Phanerothyme Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 In each case the worst case scenario is that the planet will continue to function exactly as it would if there were no humans living on it. That is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe9T Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Don't believe the hype. I do think we should be careful, but it does appear that scientists will say anything if they are being paid to say it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Don't believe the hype. I do think we should be careful, but it does appear that scientists will say anything if they are being paid to say it. Well Convert seems to find a few examples, but fortunately the majority have the integrity to be honest with us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
convert Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Well Convert seems to find a few examples, but fortunately the majority have the integrity to be honest with us. Whilst all Wiki can do is post ad-homs and junkscience links to warmist sites. What's your view on the current negative trend in UAH? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Whilst all Wiki can do is post ad-homs and junkscience links to warmist sites. If you want to try to make claims like that you should at least try to do so without an ad hominem What point is there in arguing with you when you discount all the major scientific institutions as junk science or warmist sites? What's your view on the current negative trend in UAH? Do you call this a negative trend? http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/29/comparing-all-the-temperature-records/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 I see climate change advocate George Monbiot has recently come out and admitted that he was wrong about nuclear power. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/21/pro-nuclear-japan-fukushima How long before he admits he was wrong about global warming too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Carbon warming too minor to be worth worrying about Many thanks for that article. I'd not heard of David Evans, but a quick search reveals he ran the Australian Greenhouse Office, which is now the Department of Climate Change so clearly he's far more of an expert in this field than anyone on this thread. It's nice to see the experts are generally in agreement that climate change is so minor as to be insignificant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 Many thanks for that article. I'd not heard of David Evans, but a quick search reveals he ran the Australian Greenhouse Office, which is now the Department of Climate Change so clearly he's far more of an expert in this field than anyone on this thread. It's nice to see the experts are generally in agreement that climate change is so minor as to be insignificant. A quick google should have brought this up, it did for me and I even referenced it. http://www.desmogblog.com/david-evans Far from running the Australian Greenhouse Office he From 1999 to 2006, Evans worked for the Australian Greenhouse Office designing a carbon accounting system that is used by the Australian Government to calculate its land-use carbon accounts for the Kyoto Protocol. While Evans says that "[he] know a heck of a lot about modeling and computers," he states clearly that he is "not a climate modeler." The way to tell if he is credible or not is to look at his arguments. Arguments he is repeating 3 years after he first raised them and after they have been thoroughly debunked. He is a worthless reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maceena Posted April 23, 2011 Share Posted April 23, 2011 do i remeber correctly in thinking that emails were hacked into proving people were told to lie about global warming? i may be wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted May 8, 2011 Share Posted May 8, 2011 You're wrong- the emails were hacked, and showed that academics are human. The science of it was unaffected. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13300058 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now