white_goodman
BOC
- Joined
- 13 December 2007
- Posts
- 1,635
- Reactions
- 0
interesting to see the latest Canadian election... 1 out of 5 parties totally against climate change/carbon tax policy... win via landslide
I certainly don't expect you or almost any other participants in this conversation in this forum to re evaluate evidence. It is quite clear that your minds have been made up and nothing is going to change them.
Why do you do it? Why is it such an obsession? The usual answer from the warmists is that they want to leave a better world for their grandchildren. In your case I think it is because you like preaching to those you condescendingly call the "wilfully ignorant."I have done that for 20 years. I expounded it in detail in earlier posts on ASF. I re visit it regularly at sites like Skeptical Science which painstakingly identify how people like Carter and Monkton make up information, redraw graphs and otherwise abuse scientific process to throw dust in people's eyes.
Probably be more constructive in this debate for you and others to try and demonstrate a strong case that shows the world is not actually warming .
You got that right. Gillard says global warming is man-made and she is a proven liar.
.
I would be interested to know how many of the ignorant you have converted in your 20 years of religious proselytising.
So don't spin your slogans of denialism at us!! Your religous dogma!
...we have the right to just think you are just another uninformed fool who is weak minded enough to fall for propaganda
Who is "us"? It is a practice I have of trying to prick the egos of pompous know-it-alls and if you think that includes you that is your problem, not mine.
.
Strange,:sheep: That's the category I would place your "us" in.
The world warms and the world cools... life goes on. Over the eons natural selection has developed species that can adapt to the changes. Perhaps we have had our day, so sit back and enjoy life while you can.
Is that the best answer you can provide?[/QUOTE}
Yep, and it works, as your response shows. I really have no interest in climate change.
"Us" are people not joining your flock.
I work solo. Not in a flock of converts like your "us" group. You worry too much about things you can do nothing about. And now you've got explod worried. He wants to include the planets in the coming holocaust.
But I stand on what has been said repeatedly by the scientific community - the overwhelming evidence regard man induced climate change is in. Denying it is just wilful ignorance.
Wayne, I can certainly see the possibility that some quality scientists can offer some variations on the current overwhelming scientific consensus. Pielke Snr is one such person.
But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited. What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out with many other people who have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example. Their claims are generally just rubbish but nonetheless are repeated endlessly because in this debate the intention is to create doubt and stop any firm action.
In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small. This is why the overwhelming body of current science sees a very serious problem and is pointing out the consequences of not reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?
LOL! OK I will leave you to your opinion.
But regarding the doctors, based on my experience I would want to know what the 2 know that the other 98 don't.
97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming
Posted on 11 May 2011 by John Cook
I was talking about climate to my dad last week (since the book launch, he will now talk to me about the subject) and I mentioned that 97% of climate scientists are convinced that humans are causing global warming. He registered great surprise at that statistic. "I thought it was more 50/50", he said. It made me realise just how good a job both the mainstream media and the fossil fuel funded disinformation campaign have done in confusing the public about the scientific consensus on global warming. At the same time, I was working on a consensus graphic (cribbed from the Guide to Skepticism) for a video presentation. So as a tool for anyone wishing to communicate the scientific consensus, I've added the following infographic to the Climate Graphics resource:
The 97% figure comes from two independent studies, each employing different methodologies. One study surveyed all climate scientists who have publicly signed declarations supporting or rejecting the consensus (Anderegg 2010). Another study directly asked earth scientists the following question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" They found 97% of actively publishing climate scientists answered yes (Doran 2009). As "climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research on climate change" doesn't really roll off the tongue, I abbreviated that down to "climate experts".
One feature of Doran's survey results is that while 97% of climate expert said "yes, humans are causing global warming", only 1% said "no, we're not". The other 2% were unsure:
Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)
I've indicated the "I'm not sure" portion in the "97 out of 100 climate experts" infographic with grey colouring.
That might be the most revealing statement in this entire thread.... I really have no interest in climate change.
Agree. The implied moral highground of criticism of even agnosticism on the subject is arrogant and inappropriate.. Your categorization of me as a "denier", disingenuous, pious and dishonest... downright offensive actually.
How do you know? Are you yourself a climate scientist? I suspect you'd have long ago made us aware if this were the case, and are rather parroting off what your idols tell you.But I suggest the evidence for his position is very limited. What this has meant is that the other side of global warming debate has been padded out with many other people who have just jumped in with totally bogus and bodgied claims to muddy the waters. People like Monkcton, Carter for example. Their claims are generally just rubbish
Again, how can you confidently assert this? Because of the lack of willingness on the part of those who control the scientific literature to admit any dissenting voice, it's impossible to be sure of the level of dissent.In the overall picture the amount of quality dissenting theory is quite small.
I wouldn't mind a dollar for every time I' ve heard nonsense propagated by doctors simply because they've adopted the view of someone they consider superior to themselves. Any contrary view is shouted down, and quickly.As was said a number of times previously. If one has a serious medical problem and 98 doctors concurred on the seriousness and the need for drastic action how silly would it be to hang onto 2 other doctors who said there was no problem and that nothing needed to be done ?
Interesting. Thanks, OWG.OzWaveGuy;635183 [INDENT said:
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?