Join up at Bet Easy - Click here - Bet Easy is Thoroughbred Village’s premier betting partner - Join here now
Forum Home Forum Home > All Sports - Public Forums > Joffs All Sports Bar
  New Posts New Posts RSS Feed - Climate Change - Global Warming..
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Events   Register Register  Login Login


Click here for the Thoroughbred Village Home Page. For village news, follow @TBVillage on Twitter. For horseracing tips, follow @Villagebet on Twitter. To contact the Mayor by email: Click Here.

Climate Change - Global Warming..

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 110111112113114 297>
Author
Message
scamanda View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: The Manor
Status: Offline
Points: 15938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scamanda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 3:19pm
Originally posted by Fiddlesticks Fiddlesticks wrote:

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/

Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon



how embarrassing...Embarrassed

Today’s M-class solar flare was about 10 times weaker than X-class flares, which are the strongest flares the sun can unleash. M-class solar flares are the weakest solar events that can still trigger space weather effects near Earth, such as communications interruptions or spectacular northern lights displays.
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/#gVhvMUrUUhSj9UfK.99


Ask and you shall receive.

And may I add, ROLMFAO 

Back to Top
Sponsored Links
Click here to view the promotions at Bet Easy.


Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 5:09pm
Scamanda, you have totally lost me now...are you trying to confuse yourself now as well...??


Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 6:13pm
Scamanda ...... you don't really think they'll understand ....... afterall they are fooled by the myth .....
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 6:43pm
allright let's clear this mess up Scamanda...

you posted this..

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/

Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon



then I posted this copied from your link...

Originally posted by Fiddlesticks Fiddlesticks wrote:


how embarrassing...Embarrassed

Today’s M-class solar flare was about 10 times weaker than X-class flares, which are the strongest flares the sun can unleash. M-class solar flares are the weakest solar events that can still trigger space weather effects near Earth, such as communications interruptions or spectacular northern lights displays.
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/#gVhvMUrUUhSj9UfK.99


then you posted this...

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

One article on low sun ACTIVITY means diddlie squat.

There have been 3 X class solar flares so far this month, 3 times more than 2013.

Fiddles is the self promoted expert on X class flares , remember? He was the one saying we only had M class flares in 2013. Wait a minute I feel a ROLMFAO coming on.....errrrr, now now stop putting words in my mouth, I'll ask you to go back and find exactly where I said that, don't be lying now, you posted an article, and I simply chuckled that the flare in question in your post was a small flare comparatively as that is exactly what the article inferred...GO READ IT.

Everything on Earth is governed by the sun. Without it we would all die, if it sends out 9.9 X class solar flares we can be sent into darkness through loss of power, and still people think it's just that shiny thing up in the sky.

Progold keeps reminding BROOKE that climate change is real. Hello, everyone knows that, but there is still no proof that it is man made. Only a deluded alarmist would consider himself or herself more powerful than the sun.

And carbon emissions? Our outer atmosphere protects us from solar flares. The more CO2 in the outer atmosphere the better the reflector the atmosphere becomes.


I answered in red bold and also added this..

Originally posted by Fiddlesticks Fiddlesticks wrote:


Since when is all pollution just straight out CO2 ...?


in the RED bold I asked you find and post where I had said anything regarding x flares...???

now keeping in mind at this point all I had done was copy some of the text from the link you provided, you then posted that again here,,,

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

  http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/

Biggest Solar Flare Of 2013 Just Released, Bigger Solar Flares Likely Coming Soon



Originally posted by Fiddlesticks Fiddlesticks wrote:

how embarrassing...Embarrassed

Today’s M-class solar flare was about 10 times weaker than X-class flares, which are the strongest flares the sun can unleash. M-class solar flares are the weakest solar events that can still trigger space weather effects near Earth, such as communications interruptions or spectacular northern lights displays.
Read more at http://planetsave.com/2013/04/13/biggest-solar-flare-of-2013-just-released-bigger-solar-flares-likely-coming-soon/#gVhvMUrUUhSj9UfK.99



Ask and you shall receive.

And may I add, ROLMFAO 

[/QUOTE]


What a strange thing to do...Confused



Back to Top
Progold View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2927
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Progold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 8:31pm
OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 8:37pm
Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  


the most important part in bold..

deniers know very well it's man made, they even mostly agree there is warming, for what ever reason they just seem to be uber paranoid about being scammed, and climate change is biggest scam, the question is why do they think that, and by what are they benchmarking it against...?


Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 8:52pm
try Climategate to start with ......
 
and NO ........we do not know very well ........
Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 9:07pm
"Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's"
 
that is debateable too .....
 
"science has known for quite some time that ozone holes form and regenerate themselves on a regular basis"
Back to Top
scamanda View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: The Manor
Status: Offline
Points: 15938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scamanda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 10:23pm
Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  

Where have you been for the last 6 years? It's called natural succession. 
It has been agreed on here by both sides of the debate, but for the 'man made' part. Because there is no absolute proof.
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 10:33pm
Originally posted by Hollywood Hollywood wrote:

"Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's"
 
that is debateable too .....
 
"science has known for quite some time that ozone holes form and regenerate themselves on a regular basis"



LMFAO...LOL

what is this, you making up your own science now, not even bothering to quote some from the press now, just going straight for the home baked fairy-tales...??

deary me...such comedy..


Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 10:50pm
Do your own research........
 
I won't give you the satisfaction of attacking the messenger as that is all you will do..... never mind the science unless it's your science ......or should I say religion.
 
 
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 10:54pm
Originally posted by Hollywood Hollywood wrote:

Do your own research........
 
I won't give you the satisfaction of attacking the messenger as that is all you will do..... never mind the science unless it's your science ......or should I say religion.
 
 


Hey I'm not the one putting up ridiculous statements, if I put something up I believe in I'll quote the references, all you did was put up some random claims about the ozone layer with nothing to solidify your point...

what do you expect, we just go oh...OK I believe you...?


Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 11:07pm
This is funny .... posted in April 2010 .......
 

Global Warming Explained by Poker

After decades of debate, with neither the skeptics nor the warmists prevailing in the global warming debate, a decision was made to settle the matter once and for all in a poker game, winner take all.  For the historical record, a microphone was placed on the dealer.  Following are excerpts from the tournament which took place in 2035 AD:

No Mr Jones, you CANNOT erase the cards and draw your own numbers on them.

Mr Mann, I’m sorry, but you cannot bring your own cards to the table and just substitute some of them when it suits you.

Mr Briffa I can see you have the ace of spades, that’s very nice. But the rules don’t allow you to decide that the other 51 cards no longer count.

Back to you Mr Jones, where did you put those cards you were trying to erase? What do you mean you LOST them? No! We can’t just go on playing without them!

Mr Hansen, I’m sorry, you lost this hand. No Mr Hansen, a straight does not beat a flush. No Mr Hansen, you did not have four of a kind. Look Mr Hansen, you are not an officer of the law, so you can’t put me in jail because you lost the hand. And PREDICTING that you would have four of a kind is not the SAME as having four of a kind.

Put those chips back Mr Ravetz! Poker is about uncertainty, that doesn’t mean you can take half the chips “just in case”. What? Its “urgent”? Look, if you gotta go pee, then go, but you can’t take half the chips with you just because you MIGHT win the hand!

Who the heck are you now? Mugabe? Am I pronouncing that right? Yes you can enter a team late… no… you have to pay for your own chips you can’t make everyone else give you a few of theirs.

Oh for gosh sakes will the interruptions never end? Who are you now? Really? From the UN? I’m impressed…. what… NO! You can’t just decide who the winner is in advance, that’s not how poker works! Well I don’t CARE how many people studied it or how thick your report is… huh? Look, it doesn’t matter if 13,000 professional poker players reviewed your predictions, it doesn’t change how many chips Mr Jones has left!

JONES! Stop that right now! You can’t erase the numbers on the cards and you can’t change the numbers on the chips EITHER. What? You aren’t changing them you’re adjusting them? NO! You can’t adjust them, and you can’t compare your adjustments to Hansen’s adjustments… wait, you’re saying Hansen made adjustments too… Stop that, BOTH of you!

