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 > Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong > Comments

Why the climate zealots are almost completely wrong : Comments

By John Robertson, published 23/4/2015

Man-made? Yes, Mr President. Man's release of CO2 into the air by burning fossil fuels is a significant factor in current climate change.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
Excellent article. May we see a tide of support for such common sense.
Posted by John McRobert, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:21:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is growing recognition that GHG emission do not pose a threat of dangerous or catastrophic consequences and that ‘Command and Control’ policies are inappropriate for mitigating climate change. Policies that are likely to damage the global economy or individual country’s economies are unlikely to be accepted and even less likely to be politically sustainable. Climate scientist, Professor Judith Curry, testified to the US House of Representatives on “The President’s US Climate Pledge”, on 15 April 2015. Her summary states [my bold added]:

"Major points:

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998

• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide

• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution

• It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.030C in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed:

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

• Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. "

Read Curry’s written testimony here: http://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JCurry-20150415_0.pdf
or access all testimonies and webcast here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-tax
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:27:39 AM
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
"There is growing recognition that GHG emission do not pose a threat of dangerous or catastrophic consequences"
Peter Lang, today; 9:27:39 am

I agree. It's even unlikely that *increased* GHG emission will have, overall, catastrophic consequences; but we see increased climate change (we may even see year-round farming in Siberia).

And, it's likely we will see periodic consequences of climate change that are dangerous: storms; flooding, etc.

And those consequences are more likely in coastal regions; and their flood plains and river deltas, where many people live.

We may see the demise of the Australian ski industry. We may see the demise of farming in some inland areas.

But, hey, none of those things will be catastrophic.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 23 April 2015 9:56:46 AM
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
Most, if not all, of the things that John Robertson has listed are not consequences of atmospheric CO2 rising "by a multiple of 1.35" - they are incidental events not caused by rising atmospheric CO2.

The author has asserted without reason, thus making *cum hoc propter ergo hoc* fallacies (with this; therefore because of this); and ignoratio elenchi fallacies: ie. irrelevant conclusion.
Posted by McReal, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:06:02 AM
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
oh dear another article for the rubes.
I really wish these arm chair scientist would turn their minds to cancer research or something like that.
Surely if they believe they can fore go all the years of study required to understand climate science. Then the same must be for biology or physics. Think of all the money we could save.
How about particle science we could turn off the LHC saving billions.

Come on John whats your thoughts on string theory or even if P = NP?
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:09:36 AM
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
The pause in temperature rise has been at a higher level than the average temperature. There has been no indication that the temperature is or is likely to fall back towards the long term average.
Also sea levels world wide have continued to rise at about 3.2mm per year.
Most climate sceptics appear to have fallen for the propaganda generated by George W Bush and his fossil fuel industry appointees and cronies.
Posted by Foyle, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:21:44 AM
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
The lunatics have taken over the running of the asylum.
Posted by Robert LePage, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:40:29 AM
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
This discussion is like so many on Climate Change.

The sceptic puts up a number of empirical doubts about the hypothesis which according Karl Popper is what ‘true’ science is all about. You don’t prove theories, you try to disprove them.

The alarmists respond with ad hominem attacks:

You have not studied the subject for long enough.
You have fallen for propaganda.

As to sea levels rising 3.2mm per year, during the depths of the last ice age 18,000 years ago glaciers, sea level was 120 metres lower and Indonesia and the Phillipines were a land bridge between Australia and Asia. That leads to an average rise of 6.6mm per year so what is the issue?
Posted by EQ, Thursday, 23 April 2015 10:54:51 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps if the article were headed, all the reasons we can find or make up to preserve the coal mining industry; and the foreign investors who by and large own it?

It might be useful propaganda!? The rubes will believe anything?

Solar thermal activity has been waning since the mid seventies. (NASA).

Even so 2014 was we're told, the hottest year on record!?

Desertification increases, with longer more enduring droughts impacting on southern states.

And given the waning phase, one would expect less intense storms; rather than the disasters now destroying life and property in NSW.

If the Antarctic ice is increasing; that is to be expected given the increased fresh melt water replacing the salt; and increased global convection driving more super cold Stratospheric air down into Arctic regions, and evidenced by measured increased wind factors.

Alaskans cannot remember a time when there was no summer ice; nor when the permanently frozen tundra melted, creating many new summer lakes and adding millions of tons of new methane to our atmosphere!

And all occurring during a solar waning (cooling) period; and therefore not able to be used as the principle cause of any of this evidential phenomena!

What is wrong with converting our economy to a largely thorium-micro-grid based one, and not because it's carbon free; but because it costs half what the foreign coal cartels rip off us now, and as the first consequence all but destroys what remains of our manufacturing base!

And what's wrong with replacing the worlds most (privatized) expensive energy, with the world's cheapest!

Naming endlessly sustainable scrubbed biogas driving very local ceramic fuel cells, with a four times better energy coefficient (80%) than old king coal, (20%)!

There is a cause of all this new phenomena, and it's not waning solar thermal activity!

If we cannot get recalcitrant tin eared incumbent pollies to act, then the only course left open is to replace them; and as simple as simply placing all incumbents last on the ballot paper!
Cont.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 23 April 2015 11:37:42 AM
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
Should all those casinos by the beach be washed with salt water, all will be well.

Initially the alarm went that the sea will rise by 300 metres, so we all panicked.

Then it was revised down to 61 metres, so my brother built his house 63 metres above sea-level in the hope of having a private beach.

