facthunter Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 They are showing what a lack of an education in basic science can result in and it is a BAD result. In ages past science was attacked by most of the theists, but I would have thought we have moved on from "the earth is flat". Science is not a belief . It's a conclusion based on a lot of material observation and trials supported by checks at all levels and subject to review. Has it's own disciplines and peer review processes.. A false process will negate the result. Scientists are the ultimate sceptics . There has been a lot of effort and money put into vilifying them lately by people who have their cash flows threatened particularly with the AGW matters. You have to carefully evaluate a lot of the material out there . CO2 and METHANE levels are higher than they have been for millions of years and can be easily measured, and are rising fast. The EFFECT of them is well understood and not disputed by scientists. IF they were dropping we would go into an ICE age. Precise effects cannot be predicted and this sort of consideration is often exploited to create uncertainty deliberately to confuse the issue. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 CO2 and METHANE levels are higher than they have been for millions of years and can be easily measured, and are rising fast No, 600,000 and 400,000 years of ice core samples (2 deepest drilling sites among others) proves that statement wrong. We are in a normal cycle of heating right now with normal fluctuations, the oldest scientific provable facts we have. Now excuse me, I'm off to protest the New Guinians for intentionally setting off that volcano and polluting my planet ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 There is no steady state climate. At any time in the cycle it is either getting warmer or cooler. We are due another ice age. Warmer is better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The world population has doubled since 1947. That should change things . More land sales, more growth. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 The world population has doubled since 1947. That should change things . More land sales, more growth. Nev Totally agree with you Nev that somethings will certainly change because of "Us" and while it may, or may not, kill off a whole bunch of us parasites, I think the planet itself will get over it quite quickly as it has done through the ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 Totally agree with you Nev that somethings will certainly change because of "Us" and while it may, or may not, kill off a whole bunch of us parasites, I think the planet itself will get over it quite quickly as it has done through the ages. You are exactly correct there Bex - planet Earth has in the past shrugged off 99% of larger life forms and all it does is clear the way for a different type. Unfortunately, although my kids are indeed parasites, I do kind of love the little buggers and don't really want them and their offspring to be killed off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 You are exactly correct there Bex - planet Earth has in the past shrugged off 99% of larger life forms and all it does is clear the way for a different type. Unfortunately, although my kids are indeed parasites, I do kind of love the little buggers and don't really want them and their offspring to be killed off. Your best bet to ensure the survival of your offspring (as far as climate change), would be to work on a project that will prevent asteroid impact. I am led to believe that this is more likely than man made climate change to cause significant damage. It has occurred before, it will happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 I believe the greatest problem with GW is that it happens slowly with reference to a single humans life. If it happened over say 20 years and would therefore impact the kingmakers of today we would have solutions fast, and probably not all this disinformation that we have seen so far. Im concerned for my kids kids but as is usual human nature not as concerned as I would be if in 10yrs more I'd be wondering where my next meal/drink was coming from..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 5, 2014 Share Posted October 5, 2014 One of the interesting ways the climate deniers argue their case is by quoting news articles which misrepresent or distort the science. Rarely if ever will a denier ever try to argue against a scientific journal, that would be intellectual suicide so they keep quoting articles from journalists who have no real understanding of the science apart from its rigorous and tedious discussion of facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 One of the interesting ways the climate deniers argue their case is by quoting news articles which misrepresent or distort the science. Rarely if ever will a denier ever try to argue against a scientific journal, that would be intellectual suicide so they keep quoting articles from journalists who have no real understanding of the science apart from its rigorous and tedious discussion of facts. What you say is true as you see it. It is also true that you and those who toe the line on GW also haven't a clue about the science that's being put forward, merely blindly following it as fact so you can tell somebody "Oh yeah, I care for the Earth's future" and feel good about yourself. Also note once again you use a negative label, eg; "Deniers" for those who don't subscribe to your blind religion. Please allow me to reply in kind, Merriam-Webster Dictionary says ... BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of another group with hatred and intolerance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bexrbetter Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 You are exactly correct there Bex - planet Earth has in the past shrugged off 99% of larger life forms and all it does is clear the way for a different type. Unfortunately, although my kids are indeed parasites, I do kind of love the little buggers and don't really want them and their offspring to be killed off. Well Marty, got to mention you are writing that from a position of currently enjoying all the benefits of modern man to the extreme. Desist from these activities immediately and go live in some isolated, backwoods, raw area with no modern services away from all the trappings of human greed, living only on what you can catch with your bare hands. Tasmania comes to mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 What you say is true as you see it. It is also true that you and those who toe the line on GW also haven't a clue about the science that's being put forward, merely blindly following it as fact. Also note once again you use a negative label, eg; "Deniers" for those who don't subscribe to your blind religion. Please allow me to reply in kind, Merriam-Webster Dictionary says ... BIGOT: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of another group with hatred and intolerance Bex, I have to comment you said "you and those who toe the line on GW also haven't a clue about the science that's being put forward, merely blindly following it as fact" Your right, I don't understand the science of GW, in fact I would put it to you that the only people who really understand, or perhaps more accurately have the capacity to see the bigger picture, are climate Scientists, and last time I looked that excluded me, FT and a [mod was here] engine maker living in China, or is it that climate science is a recreational activity of yours that we are not aware of and you feel up to the standard of real scientists and perfectly able to have a one on one conversation with them about it.........some how I doubt it!......but feel free to tell me otherwise. However what I do understand is the role of peer review in science and the FACT that scientists in general do not disagree with the statement that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is unequivocally increasing temperature on earth, in concert with other temperature increasing and decreasing events. The reason for that absolute statement is that it is easily proved by experiment and as such is not a point of conjecture. Furthermore the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising and that also isn't a point of conjecture having been proved by fieldwork. What is a point of conjecture is the various plus and minus effects of other activities that are happening in the same timeline, but to me that is a smokescreen because the other points are real and not in debate as I understand it. But as always feel free to ignore that REALITY and focus on a bunch of other activities that at best people hope will offset the damage....... And that's my last word on the matter because there are none so blind as those who are too busy worrying about the absolute tint of the corrective lenses required to address their short-sightedness because if its not 100% correct then we sure don't want to accept a 97.5% approximate when we can bicker and fight for years in blindness over the makeup of the last 3%....