This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Resisting Climate Hysteria

Jump to new
A big picture view of the argument regarding climate change and how it will turn out.


And it continues.

For those of you can read and think check out the full article.

If you sincerely believe your understanding and knowledge of climate change excels the combined knowledge of the best scientific experts in the field - your delusional.

And Wayne why not simply say that you dismiss out of hand the entire work of the climate scientists whose research underpins the exhaustive IPCC reports in the last 25 years ?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists


___________________________________________________________________

Robert Manne presentation on how vested interests have convinced the public climate change is not happening.

http://www.desmogblog.com/2012/09/19/robert-manne-how-vested-interests-defeated-climate-science
 
True Conservatives and Climate Change


http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists
 
Fallacy of bifurcation basilio.

In your world, folks are either deniers or believers in the climate apocalypse.

That's just farking asinine because their is a spectrum of views.. You stand condemned as an unintelligent fool by your continued usecofcthe term 'denier' and by your foolish ultimatum.

When you would like to debate like an adult......
 
basilio said:
...My thought is "And exactly why do we need to keep producing an endless streams of cars (mostly for vanity) that cost us an arm a leg to buy, run and service ? "...
Click to expand...
The answer to this question may be readily found by contemplation of the Emerald Tablet coupled with consideration of secondary level chemistry, physics and biology.

Edit: Or are you an Emerald Tablet, physics,chemistry and biology denier?
 

I am with you 100% wayne.......The whole thing of Global Warming is a farce.

Robert Manne is a professor of politics and not a climate scientist and he is a great supporter of the Climate Change committee of the United Nations with the UN Secretary General a Greenie so what else would you expect?

Also the Guardian News paper was once run by the Communists.

Robert Manne (born 31 October 1947) is a professor of politics at La Trobe University, Melbourne, Australia.

Born in Melbourne, Manne's earliest political consciousness was formed by the fact that his parents were Jewish refugees from Europe and his grandparents were victims of the Holocaust. He was educated at the University of Melbourne (BA) and the University of Oxford (BPhil) during the 1960s and 1970s. His university teaching focuses on twentieth-century European politics (including the Holocaust), Communism, and Australian politics, and he has undertaken research in areas such as censorship, anti-semitism, asylum seekers and mandatory detention, Australia's involvement in the Iraq war, the Stolen Generations, and the "history wars" of the 1990s.
 
basilio said:
If you sincerely believe your understanding and knowledge of climate change excels the combined knowledge of the best scientific experts in the field - your delusional.
Click to expand...

Possibly, but at least I know how to use the correct your.

you looser

MW
 
basilio said:
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jul/16/history-will-condemn-climate-change-denialists
Click to expand...

Yep, I'll believe that the catastrophe is coming when they can string together a couple of decades of accurate predictions.

Until then, the issue of climate sensitivity is not settled.

Sure we are contributing to warming, but nobody in the world knows how much, and not even to so-called experts can produce an accurate guestimation of what is happening.

I will try track down a cool bob carter quote, I think it sums up the current modelling madness quite well.

MW
 
And Bob Carter knows what he is talking about Medico Wallet?

Really ? He believes that volcanoes are the source of our excess CO2. A totally proven misconception - but he still says that is the problem.

And exactly how much certainty do you want regarding the effects of continued CO2 emissions ? Is it an experiment you are happy to continue until we are totally sure of how it will end ? Or is there enough information already available to make a reasonable judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

And what is wrong with Robert Manne accepting the expertise of climate scientists around the world on this issue? Isn't the whole point of his argument that our society has acknowledged the skills of scientific experts in many areas - except it seems for one of the most critical issues that collectively faces us.

In that particular case everyone is an expert and expects to be put on the same level of respect as people who have spent their lives studying the subject.
 

Actually in what I have heard him say, CO2 comes originally from volcanoes and peaked approx 15 times what it is now, then trees evolved 250-300 million years ago and we were approx 280ppm before industrial times, now we are increasing it by liberating the coal from the plant life.

There is a NIPCC talk where he clearly shows this, and also shows a nice graph from the holocene until now with temp vs CO2. But I guess you also know what happened during those times, because you are up with the science.

As for certainty, I don't know where it will end, what I do know, is that the IPCC predictions are incorrect, and their estimations of climate sensitivity are wrong, clearly and in writing it is wrong, and no amount of internet banter can disprove their error.

Do I think we are causing dangerous warming? No.
Am I prepared to make sacrifices to stave off a possible threat? YES
Am I prepared to condemn those in less fortunate countries to an existence where economic growth slows and their standards of living are worsened by questionable science? NOT A CHANCE

I will take the moral high ground of pro economic development to

1. Assist my fellow humans
2. Develop an economy that can afford to develop the technology of the future when it is appropriate
3.afford the efficient technology of the future

So in short, I will happily wait for the science to actually make sense in the real world, before committing to a path that definitely costs $$$, costs lives and costs quality of life in the chance that it will affect those things.

Then again, I wasn't born yesterday and have lived through some of the so-called scares of our times (as I type this on my 1998 computer)

MW
 
...and science has never been wrong before? Well call me condemned and delusional.

Using CO2 as the scape goat is simply misleading and avoiding the other underlining issues that stems from humanity's hell bent and incessant destruction of our living sphere.

I do agree and support that we need to change the way we "do" things in our world, we do need to change the processes that are polluting our environment and we need to change our disconnect from Mother Nature. A holistic approach is what is called for not just targeting fossil fuels production of CO2 and labelling this "Climate Change".
 
wayneL said:
I would think that cooling and a precipitous drop in co2 would be counterproductive for humanity. Ban the fern!
Click to expand...

Forget the Zombie apocalypse.

Fernalypse

Also sounds a better dietry supplement to soilent green
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

August 2024 DDD
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
19K
ducati916
February 2025
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
divs4ever
ZYAU - S&P/ASX 300 High Yield Plus ETF
Replies
0
Views
1K
divs4ever
How do we deal with bushfires in a warming climate?
8 9 10
Replies
199
Views
11K
basilio
All trading needs to cease for 14 days prior to Monday open in Sydney
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
11K
divs4ever
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...