Fact and what I see with my own eyes and have experienced in the bush for over 60 years is not propaganda.
And on the warming, as just pointed out by Sir....(check his name later)on Channel 24, though the increase is measured at only about 1% over the last 100 years it is the volatility that is beginning to cause the bigger problem. And there are a number of physical issues of late increasing this volatility, one of course less ice on the poles, less heat is reflected, more cloud rising creating faster moving air and jet streams.
Do you live in the bush wayneL, talk to the old timers, study the plant life, the ants, birds, bush animals and the frogs. Would like to know your experience of these things.
Are you a climate scientist Medico?
Oh brother! Basilio that article was just asinine.
Are you a climate scientist Medico?
I can also conduct a literature review and conclude that there is no significant driving force of global warming from CO2, nor is there any proven increase in significant weather events, nor has the planet warmed for 16 years etc.
MW
Ma'am, if you believe that article skewers anything othet than the authors's own credibility, then I truly worry for you.
Compare to Cook's aricles you contiuouslly spam this forum with, which contain at least well thought out and well argued points.... even if bised and intellectually fraudulent.
contains at least well thought and well argued points
Finally, with consensus denial comes the inevitable conspiracy theories. If you disagree with an entire scientific community, you have to believe they’re all conspiring to deceive you. A conspiracy theorist displays two identifying characteristics. They believe exaggerated claims about the power of the conspirators. The scientific consensus on climate change is endorsed by tens of thousands of climate scientists in countries all over the world. A conspiracy of that magnitude makes the moon landing hoax tame in comparison.
Conspiracy theorists are also immune to new evidence. When climate scientists were accused of falsifying data, nine independent investigations by universities and governments in two countries found no evidence of wrongdoing. How did conspiracy theorists react? By claiming that each investigation was a whitewash and part of the conspiracy! With each new claim of whitewash, the conspiracy grew larger, encompassing more universities and governments.
A key element to meaningful climate action is closing the consensus gap. This means identifying and rebutting the many rhetorical techniques employed to deny the scientific consensus.
This article was adapted from Understanding Climate Change Denial.
Clearly I overestimated Cook then. Not only an intellectual fraud but capable of writing pure bilge.
Thanks luv, very enlightening
And of course you don't waste your time actually reading any articles I quote do you ? A confident instant dismissal is far simpler and appropriate for this audience isn't it? Certainly no room for thinking is there ?
Consider for example the observation made by John Cook that climate denialists refused to accept the findings of 9 investigations into Cliamte gate on the basis that they were all in on the AGW conspiracy. Typical delusional drivel Wayne.
And you are clearly part of it.
you believe there was no impropriety contained in the climategate emails?
You know otherwise ?
I can only peruse what is in black and white.
What do you think Plod?
and obnoxious use of denialist term noted)
You wont' deal with the shades of grey.
It is uncertain to say the least so we should not be punting with the future lives of our species.
Could you car less ?
And you obviously need to get a life.
The evidence seems to be getting pretty strong and you wont have a bar of it, perhaps Bas's term is too polite.
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?