The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > A further riposte from a flat earther > Comments

A further riposte from a flat earther : Comments

By Chris Golis, published 4/7/2011

Chris Golis further explores the reasons why he doesn't think that climate change will be a catastrophe

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Agnostic of Mittagong,

My point was actually that global warming is not bad for everyone.

Your weird twisted logic from the joke my son made to: "Shadow Minister does just that. It was cold on Tuesday, ergo global warming has come to an end!" is an indication that supporting labor defies logic.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Monday, 4 July 2011 12:56:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart, I don't see any point in posting links, you can finds links to anything you like, prove or disprove anything you like. Goading me is amusing, but all part of the alarmists toolkit, is it not?

Some people demand links so they can then scour through them to find some sentence or minute fact to refute and then ignore the rest and hail victory , like this

"Hansen (note the correct spelling of the man's name"

Then of course, you make similar mistake, which makes you look childish and petty "For what it's work, I think it's the latter", do you mean "worth" ? (note the correct spelling) Glass houses and all that.

"I have never seen any credible evidence", and you won't if you don't look, you need to try skepticism, then you don't end up believing everything that suits your philosophy.

Will I do the job for you, no of course not, if you're too lazy, it's your problem.

The fact that Hansen, is not held in high regard, and you don't believe he is tainted, clearly means you have a blinkered view. Why recently he is accused of accepting $1.6M in benefits from organizations he has "worked for", this is still in dispute .. had you heard?

Since you find great merit in correct spelling, and make a point of it, tends to reinforce the casual view that you are a combative AGW believer, and nothing anyone says or does will change that.

People who believe not only in AGW being caused by CO2, but that hysterical solutions should be invested in, are now in the minority in Australia .. unless of course, you are in denial?
Posted by Amicus, Monday, 4 July 2011 1:15:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
@Amicus: rstuart, I don't see any point in posting links, you can finds links to anything you like, prove or disprove anything you like. Goading me is amusing, but all part of the alarmists toolkit, is it not?

Yes, I believe asking for truth and demanding you prove it is part the alarmists toolkit, but also at the very heart of rational debate, scientific discourse, fair play and any number of other things we hold near and dear. The one mob who don't seem to vigorously disapprove of it are charlatans. Which is perfectly understandable. So would I, if I were in their position.
Posted by rstuart, Monday, 4 July 2011 1:29:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart

"The limitation in the models has been the amount of computer power we can devote to the task"
No, sorry, completely wrong. The limitation has never been the amount of computing power. If you make those models more detailed, then you may simply make them more unstable. The problem has always been choice of starting conditions and choice of adjustable parameters. That's all a long story, but despite the vast problems with such models there have been efforts to forecast for each 25 square kilometres in the UK. These should just be ignored as far beyond present abilities.

Rich2
"Temperatures are on a clear upward trend as is the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere."
This statement is wrong. If you look one temperature record, compiled by the Goddard Institute of Space Sciences, there is a very slight upward trend over the past 13 years or so. But that trend is not apparent on the records compiled by Hadley (the most commonly used one) or the satellite data compiled by the University of Alabama in Huntsville.

Even the Goddard result is generally not considered to be signific antly significant. Basically global temperatures hit a plateau around the late 90s.
Posted by Curmudgeon, Monday, 4 July 2011 1:36:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, according to Hansen himself in 2004:

"...the current uncertainties in the TSI and aerosol forcings are so large that they preclude meaningful climate model evaluation by comparison with observed global temperature change..."

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/30/reality-leaves-a-lot-to-the-imagination/

Oddly enough, that didn't stop him from making dramatic and hysterical predictions long before that, or from calling for sceptics to be prosecuted and jailed. But I guess things are different when you're asking for more money...
Posted by Jon J, Monday, 4 July 2011 2:43:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curmudgeon,

Like I said there is a clear upward trend in temperatures since about 1970:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/surface-temperature-measurements-advanced.htm

"We know the planet is warming from surface temperature stations and satellites measuring the temperature of the Earth's surface and lower atmosphere. We also have various tools which have measured the warming of the Earth's oceans. Satellites have measured an energy imbalance at the top of the Earth's atmosphere. Glaciers, sea ice, and ice sheets are all receding. Sea levels are rising. Spring is arriving sooner each year. There's simply no doubt - the planet is warming.

And yes, the warming is continuing. The 2000s were hotter than the 1990s, which were hotter than the 1980s, which were hotter than the 1970s. 2010 is on pace to be at least in the top 3 hottest calendar years on record. In fact, the 12-month running average global temperature broke the record 3 times in 2010, according to NASA GISS data. Sea levels are still rising, ice is still receding, spring is still coming earlier, there's still a planetary energy imbalance, etc. etc. Contrary to what some would like us to believe, the planet has not magically stopped warming."

"No, it hasn't been cooling since 1998. Even if we ignore long term trends and just look at the record-breakers, that wasn't the hottest year ever. Different reports show that, overall, 2005 was hotter than 1998. What's more, globally, the hottest 12-month period ever recorded was from June 2009 to May 2010.

Though humans love record-breakers, they don't, on their own, tell us a much about trends -- and it's trends that matter when monitoring Climate Change. Trends only appear by looking at all the data, globally, and taking into account other variables -- like the effects of the El Nino ocean current or sunspot activity -- not by cherry-picking single points"

Reference www.skepticalscience.com

Come on Curmudgeon this is old stuff and I thought well accepted by all ......
Posted by Rich2, Monday, 4 July 2011 2:57:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy