Am I still allowed to question climate change?

[retep]

So this "central claim" amounts to just 2 lines in a series of reports that must be in excess of a thousand pages.

 

Anyone thinking this amounts to a reason to be sceptical of human influenced global warming has no sense of perspective.

 

So little can say a lot here's an example,

The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can not be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

[Wildcat]

So little can say a lot here's an example,

The receding and thinning of Himalayan glaciers can not be attributed primarily to the global warming due to increase in anthropogenic emission of greenhouse gases.

 

Indeed but that is not the correction is it?

 

The correction made is simply an overstated prediction from a scientist..... that has no doubts about human influenced climate change. The prediction takes up 2 lines in a massive report. There are at least 300 pages in each of the 3 sections. It is a minor detail, it is like saying the holocaust didn't happen because of an error in a survivor's story.

Edited January 17, 2010 by Wildcat

[retep]

Gravity data shows Antarctica is losing ice at a rate of more than 100 cubic kms of ice a year and it is accelerating:

 

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/20100108_Is_Antarctica_Melting.html

 

You'd best turn your central heating down.

[Digsy]

Has anyone watched "Apocolypse No", by Christopher Monckton.

If not, then I would advise it, very interesting.

 

Here is a link:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524&ei=v4hTS5nbHdak-AaZ85ygDA&q=apocolypse+no&hl=en#

[Wildcat]

Has anyone watched "Apocolypse No", by Christopher Monckton.

If not, then I would advise it, very interesting.

 

Here is a link:-

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=5206383248165214524&ei=v4hTS5nbHdak-AaZ85ygDA&q=apocolypse+no&hl=en#

 

I would avise anyone to do a quick google about the potty peer Christopher Munchausen......

 

I recommend this video it is no less potty but a little more amusing:

Edited January 17, 2010 by Wildcat

[Digsy]

I would avise anyone to do a quick google about the potty peer Christopher Munchausen......

 

I recommend this video it is no less potty but a little more amusing:

 

What on earth does a debate on Malaria and DDT have to do with this debate other than the lol typical sf ad hominem tripe.

Could you debate his points in this matter, opposed to attacking his position with some bloggers attempted character assassination.

 

We have Boris Johnson as mayor of London Wildcat?

Tesla the guy that made technology possible believed he could communicate with Aliens.

In fact Obama said something about the reality of Alien life being Imminent.

Does that make these people less worthy in your eyes?

What is your point?

Edited January 17, 2010 by Digsy

[Wildcat]

What on earth does a debate on Malaria and DDT have to do with this debate other than the lol typical sf ad hominem tripe.

Could you debate his points in this matter, opposed to attacking his position with some bloggers attempted character assassination.

 

We have Boris Johnson as mayor of London Wildcat?

Tesla the guy that made technology possible believed he could communicate with Aliens.

What is your point?

 

My point is he is a known liar and fraud, with about as much credibility as Mark Thatcher has as a navigator.

 

If you have a point to make about the topic or from the film make it yourself.

 

Ps I editted the link to another more relevant article as you were quoting it.

[Digsy]

My point is he is a known liar and fraud, with about as much credibility as Mark Thatcher has as a navigator.

 

If you have a point to make about the topic or from the film make it yourself.

 

Ps I editted the link to another more relevant article as you were quoting it.

 

I don't have any point on either Global Warming or Climate Change other than I experience both daily.

I just thought I would throw in the anti-christ of global warming, and check your response, which I must say is predictable.

[Wildcat]

I don't have any point on either Global Warming or Climate Change other than I experience both daily.

I just thought I would throw in the anti-christ of global warming, and check your response, which I must say is predictable.

 

And justified.

[Stormy]

I didn't know he had offered that. It seems strange since he is well known for being secretative about his methods and has ignored the request to debate with this person:

 

http://julesandjames.blogspot.com/2005/05/trying-to-bet-on-climate-with-piers.html

 

Ps he is obviously wrong in describing climate change as being due to solar effects because the Stratosphere is cooling at the same time as the Troposphere is warming. A solar explanation cannot account for that difference.

 

With respect that blog piece is nearly 5 years old. Mr Corbyns offer is on the table for anyone to take up.

As for your comments on his methods and conclusions, his accuracy speaks for itself. http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact5&fsize=0

 

He is talking about a failure of internationalism that increases the threat of natural disasters. It may not be relevant to what happened in Haiti, but looking forward at future events his point is valid.

 

 

No it isn't. He directly links the two in a crass display of stupidity which is characteristic of the warmist tendancies to exaggerate and lie.

 

What lies?

For example

 

And....

 

 

 

 

 

That would require an essay in itself. In short politics and short term self interest.

Short term self interest. Well we certainly agree on that at least.

 

And there I was thinking we only had "2 weeks to save humanity"

 

 

 

You response is precisely the confusion I was talking about. The issues that you raise are problems of economics and have nothing to do with the science of gloabl warming, a scientific debate that is ongoing, but that is sufficiently resolved for us to be sure that CO2 emissions are the cause of current warming.

 

Ohh and Delingpole is a ......

http://nosleeptilbrooklands.blogspot.com/search?q=delingpole

 

I disagree about the science being sufficiently resolved and I think over time there will be a lot more scientists coming out of the woodwork saying that actually the science is not settled, and before we start destroying our industry we should take a serious look again at what is happening. You only need to look at the links which other posters have provided to see that there are many scientists who are against AGW and are providing scientific evidence as such.

 

As for Delingpole, I thought you might say something like that but the point remains even if you dislike the messenger.

 

 

A lot of research, the targets set at Kyoto, and the increasing use of technologies like clean coal, wind generation etc.

 

The amount of power we generate by wind is but a drop in the ocean compared to what we need. Clean Coal seems unpopular with environmentalists. I agree that we should indeed shift to a low carbon economy where we are not reliant on fossil fuels but not for the same reasons as yourself and I do not wish to see us commit economic suicide in the mean time.

 

That is a topic for a seperate thread.

 

 

I disagree. If the world is really in that much trouble then it should be being talked about as a "serious threat to humanity" yet no warmist or politician seems to dare to talk about it. All the windfarms and electric cars in the world will not be enough when contending with the fact that there are more people on the Earth. More people = More CO2

 

I agree with the last sentence but I suspect for opposite reasons.

 

We agree on three things in one post. Blimey!

Edited January 18, 2010 by Stormy