Go to Villagebet.com.au for free horse racing tips - Click 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


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 34567 538>
Author
Message
questions View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 9858
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote questions Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:39pm
i dont know about forbes magazine and which way it leans and it ran the story  a week ago that stated the report to be released on the 26th of september will show that the changes to the worlds temperature were using inaccurate modelling.

the issue has always been that they are using figures at the etreme and the margin of error is large enough that the opposite may be occuring.

the die hard predictions of 2006-7 when their was a ground swell of support around the world, before the GFC distracted them, of what 2015 would be like are being proved to be completely wrong.

the reality is that scientists can always use statistics to the extreme to put forward a case for more funding to prove themselves correct.

most of the terrible circumstances supposedly a result of climate change would of happened anway. when they stood up and talking about islands dissapearing and stating these were the first of climate refugees, they did not mention that the island did not exist 200 years ago and it was on an unstable atol and the locals for years had been using dynamite for fishing. 

if you go through human history you see these type of fear grabbing stories and the desperate please by those to do something. some have been mentioned above and they exist in every century. in the 1800's they had people wanting dramatic action on a horse manure crisis and  that by 1950 all the streets of london would be covered by horse manure. 

it is human nature to want to believe in a crisis to feel important and special and significant and it is the way it has always been. 

"it's not gambling if you're absolutely sure you're gonna win" Barney Stinson
Back to Top
Shammy Davis View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 14 Dec 2012
Status: Offline
Points: 8567
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Shammy Davis Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:43pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Thats an article from a (conservative) journalist (citing other conservative news media outfits), speculating about an as yet unreleased report. So where does this 2084 assertion fit in?
 
June 20, 2006

Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives Do

ByDennis Prager

Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?

After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

< style="border: 0px currentColor; : ;" height="0" ="http://c14.zedo.com/OzoDB/cutils/R56_7/jsc/598/zpu.?n=598;f=1;z=2-110" Border="0" width="0" scrolling="no">

But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do).

No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between liberals and conservatives.

Here are six more likely explanations:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

-- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.

It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.

-- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming.

-- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke).

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html

Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:46pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

So anything that does not sit with your preconceived beliefs is instantly dismissed as poor reporting by conservative journalists? Doesn't sound like a balanced scientific approach does it? This is the IPCC report, the peak body of the 97% you earlier quoted, admitting that their modelling, while correct in basis, was overly geared to increases that have not, in reality, eventuated. I said 2084 however reading the article Gay put up its 2083, I was out by a year. Mute point, I have seen extracts from the report. It is all very fair and reasonable. It's balanced and analytical and I'm sure that in hindsight will shown to have other areas that are flawed. It is, apart from the undistutable facts like gravity, the nature of science......hypothesis is reached on available data using individuals perceptions. It is difficult to be completely accurate. This is why fanatics at either end of the argument will always be wrong as they leave no wiggle room for error.
 
Not at all. I have no "pre-conceived beliefs". I am simply accepting the current scientific consensus. If that changes or proves to be wrong I'll happily change my mind. The science that is, not the interpretation of it through media outlets. Those scientists who have dissented are entitled to their view but they are in the significant minority.
 
And can you please link me to the science behind the 2083/4 figure.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:50pm
I wouldn't know what Alan Jones opinion is on anything whale as I wouldn't pain myself to listen to any rhetoric he tries to pass of as fact. Tim Flannery made a fool of himself the moment he started talking climate change as he spouted popularist left wing propaganda not based in any basic facts.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 1:59pm
Not sure what that grab-bag of clumsy generalisations has to do with anything I've posted Shammy. For the record I don't consider my position left, right or anywhere else. The great shame of this issue is that extremists on both sides seem to be so categorise to it so. On that, at least, I agree with Buckpasser.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:00pm
The report is out in a couple of weeks JudgeHolden. I do not have a copy. I have excerpts from it, given in confidence as they are leaked. You will have to wait until the report is released to get a link to it. Interestingly though, after saying you have no preconceived ideas and you will change your mind happily, you then refer to the IPCC report and the scientists involved as 'dissentors', prior to knowing who they are or what they say. Strange for someone without preconceived views and willing to change position when the science does
Back to Top
Fiddlesticks View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 31 Dec 2012
Status: Online
Points: 49810
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Fiddlesticks Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:04pm
Originally posted by hatch hatch wrote:

Browndog ,   the only thing we should be considering is that this remakably stable world temperature over hundreds of years is for any of us to be stupid enough to be worrying about.   Climate change has happened in the past , hot periods and cold periods,and nothing to do with anything humans have done


