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 > The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex > Comments

The Carbon-Civilization Combustion Complex : Comments

By Evaggelos Vallianatos, published 16/4/2015

A recent book, The Collapse of Western Civilization: A View From the Future by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway shines light on this perplexing question.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Depends how one defines 'empirical evidence'!!
Posted by Cupric Embarrasment, Friday, 17 April 2015 12:49:55 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
We should thank Evaggelos for his reminder that support for the climate fraud remains active. He also illustrates clearly the basis of this support.

Support for the fraud can only arise from ignorance or dishonesty.

When he issued his baseless tirade against fossil fuel companies, he may have been based in ignorance. He says he was reprimanded by the EPA, but remained in their employment. When a government body, like the EPA, a supporter of climate fraud, pulled him up, he should have reconsidered.

There is no science to show any measurable effect on climate by human activity. This is because the effect is trivial, and is not scientifically noticed because it is not measurable.
He found support for the climate fraud in Oreskes. From her first entry into the climate debate, she has been characterised by dishonesty, initially in her false assertion of a consensus on climate change.

Benny Peiser, Chairman of the Global Warming Policy Foundation wrote to Science Magazine, which had published Oreskes flawed research, pointing out the flaws, and concluding:
“Science Magazine should withdraw Oreskes’ study and its results in order to prevent any further damage to the integrity of science. - See more at: http://www.cfact.org/2005/05/04/dr-benny-peisers-letter-to-science-magazine-and-the-story-of-its-rejection/#sthash.lCDRGhfg.dpuf
Scientist Fred Singer, with whom Oreskes declined to debate the science commented:
“Her understanding of the Greenhouse Effect is plain comical; she posits that CO2 is “trapped” in the troposphere — and that’s why the stratosphere is cooling. Equally wrong is her understanding of what climate models are capable of; she actually believes that they can predict forest fires in Russia, floods in Pakistan and China — nothing but calamities everywhere — and tells climate scientists in a recent lecture: If the predictions of climate models have come true, then why don’t people believe them [see this]?
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/oreskes-clumsy-venomous-smear-campaign-busted/
Oreskes or her accomplices published a false assertion on Wikipedia that Peiser had acknowledged that he was mistaken
So Vaggelos has the support of a liar, who has written an unscientific work of science fiction, to back his position.
Thanks for clarifying the basis of your support for the fraud, Evaggelos.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 19 April 2015 3:29:05 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
collapse of Western civilisation has everything to do with the hatred of Christian values and the natural family. Those blind enough not to see it need to adopt pseudo science (gw religion) to manifest their 'moral outrage'. The last thing we need to be concerned about is pseudo science that is often fiddled with to fit a warped and foolish narrative. Certainly stops any real moral self inspection.
Posted by runner, Sunday, 19 April 2015 4:23:24 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
Wow!

You have to be pretty far out there in the ratbag orbit, to be too radical for the radical ratbag US EPA.

Even the most stupid ratbags in Oz don't get up to EPA standards.
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 19 April 2015 5:09:47 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
In regard to the baseless assertion that global warming is human caused, scientist Tim Ball has already contributed an article to OLO, dealing with the dishonesty of James Hansen, an avid promoter of climate fraud. He said:
“Hansen told the hearing that he was "99 percent sure . . the [human caused] greenhouse effect has been detected and it is changing our climate now." No scientist would make such a claim. It even contradicts what the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in 1995. They asserted,"…no study to date has positively attributed all or part of climate change observed to man-made causes." Hansen's 1988 predictions have turned out to be150percent wrong.
Undeterred, Hansen now writes that he underestimated how bad things would actually get and makes even more of the sort of mistakes that have been typical throughout his career. In his July 2012 article, The New Climate Dice: Public Perception of Climate Change, he and his co-authors cite the 2007 IPCC Report which said "...observed global warming is now attributed with high confidence to increasing greenhouse gases (IPCC 2007a)."
Yet, real observations show the opposite-temperature has declined as carbon dioxide, the greenhouse gas of most concern to the IPCC, increased.”
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=13963&page=0
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 19 April 2015 11:19:08 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
Wow, the Tea-Party echo chamber is strong in here today! So you are all more enlightened than professional climatologists, and believe stuff written by exactly the same stubborn, free-market worshipping, science-hating mentality discussed in the article. But the reality is that:-
1. We’ve known for centuries that CO2 is a heat-trapping gas. This is not contestable. It’s something you look up in a science textbook. It’s something you can see here with your own eyes (90 seconds in).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6Un69RMNSw
2. We know how much it warms: it’s testable in a lab with a Fourier Device, and the rest is mathematics

Denying these basic facts is like denying the boiling point of water at sea-level.
So what is it you all disagree with?
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 21 April 2015 1:02:00 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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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