Sigh. Another late entry, sit down young lady. What was the name? Curry? Here are your chips Ms Curry. Now what team are you on, warmist or skeptic? Uh, no, you can’t play for both, you have to pick one. No you can’t wait until one team wins and then decide. OK warmist it is. Ok, skeptic. Ok, warmist…. Ok warmist it is.

Welcome back Mr Ravetz, you are looking much better now, not so uncertain anymore. Uh, yes, I see you brought your own rule book. Well yes, I can see where rule number 24 says it is urgent for you to win. I can see the white out you wrote on top of too… and that’s your rule book not the house rule book, it doesn’t count.

Mr Jones, you have to show me your cards, you can’t just declare yourself the winner of the hand. No, I am sorry, you have to show ME the cards. What? No, it doesn’t matter if you showed them to Briffa and Mann, I can’t just take their word for it, you have to show them to ME. What do you mean why? Because I am the dealer, THAT’s why. It’s my job to look at the cards to verify them. HEY! stop cutting up those cards! Mr Mann I SAW you slide your own cards onto the table while I was grabbing the scissors from Jones, you can’t DO that…. Briffa! Briffa! why are you throwing all the cards in the garbage? NO! keeping the ace of spades does NOT make it the most powerfull card in the world, I already TOLD you that. And origami is very nice but you shouldn’t fold the cards up like that. Yes I know what you made, you made it look like a hockey stick… NO! that doesn’t mean you won!

I QUIT! This is INSANE! I am taking my dog sled team and going back across the ice to Florida where I came from, you bozos can settle this global warming thing on your own!

Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 11:08pm
Crista-Spas Project is a good place for you to start then ......
Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 Jan 2014 at 11:22pm
last of my spoon feeding .....
 
BTW this was written in 1994 ............. looks like the alarmists adopted the same attack ......
 
 
"Global ozone levels have not been responding in the way the CFC "depletion" theory suggests. To make their case, environmentalists and government scientists have been shamelessly distorting the data -- for example, measuring "declining trends" in ozone by arbitrarily picking out years with unusually high ozone levels, and using those as the "base years" for comparisons. But ozone levels constantly, naturally fluctuate, especially during the 11- year "solar cycle." Not surprisingly, even an average ozone year looks like "depletion" when measured against a peak year in the ozone cycle.

Dr. Linwood Callis of NASA led an agency investigation of the causes of ozone fluctuations during the 1980s. As he told me: "The overwhelming portion of the ozone depletion in the 1980s was due to natural causes," and the effect of CFCs "was really quite small -- less than one-half of one percent." (His paper "Ozone Depletion in the High Latitude Lower Stratosphere: 1979-1990" appeared in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, No. D2, Feb. 20, 1991, pp. 2921-2937.) Callis went on to say that he thought that scientists blaming CFCs for ozone depletion were being "less than honest."

Back to Top
Progold View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 2927
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Progold Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 8:19am
I knew that would give the sceptics something new to sidetrack with.  Have a read of this and see if it rings a bell with Climate Change?

Techniques of the Skeptics

Launch a public relations campaign disputing the evidence.

DuPont, which made 1/4 of the world's CFCs, spent millions of dollars running full-page newspaper advertisements defending CFCs in 1975, claiming there was no proof that CFCs were harming the ozone layer. Chairman Scorer of DuPont commented that the ozone depletion theory was "a science fiction tale...a load of rubbish...utter nonsense." (Chemical Week, 16 July 1975).

The aerosol industry also launched a PR blitz, issuing a press release stating that the ozone destruction by CFCs was a theory, and not fact. This press release, and many other 'news stories' favorable to industry, were generated by the aerosol industry and printed by the New York TimesWall Street JournalFortune magazine, Business Week, and the London Observer (Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The symbol of Chicken Little claiming that "The sky is falling!" was used with great effect by the PR campaign, and appeared in various newspaper headlines.

Such biased news reporting is hardly unusual in American journalism; several studies have shown that press releases are the basis for 40 - 50% of the content of U.S. newspapers (Lee and Solomon, 1990; Blysky and Blysky, 1985). The material appears to be written by the paper's own journalists, but is hardly changed from the press release.

Predict dire economic consequences, and ignore the cost benefits.

The CEO of Pennwalt, the third largest CFC manufacturer in the U.S., talked of "economic chaos" if CFC use was to be phased out (Cogan, 1988). DuPont, the largest CFC manufacturer, warned that the costs in the U.S. alone could exceed $135 billion, and that "entire industries could fold" (Glas, 1989). The Association of European Chemical Companies warned that CFC regulation might lead to "redesign and re-equipping of large sectors of vital industry..., smaller firms going out of business... and an effect on inflation and unemployment, nationally and internationally" (Stockholm Environment Institute, 1999).

However, the economic reality has been less dire. As the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) Economic Options Committee stated in 1994: "Ozone-depleting substance replacement has been more rapid, less expensive, and more innovative than had been anticipated at the beginning of the substitution process. The alternative technologies already adopted have been effective and inexpensive enough that consumers have not yet felt any noticeable impacts (except for an increase in automobile air conditioning service costs)" (UNEP, 1994). A group of over two dozen industry experts estimated the total CFC phase-out cost in industrialized counties at $37 billion to business and industry, and $3 billion to consumers (Vogelsberg, 1997). A study done for Environment Canada presented to a UN meeting in 1997, estimated a total CFC phase-out cost of $235 billion through the year 2060, but economic benefits totaling $459 billion. These savings came from decreased UV light exposure to aquatic ecosystems, plants, forests, crops, plastics, paints and other outdoor building materials, and did not include the savings due to decreased health care costs. The report concluded that because of the Montreal Protocol, there would be 19.1 million fewer cases of non-melanoma skin cancer, 1.5 million fewer cases of melanoma, 129 million fewer cases of cataracts, and 330,000 fewer skin cancer deaths worldwide.

Find and pay a respected scientist to argue persuasively against the threat.

CFC industry companies hired the world's largest public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, who organized a month-long U.S. speaking tour in 1975 for noted British scientist Richard Scorer, a former editor of the International Journal of Air Pollution and author of several books on pollution. Scorer blasted Molina and Rowland, calling them "doomsayers", and remarking, "The only thing that has been accumulated so far is a number of theories." Molina's response was, "The gentleman is good at attacking. But he has never published any scientific papers on the subject." (Roan, 1985).

Use non-peer reviewed scientific publications or industry-funded scientists who don't publish original peer-reviewed scientific work to support your point of view.

Articles published in traditional scientific journals undergo a process essential to good science--peer-review. The peer-review process starts when a prospective author submits their work to a journal. The editor of the journal reviews the article, and sends copies to three scientists who are experts in the field. These anonymous reviewers send their comments on errors that need correcting, omissions that need addressing, etc, back to the journal editor, who then asks the author to submit a revised article addressing the concerns of the reviewers. After making revisions, the author submits the article back to the journal editor, who can then accept the article, reject it, or send it back for another round of review. The rigors of peer-review are such that a large percentage of submitted articles never get published in the scientific literature.

In 1995, the year Molina and Rowland were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their discovery of the CFC-ozone depletion link, the House Science Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment began a series of hearings to revisit the issue of ozone depletion, where the issue of peer-review was brought up. During the hearings, Representative John Doolittle, a California Republican, stated, "My own belief, is that the question is still very much open to debate...Theories or speculation about this are not sufficient. We need science, not pseudo-science."

Doolittle was challenged by Lynn Rivers, a Michigan Democrat. They had the following interchange, taken from the Congressional Report, "Hearing on Scientific Integrity and the Public Trust: The Science Behind Federal Policies and Mandates: Case Study 1 -- Stratospheric Ozone: Myth and Realities", 104th Congress, 1st session, September 20, 1995, Report no. 31 (Gelbspan, 1998):

RIVERS: "Have you found in peer-reviewed articles or in the broader scientific discourse that people are saying this is not really a problem?"

DOOLITTLE: "I have found that there is no established consensus as what actually is the problem. I found extremely misleading representations by the government and government officials that are not founded on sound science."