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 However what I do understand is the role of peer review in science and the FACT that scientists in general do not disagree with the statement that increasing levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is unequivocally increasing temperature on earth, in concert with other temperature increasing and decreasing events. The reason for that absolute statement is that it is easily proved by experiment and as such is not a point of conjecture. Furthermore the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere are rising and that also isn't a point of conjecture having been proved by fieldwork. What is a point of conjecture is the various plus and minus effects of other activities that are happening in the same timeline, but to me that is a smokescreen because the other points are real and not in debate as I understand it. The temperature stopped rising 18 years ago Andy, every singe climate model has been proven wrong. Don't be a denier - real science says it's time to dump the theory and start over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Thanks GG. I reckon Richard Feynman was just about the smartest bloke that ever lived. I didn't know about the YouTube videos. Now I will watch them all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Andy is correct; the professionals who focus on climate change are Climate Scientists rather than comedians. We are heading into an ice age, but that could be tens of thousands of years ago, as you were told on this forum previously The temperature did NOT stop rising 18 years ago - BS is cheap Here is the latest 2014 statement from an authorative source: http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/SOC14/State%20of%20the%20Climate%202014.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Andy is correct; the professionals who focus on climate change are Climate Scientists rather than comedians.We are heading into an ice age, but that could be tens of thousands of years ago, as you were told on this forum previously The temperature did NOT stop rising 18 years ago - BS is cheap Here is the latest 2014 statement from an authorative source: http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau/Outcomes/Climate/Understanding/SOC14/State of the Climate 2014.pdf The problem here is too much politics involved to pick science from BS....CSIRO is under fire for "adjusting" temperature data. Temperature could rising from man made causes, or not, hard to know what reality is. If politics were to stay out of science, it might be easier to be convincing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Where is the evidence of the politicisation of global warming science though? You deniers talk about it like its real but you can't produce any evidence of bias. This is the problem with the deniers, they back their argument on the politicisation of the science by pointing out that the media is biased, which it is. It's like you can't accept the science is in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 So if you don't like CSIRO then choose any other worldwide national science body equivalent or better in terms of scientific excellence. There isn't a single one that I'm aware of that has refuted the GW claim. Is anyone aware of a national science based body worldwide that has worldwide recognition (and no I don't think North Korea's science body fits that bill) that claims GW is B/S Asking that politics be removed is entirely feasible just as soon as you remove the reality that there will be kingmakers who will suffer financial damage if we accept the scientist position and work to address them......Unfortunately I think the window of opportunity is dwindling and before long all that will be left is the pyric "Well Bugger me it was real!" I think this youtube video better addresses the points I was trying to make, if you listen with an open mind (is there such a thing with GW these days???) then on balance to use his example we generally buy insurance for house fire when the likelihood of a fire occurring was (2-3% at least where he was) yet choose to not do anything when the risk of damage by GW is >50%.....the problem is we can address the 2-3% risk of fire for a relatively modest sum, the cost to address the >50% risk is, unfortunately, significantly higher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Your best bet to ensure the survival of your offspring (as far as climate change), would be to work on a project that will prevent asteroid impact. I am led to believe that this is more likely than man made climate change to cause significant damage. It has occurred before, it will happen again. Nah, that's sorted. We strap Clive, Gina, Twiggy and a nuclear bomb to a rocket and they'll deal with it. Hey, if Bruce Willis did it, then 3 miners should be even better! (Even without an asteroid I think the idea has merit). Well Marty, got to mention you are writing that from a position of currently enjoying all the benefits of modern man to the extreme. Desist from these activities immediately and go live in some isolated, backwoods, raw area with no modern services away from all the trappings of human greed, living only on what you can catch with your bare hands. Tasmania comes to mind. Thanks Bex, I plan to tomorrow. (Return to Tasmania that is). Although I must say that some "modern services" at home, particularly regarding width of roads, verges and line markings, sh*t all over country roads in France. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Now, I'm not going to suggest that this is science or truth, but it is a very interesting take on things. You sound like a broken record FT, I don't think many people don't believe that the climate is changing, or that humans are having no impact, the issue is more about whether or not what we are doing will actually change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 Let's hope the sceptics are right. If they are not, we're truly in the sh1t. Explain to your grandchildren why Australia is overrun by tens of million of environmental refugees. The world community will remember which country reneged on its commitments, which country was the biggest exporter of coal... We purport to respect science...until it tells us uncomfortable facts like we have been living way beyond our means. Instead of listening and acting on the warnings, we shoot the messenger, then carry on as if nothing can get in the way of our comfortable lifestyle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 The vast majority of people accept the science, the fringe are always going to attract those that lack the mental capacity to not realise the difference between facts and propaganda. Deniers also know the truth about fluoride, vaccination and chem trails. You know the old saying about how you can lead a horse to water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 If you don't ask who my sources are, Ill tell you no lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 You got way too much spare time.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted October 6, 2014 Share Posted October 6, 2014 typical chem trail denier 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