Very very naive to think humans have had zero impact on the earths atmosphere, then again we are discussing it with the forums biggest supporter of creationism...Confused
Panspermia.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:14pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

The report is out in a couple of weeks JudgeHolden. I do not have a copy. I have excerpts from it, given in confidence as they are leaked. You will have to wait until the report is released to get a link to it. Interestingly though, after saying you have no preconceived ideas and you will change your mind happily, you then refer to the IPCC report and the scientists involved as 'dissentors', prior to knowing who they are or what they say. Strange for someone without preconceived views and willing to change position when the science does
 
Again you misunderstand me. The "dissenters" are the people quoted in the article by Gay3.  (Judith Curry, for example). Their opinions have been known for some time, and are outside the current consensus. I'm not referring to the IPCC report, which I'll judge for itself when released.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:19pm
What I do know to be in the IPCC report could cause a sceptic of human nature to believe that the modelling done, while initiated with the best of intentions, has been quantified in such a way as to guarantee profile and ongoing funding for projects to keep individual scientists employed and universities full. Of course no learned institution or someone with a science degree could possibly be accused of a vested interest could they?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:29pm
But what we are seeing JudgeHolden is that the current consensus, if not wrong, is seriously flawed. This is scientific facts. This new report, from what I read of it, shows this clearly. And it was always going to land that way if any person who educated themselves on the matter removed the sensationalist dogma from both ends of the spectrum. The middle ground is now, and shall be further in my opinion, seen as the reality.

I think the debate on both ends has done a global disservice. There are so many more pressing issues that need addressing that have been ignored as media space and resources are pumped into this issue. Pollution in general, erosion, urban planning etc are all, IMO, greater threats to the planet as we know it. Water, and not in the inane and illinformed debate like we have seen on the Murray Darling, is a much larger global issue. Hopefully this report will put some balance back into the debate.
Back to Top
Whale View Drop Down
Champion
Champion
Avatar

Joined: 01 Jun 2009
Location: St Kilda Beach
Status: Offline
Points: 38719
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Whale Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:32pm
Originally posted by Shammy Davis Shammy Davis wrote:

[QUOTE=JudgeHolden]Thats an article from a (conservative) journalist

Why Liberals Fear Global Warming More Than Conservatives Do

ByDennis Prager

Hmm ,I wonder of what political persuasion is Dennis Prager Confused

Observers of contemporary society will surely have noted that a liberal is far more likely to fear global warming than a conservative. Why is this?

After all, if the science is as conclusive as Al Gore, Time, Newsweek, The New York Times and virtually every other spokesman of the Left says it is, conservatives are just as likely to be scorched and drowned and otherwise done in by global warming as liberals will. So why aren't non-leftists nearly as exercised as leftists are? Do conservatives handle heat better? Are libertarians better swimmers? Do religious people love their children less?

The usual liberal responses -- to label a conservative position racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic or the like -- obviously don't apply here. So, liberals would have to fall back on the one remaining all-purpose liberal explanation: "big business." They might therefore explain the conservative-liberal divide over global warming thus: Conservatives don't care about global warming because they prefer corporate profits to saving the planet.

< style="border: 0px currentColor; : ;" height="0" ="http://c14.zedo.com/OzoDB/cutils/R56_7/jsc/598/zpu.?n=598;f=1;z=2-110" Border="0" width="0" scrolling="no">

But such an explanation could not explain the vast majority of conservatives who are not in any way tied into the corporate world (like this writer, who has no stocks and who, moreover, regards big business as amoral as leftists do).

No, the usual liberal dismissals of conservatives and their positions just don't explain this particularly illuminating difference between liberals and conservatives.

Here are six more likely explanations:

-- The Left is prone to hysteria. The belief that global warming will destroy the world is but one of many hysterical notions held on the Left. As noted in a previous column devoted to the Left and hysteria, many on the Left have been hysterical about the dangers of the PATRIOT Act and the NSA surveillance of phone numbers (incipient fascism); secondhand smoke (killing vast numbers of people); drilling in the remotest area of Alaska (major environmental despoliation); and opposition to same-sex marriage (imminent Christian theocracy).

Unlike consevatives who calmly and rationally discussed reds under the beds, weapons of mass destruction and the evils of Islam`

-- The Left believes that if The New York Times and other liberal news sources report something, it is true. If the cover of Time magazine says, "Global Warming: Be Worried, Very Worried," liberals get worried, very worried, about global warming.

The right of course doen't believe thair favourite media Fox News etc

It is noteworthy that liberals, one of whose mottos is "question authority," so rarely question the authority of the mainstream media. Now, of course, conservatives, too, often believe mainstream media. But conservatives have other sources of news that enable them to achieve the liberal ideal of questioning authority. Whereas few liberals ever read non-liberal sources of information or listen to conservative talk radio, the great majority of conservatives are regularly exposed to liberal news, liberal editorials and liberal films, and they have also received many years of liberal education.

Yep I really see a lot of the right questioning morally reprehensible draconian law and order measures in America

-- The Left believes in experts. Of course, every rational person, liberal or conservative, trusts the expertise of experts -- such as when experts in biology explain the workings of mitochondria, or when experts in astronomy describe the moons of Jupiter. But for liberals, "expert" has come to mean far more than greater knowledge in a given area. It now means two additional things: One is that non-experts should defer to experts not only on matters of knowledge, but on matters of policy, as well. The second is that experts possess greater wisdom about life, not merely greater knowledge in their area of expertise.

The right believes "selected" experts who conform to their view of the worlsd and of course allow them to make massive profits exploiting the general population.

That is why liberals are far more likely to be impressed when a Nobel Prize winner in, let us say, physics signs an ad against war or against capital punishment. The liberal is bowled over by the title "Nobel laureate." The conservative is more likely to wonder why a Nobel laureate in physics has anything more meaningful to say about war than, let us say, a taxi driver.

-- People who don't confront the greatest evils will confront far lesser ones. Most humans know the world is morally disordered -- and socially conscious humans therefore try to fight what they deem to be most responsible for that disorder. The Right tends to fight human evil such as communism and Islamic totalitarianism. The Left avoids confronting such evils and concentrates its attention instead on socioeconomic inequality, environmental problems and capitalism. Global warming meets all three of these criteria of evil. By burning fossil fuels, rich countries pollute more, the environment is being despoiled and big business increases its profits.

The right doesn't confront any evils, they like it just fine as  it is as long as they can continue gouging profits all is good with the world

-- The Left is far more likely to revere, even worship, nature. A threat to the environment is regarded by many on the Left as a threat to what is most sacred to them, and therefore deemed to be the greatest threat humanity faces. The cover of Vanity Fair's recent "Special Green Issue" declared: "A Graver Threat Than Terrorism: Global Warming." Conservatives, more concerned with human evil, hold the very opposite view: Islamic terror is a far graver threat than global warming.

Nature is worthy of being revered it is disappearing far too quickly, the right reveres nature for how much they can exploit and profit from it.

-- Leftists tend to fear dying more. That is one reason they are more exercised about our waging war against evil than about the evils committed by those we fight. The number of Iraqis and others Saddam Hussein murdered troubles the Left considerably less than even the remote possibility than they may one day die of global warming (or secondhand smoke).

Do they really, I haven't heard that one before, maybe the right don't fear it because "their " god who justifies every evil action in life will look after them in death

One day, our grandchildren may ask us what we did when Islamic fascism threatened the free world. Some of us will say we were preoccupied with fighting that threat wherever possible; others will be able to say they fought carbon dioxide emissions. One of us will look bad.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/06/why_liberals_fear_global_warmi.html



I used to think you were a right leaning but sensible person, I now see yoyu are just another consevative extremist Shammy Thumbs Down
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:39pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

What I do know to be in the IPCC report could cause a sceptic of human nature to believe that the modelling done, while initiated with the best of intentions, has been quantified in such a way as to guarantee profile and ongoing funding for projects to keep individual scientists employed and universities full. Of course no learned institution or someone with a science degree could possibly be accused of a vested interest could they?
 
Well if that's the case they should be exposed. Hopefully you'll be able to provide us with the particular institution, organisation or individuals involved. Wouldn't want to tar everyone with the same brush, would we?
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:46pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

But what we are seeing JudgeHolden is that the current consensus, if not wrong, is seriously flawed. This is scientific facts. This new report, from what I read of it, shows this clearly. And it was always going to land that way if any person who educated themselves on the matter removed the sensationalist dogma from both ends of the spectrum. The middle ground is now, and shall be further in my opinion, seen as the reality.

I think the debate on both ends has done a global disservice. There are so many more pressing issues that need addressing that have been ignored as media space and resources are pumped into this issue. Pollution in general, erosion, urban planning etc are all, IMO, greater threats to the planet as we know it. Water, and not in the inane and illinformed debate like we have seen on the Murray Darling, is a much larger global issue. Hopefully this report will put some balance back into the debate.
 
Sorry but I don't see that at all. Perhaps you can provide me with the actual science, linked, that undermines the current consensus.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:46pm
Cardiff university, of course, was one institution who was severely questioned over their actions and motivations. Cannot vouch for the credentials, conservative or otherwise, of the journalists though.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:50pm
You keep asking for the science JudgeHolden and I keep supplying it. You have provided zero science to any question here. You have derided anyone who disagrees with you. You instantly assumed I was a 'sceptic' because I mentioned Lindzen because of your ingrained views. How about you produce some science?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:55pm
And you keep asking for a link. I cannot repeat myself anymore. The report you ask for a link to is written but will be released in two weeks. I cannot give a link to that report. I did give you a link to an article published today that discusses the leaked aspects of the report that I read, that quotes from it directly, yet you demand more. Wait two weeks. This is a report that is written by the peak body of the scientists you sprouted (without showing any current science to support your view) as guiding your opinion. I would suggest some canny research from you would give you the answers you want if your mind is truly open.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 2:56pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

You keep asking for the science JudgeHolden and I keep supplying it. You have provided zero science to any question here. You have derided anyone who disagrees with you. You instantly assumed I was a 'sceptic' because I mentioned Lindzen because of your ingrained views. How about you produce some science?
 
For the nth time in here:
 
 
Very comprehensive, all opinions linked and annotated in basic or intermediary detail.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 3:15pm
So a single source of info? No need to question, double check, ratify, self educate etc? What about the Indian scientist who admitted falsifying info on ice melt in the Himalayas , wasn't he a member of one of those organisations?
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 3:43pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

What I do know to be in the IPCC report could cause a sceptic of human nature to believe that the modelling done, while initiated with the best of intentions, has been quantified in such a way as to guarantee profile and ongoing funding for projects to keep individual scientists employed and universities full. Of course no learned institution or someone with a science degree could possibly be accused of a vested interest could they?








 

Well if that's the case they should be exposed. Hopefully you'll be able to provide us with the particular institution, organisation or individuals involved. Wouldn't want to tar everyone with the same brush, would we?
Former head of IPCC, Prof Pacauri, Admitted in 2007 that the report containing the claim that all Himilayian Glaciers would disappear by 2035 was not based on any scientific basis. That's the chair of the UN run, peak industry body admitting that an official report supposively scientific was a made up personal opinion. He represents the the people on the link you provided JudgeHolden. This was deemed a fact on the website you gave a link to until it was exposed.
Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 3:47pm
Originally posted by JudgeHolden JudgeHolden wrote:

Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

What I do know to be in the IPCC report could cause a sceptic of human nature to believe that the modelling done, while initiated with the best of intentions, has been quantified in such a way as to guarantee profile and ongoing funding for projects to keep individual scientists employed and universities full. Of course no learned institution or someone with a science degree could possibly be accused of a vested interest could they?








 

Well if that's the case they should be exposed. Hopefully you'll be able to provide us with the particular institution, organisation or individuals involved. Wouldn't want to tar everyone with the same brush, would we?

JudgeHolden, just wondering if you had a postion, not gleaned from the 97%, on the East Anglian and Penn State university investigation into manipulated climate change data. Again, I'm listing institutions and organisations as I do like to inform myself of facts rather than rely on organisations telling me what to think.
Back to Top
JudgeHolden View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 16 Apr 2011
Status: Offline
Points: 11716
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JudgeHolden Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 4:05pm
Originally posted by Buckpasser Buckpasser wrote:

So a single source of info? No need to question, double check, ratify, self educate etc? What about the Indian scientist who admitted falsifying info on ice melt in the Himalayas , wasn't he a member of one of those organisations?


It's a summation of the science, all referenced with source literature. And if you take the time to look around you'll find multiple contrary views examined and discussed. As well as some of the controversies. If you find this unconvincing we'll have to agree to disagree.

As for your other point I'm not overly familiar with the particualr case, but in any area of scientific endeavour you're going to find self-interest, fraud and downright incompetence. That doesn't mean I'm throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm prepared to assume the overwhelming majority of scientists choose to act in good faith.

Back to Top
Buckpasser View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 01 Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 1604
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Buckpasser Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 4:22pm
To summarise, the head of the IPCC when Copenhagan occurred and the 2007 report was released (the most controversial) was a guy called raj Pachauri. He had an employee called Dr Sayed Hassain who claimed that all Himalayan glaciers would disappear by 2035. Glacial melt supplies 40% of the worlds population with water. This allowed TERI, who Pachauri controlled to get a 500k grant from Carnegie plus part of a 3 million euro grant as well. He took these findings to Copenhagan knowing they were wrong, recieved a Nobel Peace Prize beside Al Gore knowing it was wrong and published the most controversial climate change report knowing it was wrong. He is not only one of the 97% but was the chairman of the peak industry body and the public face. These results, never true or researched, we're published on the very website you put forward as an unquestioned source of information. Not saying it is not a source of good information, just that it should be looked at with an scientific approach of sceptasism.
Back to Top
Bagman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bagman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:10pm
Go to the NASA http://climate.nasa.gov/    site and get some answers. These guys are funded by the USA Govt so if they say its a happening who am I to dispute them or the other 97% of CLIMATE SCIENTISTS in agreement. Now its important to note the caps lock, as a multitude of 'scientists', usually in the employ of energy companies are spruiking as well.
The conspiracy theorists are down to name calling and attacking the man not the ball. The big thing with conspiracy is 99% of them have a shadowy figure who will gain from it. With climate change there is none.
There is no mega solar operator, wave generator, thermal or wind generation company waiting to swoop when we all fall for the scam.
It reminds me of the hole in the Ozone layer. Our best and brightest examined the issue and came back with a solution to abate the problem, get rid of CFC'. DuPont, the main CFC manufacturer, took out full page ads stating their is no proof, scientists are tree huggers etc etc. Did they win out or did we take notice of the pro's and change?
I don't have one
Back to Top
BROOKE View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 07 Mar 2007
Status: Offline
Points: 12633
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BROOKE Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:20pm
Global Warming = Biggest Conspiracy Theory of the past 50 years.
Back to Top
Bagman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bagman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:25pm
Then who is the winner?? Wheres the smoking guy in the corner?? Wheres the alternative energy provider and his advertising blitz?? Where Brooke??
Where??
A conspiracy is when two parties collude to something harmful or illegal. You cannot have a conspiracy without a winner. In this case the winner is ????????
Please no more conspiracy claims , just back up your argument with FACTS. Its the least you can do when scientists have put their credibility on the line. Remember scientists Brooke??
I don't have one
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34887
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:25pm
Originally posted by Mental Mental wrote:

The same scientists spruiking global warming are the ones who 20 years ago told us there was a hole in the ozone layer and we'd all be fried by now.

Funnily enough you never hear about the hole in the ozone layer now they've got a new fairytale to peddle. They also told us that the Y2k bug would have planes falling out of the sky at the turn of the millennium. Did that happen?

These scientists must sit around p1ssing themselves laughing at the crap people will swallow.



You do realise we identified the problem, and stopped using CFC's, don't you?
Back to Top
Bagman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bagman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:28pm
I'll put you in touch with some of the greatest supporters ,and starters , of conspiracy theorys...
http://english.pravda.ru/search/?cx=partner-pub-9823569451097165%3A3289353802&cof=FORID%3A10&ie=UTF-8&q=global+warming&sa=Submit+Query&siteurl=english.pravda.ru%2F&ref=lavasoft.blekko.com%2Fws%2Fpravda&ss=3088j999898j14     

.they've got it all and soon enough you will see the only person being fooled is you.
I don't have one
Back to Top
subastral View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 28 Jul 2011
Location: Melbourne
Status: Offline
Points: 34887
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote subastral Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:30pm
Isn't it better to be doing something and later be proven wrong, rather than do absolutely nothing and later be proven that it's real?? I fail to see any negative points about being proactive. We make big business and governments accountable for their actions. Where is the problem??
Back to Top
Bagman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bagman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:32pm
Subastral, why argue with someone who cannot tell the difference between a computer programmer and a scientist? Yes we got rid of CFC's and it worked!
Simple solution to an elegant problem. Drama is the deniers have reached the end of there spin cycle and are out of ideas so they try and tell us things like the Ozone and Y2K are done by the same think tank.
I don't have one
Back to Top
Bagman View Drop Down
Champion
Champion


Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Status: Offline
Points: 4082
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Bagman Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 16 Sep 2013 at 5:34pm
Ahh, excellent point.
The result would be an abundance of alternate energy sources assets. That's all..... jobs, production, trades etc etc
I don't have one
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1 34567 538>

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 12.05
Copyright ©2001-2022 Web Wiz Ltd.

This page was generated in 0.188 seconds.