The US. Scandinavia had coldest June on record Australia is having a bad winter. A coffee freeze may ht Brazil within next 15 years.
Please if you want to talk globally, use global weather, not just an area less than 10% it is deception when all facts are not shown.. or even some of them
btw 25 states had RECORD LOWS last week too
Read more here: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2012/...-climate.html#comment-575334775#storylink=cpy
Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.Peak oil nearly happened imo but now is looking a fair way off.
Ms basilio (and Mr Plod):
A couple of years is meaningless.
Like my claim that more rain is due to more moisture rising due to higher temps down south. And more cloud causing lower temps up the latitudes.
You and I as laypersons just do not know.
I just do not think that head in the sand on any angle are worth the risks.
But you can raise any fear and demand action on the same basis. Also you are suffering (as layman) a cognitive bias that my fear is subordinate to your fear. That is both fallacious and arrogant.
And skeptics do not have they're head in the sand Plod, they are examining the the HARD evidence.
So your subjective indications are worth more than my subjective indications?And the evidence on all side is still subjective. However the indications are that we may have a problem and should do something as when the hard evidence hits it may well be too late for our species.
And arrogance. Strewth, you are certainly not able to see yourself objectively ole Pal, but keep working.
Again, you believe me unable to see myself objectively, yet you believe you see yourself objectively?
.
I do not see myself objective in this debate, unless one is a scientist in the specific field how can one.
You still do not see what I am saying in an objective manner and on this I am not referring to climate.
Is there someone else out there who can help the lad, I am obviously not up to it.
Classic 'Appeal to Authority' fallacy. Not every scientist is objective, nor is every non-scientist subjective.
Empirical evidence trumps all.
Again you assert your own perfection. You are UYOA ole son and cannot see it.
It is a wonder anyone bothers with you at all, but I will stick around myself for the fun of it.
Oil is trading at $86 per barrel as I type this and has increased in price relative to other energy resources, including coal and gas. Regardless of whether or not production has peaked as such, we've got a problem with oil either way - it's simply costing too much to get the stuff out of the ground in sufficient quantity.
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?