RIVERS: "...[W]hat I was asking about is peer-reviewed articles [by] scientists who are...doing this work on a regular basis. Can you give me an example of some peer-reviewed publications that you consulted in formulating your opinion that there's no [sound] science?

DOOLITTLE: "Well, you're going to hear from one of the scientists today, Dr. Fred Singer."

RIVERS: "Dr. Singer doesn't publish in peer-reviewed documents."

DOOLITTLE: "'m not going to get involved in a mumbo-jumbo of peer-reviewed documents. There's a politics within the scientific community, where they're all too intimidated to speak out once someone has staked out a position...And under this Congress, we're going to get to the truth and not just the academic politics."

RIVERS: "[T]he general way to feel certain that you're getting good science is that you put your ideas out in a straightforward way in a peer-reviewed publication and you allow others who are doing the same work to make comments, to criticize, to replicate your findings. And what I'm asking you, in your search for good science, is what peer-reviewed documentation did you use to come up with your decision? What good science did you rely on?"

DOOLITTLE: "My response to you is, it is the proponents of the ban that have the burden of producing the good science. I do not have that burden."

Later during the same hearing, House majority whip Tom DeLay was asked about his position opposing a ban on ozone depleting substances. Had he consulted the latest scientific assessment in ozone depletion (WMO/UNEP, 1994) put together by a team of virtually all of the relevant researchers publishing in peer-reviewed publications on the subject? He replied that he had not, because "Well, I just haven't been presented with the study of late." He also launched into a criticism of peer-reviewed science, claiming that "the conclusion is usually written before the study is even done, in many cases." DeLay cited Toxic Terror by Dr. Elizabeth Whelan to support his criticism of peer-reviewed science. But according to the Columbia Journalism Review, Dr. Whelan praises the nutritional value of fast food in her writings, and dismisses the links between fatty diets and heart disease--but receives funding from Burger King, Oscar Meyer, Frito Lay, and Land O' Lakes (Kurtz, 1990). Unfortunately, our House Majority Leader is not the only one who relies on Dr. Whelan's "science". PR Watch notes that USA Today cites Whelan's American Council on Science and Health think tank as one of its most frequently-quoted sources for information on public health issues."

Dr. Fred Singer, the expert whom Representative Doolittle referred to, has testified before Congress numerous times, and is probably the most widely quoted skeptic on the ozone hole and global warming issues. Unfortunately, Dr. Singer cannot be considered an active scientist publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, or even an objective informed critic. Dr. Singer touts himself as having "published more than 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers over the course of his career". However, Dr. Singer's contributions to atmospheric science have been essentially zero since 1971. A search for his relevant publications in the atmospheric sciences reveals two peer-reviewed pieces since 1971: a 2-page "Technical Comment" criticizing a study showing increased UV-B light at the surface in response to ozone depletion (Michaels et. al., 1994), and one piece of original research, a 1988 paper on "nuclear winter" (Singer, 1988). A search of the Science Citation Index, the comprehensive scientific journal database that indexes virtually every citation a journal article gets in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, reveals that this paper, which Dr. Singer calls a "key research publication", has been cited exactly zero times, as of 2004 (for comparison, Dr. Steven Schneider's 1988 publication in Nature on the same topic, "Simulating the climatic effects of nuclear war", has gotten 16 citations). Furthermore, the think tank Dr. Singer founded and currently runs, The Science and Environmental Policy Project, has received substantial industry funding, including contributions from Exxon, Shell, ARCO, Unocal, and Sun Oil, calling into question the objectivity of his testimony (Gelbspan, 1998).

Trumpet discredited scientific studies and myths supporting your point of view as scientific fact.

The skeptics primarily published in non-peer-reviewed newspapers, magazines, books, and think tank publications. Publications that do not undergo peer-review are frequently filled with factual errors, distortions, and opinionated statements that greatly confuse the public on issues where there is no scientific uncertainty. For example, numerous critics of the ozone hole discovery (e.g., Singer, 1989, Bailey, 1993; Bast et. al., 1994) claimed that Professor G.M.B. Dobson had measured an ozone hole in 1956 in the Antarctic, and thus an Antarctic ozone hole was a normal natural occurrence. This myth arose from a misinterpretation of an out-of-context quotation from a review article (Dobson, 1968), where he mentioned that when springtime ozone levels over Halley Bay were first measured, he was surprised to find that they were about 150 Dobson Units below springtime levels in the Arctic. The skeptics repeatedly refer to "an ozone hole 150 Dobson Units below normal" that was discovered in 1957, when in fact the levels discovered in 1957 were normal for Antarctica. A trip to the British Antarctic Survey's web site will confirm that no such ozone hole was measured in the 1950s. Another myth the skeptics repeat states that a French scientist found an Antarctic ozone hole in 1958 (Bailey, 1993). There were measurements in 1958 that found large ozone loss in the Antarctic, but these measurement have been found to be false, due to instrument error. A study in Sciencemagazine (Newman, 1994) concluded, "There is no credible evidence for an ozone hole in 1958."

To be fair, environmentalists were also guilty of using discredited myths to support their positions. For example, in 1992, The New York Times reported ozone depletion over southern Chile had caused "an increase in Twilight Zone-type reports of sheep and rabbits with cataracts" (Nash, 1992). The story was repeated in many places, including the July 1, 1993 showing of ABC's Prime Time Live. Al Gore's book, Earth in the Balance, repeated the myth, stating: "In Patagonia, hunters now report finding blind rabbits; fishermen catch blind salmon" (Gore, 1992). A group at Johns Hopkins has investigated the evidence and attributed the cases of sheep blindness to a local infection ("pink eye") (Pearce, 1993).

Point to the substantial scientific uncertainty, and the certainty of economic loss if immediate action is taken.

The science behind the estimation of ozone depletion is and was subject to a great deal of uncertainty. In early 1976, Rowland and Molina discovered that a chemical reaction involving chlorine nitrate might reduce ozone destruction from their previous estimate of 7-13% to about 7%. One editorial in the New York Daily News in 1976 concluded, "Now that scientists have been put in the position of crying wolf, who will listen to the new warnings?" Detractors also pointed to the fluctuating estimates of eventual global ozone depletion provided in reports by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences as justification that since the science was so uncertain, action should not be taken.

Long-term Ozone Depletion Estimates from National Academy of Sciences Reports

YearDepletion Estimate
19762-20% (7% most likely)
197916.5%
19825-9%
19842-4%

Of course, in the end, it did turn out that the estimates of ozone depletion were quite inaccurate--they were far too low! No scientist anticipated the stunning 70% losses of ozone that appeared in the Antarctic ozone hole, nor the 30% losses in ozone that appeared in the Arctic. The lesson to be learned here should be this: just because the reality is uncertain is not an excuse to delay action. The reality could be far worse than the expectation.

Use data from a local area to support your views, and ignore the global evidence.

Many skeptics pointed out that UV-B levels as measured in some U.S. cities actually declined in the 1980s and 1990s. This is true, and has been attributed to higher levels of pollution aerosol particles, which commonly cause 20% decreases in UV-B radiation in the summer (Wenny et. al., 2001). However, the relationship between ozone loss and increased UV-B light is well established. For each 1% drop in ozone levels, about 1% more UV-B reaches the Earth's lower atmosphere (WMO, 2002). Increases in UV-B of 6-14% have been measured at many mid and high-latitude sites over the past 20 years (WMO, 2002, McKenzie, 1999). At some sites about half of this increase can be attributed to ozone loss. Changes in cloud cover and surface albedo also play a part.

Disparage scientists, saying they are playing up uncertain predictions of doom in order to get research funding.

One CFC industry magazine stated in 1975, "The whole area of research grants and the competition among scientists to get them must be considered a factor in the politics of ozone" (Roan, 1985). A publication by the conservative think tank, The Cato Institute, argued that NASA's 1992 warnings of a potential ozone hole opening up over the Northern Hemisphere "were exquisitely timed to bolster the agency's budget requests" (Bailey, 1993).

Disparage environmentalists, claiming they are hyping environmental problems in order to further their ideological goals.

Dr. Fred Singer commented on environmentalists' reaction to Molina and Rowland's work linking CFCs with ozone depletion as follows: "The ecofreaks were ecstatic. At last, an industrial chemical--and produced by big bad DuPont and others of that ilk" (Singer, 1989).

Complain that it is unfair to require regulatory action in the U.S., as it would put the nation at an economic disadvantage.

Of course, other countries complained that they were unwilling to act until the U.S., the number one manufacturer and emitter of CFCs, showed leadership on the issue and took action first.

Claim that more research is needed before action should be taken.

Between 1974 and 1987, the CFC industry and government officials continually asked for an additional three years for more research. Molina called this tactic, "the sliding three years".

Argue that it is less expensive to live with the effects.

In 1987, the Reagan Administration officials advocated a "Personal Protection Plan" as an alternative to controlling CFC emissions. Scoffers noted that if each American bought 2 bottles of sunscreen, a hat and pair of sunglasses, the bill would come to $8 billion for the nation. They also asked how Americans would go about putting sunscreen and hats on cows and stalks of corn, since plants and animals are adversely affected by UV light, as well.

Conclusion

In a 1984 interview in The New Yorker, Rowland concluded, "Nothing will be done about this problem until there is further evidence that a significant loss of ozone has occurred. Unfortunately, this means that if there is a disaster in the making in the stratosphere we are probably not going to avoid it." These prophetic words were proved true the very next year with the discovery of the Antarctic ozone hole. Luckily, it appears that serious damage to the planet was averted with the swift implementation of the Montreal Protocol. Unfortunately, it appears that we have not learned our lesson from the past 30 years' experience with the ozone-CFC debate. Once again, we find a theory that has wide support in the scientific community being attacked by a handful of skeptics, publishing outside of the peer-reviewed scientific literature, their voices greatly amplified by the public relations machines of powerful corporations and politicians sympathetic to them. The skeptics have trotted out the same bag of tricks used in the CFC-ozone depletion debate, this time to delay any response to the threat of global warming. And once again, it will likely take a disaster to change things--unless we wise up to their tricks.

Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 9931
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 9:09am
Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:


Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  



Where have you been for the last 6 years? It's called natural succession. 
It has been agreed on here by both sides of the debate, but for the 'man made' part. Because there is no absolute proof.


You keep saying there is no proof but there is an awful lot of evidence. What type or level of proof do you deem necessary?
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 12:15pm
Progold, that article is perfect, in future no more debating simply refer to "the article"..
Back to Top
scamanda View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: The Manor
Status: Offline
Points: 15938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scamanda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 3:10pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:


Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  



Where have you been for the last 6 years? It's called natural succession. 
It has been agreed on here by both sides of the debate, but for the 'man made' part. Because there is no absolute proof.


You keep saying there is no proof but there is an awful lot of evidence. What type or level of proof do you deem necessary?

Absolute proof from every scientist and politician in the debate that man made climate change is responsible for our climate changing.

Mother nature is laughing her ass off.
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 3:16pm
Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:


Originally posted by Progold Progold wrote:

OK, so we have had a great breakthrough in that we now have a consensus that global warming is real.  The question is to its cause.  Again, all of the organisations I listed previously agreed that human action was having a significant impact.  Many skeptics argue that it is self centred to believe humans have no impact on the climate.  Does anyone remember a hole in the ozone layer?  It has largely repaired due to the banning of CFC's.  The entire argument is very similar to the global warming one, and in itself is proof that human behaviour can have serious impact.  



Where have you been for the last 6 years? It's called natural succession. 
It has been agreed on here by both sides of the debate, but for the 'man made' part. Because there is no absolute proof.


You keep saying there is no proof but there is an awful lot of evidence. What type or level of proof do you deem necessary?

Absolute proof from every scientist and politician in the debate that man made climate change is responsible for our climate changing.

Mother nature is laughing her ass off.

Tony says it is happening, and he would never lie would he?



"Climate change is real, as I've often said, and we should take strong action against it. But these fires are certainly not a function of climate change, they're a function of life in Australia," declared the Prime Minister

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/environment/climate-change/tony-abbott-should-never-say-never-about-climate-change-bushfire-link-20131025-2w5pt.html#ixzz2r0GBvASf


Edited by Browndog - 21 Jan 2014 at 3:17pm
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 3:27pm
That one always shuts these Alabama boys up BD...
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 3:29pm
It does, but they know he is a pathological liar, so it is meaningless. They just can't say soLOL
Back to Top
scamanda View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: The Manor
Status: Offline
Points: 15938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scamanda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 5:43pm
Browndog you are much better than that.

Abbott on that quote doesn't even mention 'man made climate change'.
And when you find on of his that does you only have a few thousand more politicians to quote to prove  they all agree man is the cause of climate change.

Then, you need to go through the list of scientists and find quotes from them too.
Unless you can find a signed agreement with the signatures of every scientist on the planet declaring climate change is man made.

Good luck.
Back to Top
scamanda View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 11 Oct 2008
Location: The Manor
Status: Offline
Points: 15938
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote scamanda Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 5:44pm
By the way Abbott doesn't give any proof.
So try again.
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 5:47pm
Originally posted by scamanda scamanda wrote:

By the way Abbott doesn't give any proof.
So try again.

So should we go with his other position that climate change is crap?
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 5:51pm
Powell Pie Chart 2

In over 2,200 peer-reviewed articles about climate change by over 9,000 authors, published between November 2012 and December 2013, just one author and paper rejected human actions as the cause.

The next time you hear someone dispute that human activity is destabilizing our climate, remember this pie chart.

It represents geochemist James Lawrence Powell's review of 2,258 peer-reviewed scientific articles about climate change, written by 9,136 authors, published between Nov. 12, 2012 and December 31, 2013.

Of all those hundreds of papers and thousands of researchers, Powell found one article, authored by a single scientist, that attributed climate change to something other than human actions: "The Role of Solar Activity in Global Warming," by S.V. Avakyan, appearing in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Science, Vol. 83, No. 3.

Powell, a past president of Oberlin, Franklin and Marshall, and Reed colleges, invites anyone to reproduce his survey of the science: 

Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish — all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here.

Powell's earlier survey of peer-reviewed studies published between 1991 and Nov. 12, 2013, resulted in this pie chart.

Powell Science Pie Chart

Popular Science


http://www.businessinsider.com/majority-of-scientists-accept-human-caused-climate-change-2014-1?IR=T
Read more: http://www.popsci.com/article/science/infographic-scientists-who-doubt-human-caused-climate-change?cmpid=newscred#ixzz2r0t3lf5o
Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 5:57pm
64 / 11944 ................ yep a consensus ........lol
Back to Top
Browndog View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar

Joined: 30 Oct 2009
Location: Brunswick Hds N
Status: Offline
Points: 35555
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Browndog Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 6:00pm

CLIMATE-CHANGE-DENYING SCIENTIST IS GETTING LONELY

 by Mary Noble

 

Here's how many scientists published peer-reviewed articles rejecting man-made global warming in 2013:

ONE.

Geochemist and National Science Board member James Lawrence Powell produced this chart documenting how many scientific papers support man-made climate change. Out of 2258 paper, 2257 provided evidence supporting the idea that climate change is caused by human activity.

Powell's new chart bolsters his 2012 chart covering every year since 1991. He read a mind-boggling 14,000 scientific papers on climate change and found that only 3 supported the hypothesis that climate change is not caused by man.

His goal was to test the climate skeptic's claim that scientists are still debating whether climate change is man-made. Powell's research shows quite simply that there is no debate - just an overwhelming consensus that man-made climate change is real.

Via James Powell.

Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 41014
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 6:34pm
wow where are the Alabama boys now...??


Back to Top
Hollywood View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 10 Dec 2011
Location: Coolum
Status: Offline
Points: 6229
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Hollywood Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 21 Jan 2014 at 6:47pm
what caused climate change before man appeared on this Earth ?
 
Martians ??
 
maybe Klingons ???
 
(64 / 11944 - that is a consensus)
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 110111112113114 297>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 11.10
Copyright ©2001-2017 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.172 seconds.