Then it was revised down to just one metre, that too only by the end of this century, so my brother has to stay dry.
Are the alarmists going to compensate him?
Posted by Yuyutsu, Thursday, 23 April 2015 11:54:29 AM
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
And what other than culpable intransigence prevents us accessing our own import replacing indigenous hydrocarbons, (possible massive deposits) in the knowledge and belief that this modest change alone will reduce the carbon created by our transport sector by around 75%! And indeed, virtually everywhere we could export it to.

And for starters, put back around 21 annual billions into the local economy; or if you will, including the usual flow on factors, over a 100 annual billions of additional economic activity into our own economy; which would make a nice change from bleeding it and us, white!

And if these serially incompetent/recalcitrant/tin eared pollies won't come to the party, then replace them with those who will!

It's just not good enough for young folks to whine about no longer affordable housing or transport/climate change; yet refuse to get off their backsides and vote!

As a 40% demographic of voting age citizenry; they as an organised voting block all placing the current incumbent last on the ballot paper, have the power to decide all elections!

You'll never ever know if you never ever try!

We need reform all over the shop; and only one real weapon with which to peacefully achieve it!

And think, there are folks in other places laying down their very lives for the right to vote for who governs them!

Organize and use such rights as you do posses, before surrendering them without a contest to activists; who play you?

Some of who only see you as canon fodder serving terrorists, whose stated enduring intention is total world domination and a completely controlled powerless citizenry, (virtual slaves) with no rights at all! And, with climate change nowhere on their to do list!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Thursday, 23 April 2015 12:13:04 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
EQ you are wrong, and you know it. The science is being done by scientist, and can be read about in science journals.

This article is not a serious attempt to engage with science.
Even more importantly these talking points copy and pasted from right wing think tanks have been addressed many times over. so when you keep putting them up then you open yourself up to ridicule. The anti-global warming crowd are becoming more and more like creationist every day.
Posted by Cobber the hound, Thursday, 23 April 2015 2:29:32 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
Cobber the hound,

"This article is not a serious attempt to engage with science."

That says it all really....woeful.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 23 April 2015 7:47:25 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
Okay the sea level is increasing by 3.2mm per year. That's less than 1.5 inches per decade or approximately 12 inches in 100 years.

Go down and look at the beach. Do you really think if the sea level was 0.32 metres higher our coastline, or that of small Pacific islands would be under threat?

The 3.2mm increase miniscule. Stop worrying Chicken Little.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Thursday, 23 April 2015 7:52:34 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
McReal you probably think your Latin knowledge will impress others. Sorry we just think you are as we say in Australia "Up yourself".
Posted by JBowyer, Thursday, 23 April 2015 8:53:12 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
JBowyer;
those are the names of the fallacies; that refer to poor logic; as does non-sequitur.

ConservativeHippie;
3.2mm pa is what has happened; the *rate* of sea-level rise is projected to increase.
Posted by McReal, Friday, 24 April 2015 10:33:04 AM
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
Of course the 'rate of increase' is projected to rise. Climate research is now a very lucrative business. The researchers won't have jobs if they don't keep predicting doom & gloom.

Climate guru Tim Flannery predicted Sydney airport would be under water by 2010. So much for climate projections.

How is taxing the air and redistributing wealth going to change the climate?

Don't be suckers, climate change (global warming) is the biggest con since Y2K.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Friday, 24 April 2015 6:51:26 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
"Don't be suckers, climate change (global warming) is the biggest con since Y2K."

Lol!

"Climate guru Tim Flannery predicted Sydney airport would be under water by 2010. So much for climate projections."

Lol!

ConservativeHippie is (apparently) the master of the hackneyed denial line.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 24 April 2015 8:34:33 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
The most glaring error in the article is the idea that the Antarctic is gaining ice. In fact the latest research indicates the Antarctic is currently losing 310 cubic kilometers of ice per year. It also indicates that the rate of ice loss has accelerated since the mid 2000's. Yes we know that the sea ice area which is seasonal has increased marginally, but it pales into insignificance compared to the ice loss from the land.
Posted by warmair, Friday, 24 April 2015 9:11:21 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
McReal - yes I knew that but I also know you are "Up yourself".
Spend more time listening to others rather than talking to yourself. This will improve you and give the rest of us a rest too.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:50:08 AM
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
McReal,

>"And, it's likely we will see periodic consequences of climate change that are dangerous: storms; flooding, etc."
These are not attributable to human caused GHG emissions. So this is not an argument for mitigation of GHG emissions, but there is always justification for cost effective adaptation

>"And those consequences are more likely in coastal regions; and their flood plains and river deltas, where many people live."
First, they are not attributable to GHG emissions.

>"We may see the demise of the Australian ski industry. We may see the demise of farming in some inland areas."
So what? That;s one tiny industry more than compensated by other opportunities for far greater productivity elsewhere in Australia and the world.

I'd suggest you consider the global perspective when making your comments

>"But, hey, none of those things will be catastrophic."
Correct. Furthermore, we have no idea whether GHG emissions is dong more good or more harm. Studies (e.g. by Richard Tol) show that increasing GHG concentrations are likely to be net beneficial for most of this century. In fact, if not for the assumed high cost of energy (due to assumed transition to renewables), GHG emissions are likely to be net beneficial for all this century and beyond.

William Nordhaus' modelling results (replotted here to show global net benefits per 5 years http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/10/27/cross-post-peter-lang-why-the-world-will-not-agree-to-pricing-carbon-ii/) show that the cost of carbon pricing would exceed the projected benefits for all this century and beyond. Any policy that increases the cost of energy will have this effect.
Posted by Peter Lang, Saturday, 25 April 2015 8:33:16 AM
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
EQ, you've overlooked the most crucial aspect: the "sceptics" aren't just putting up empirical doubts: they're also misrepresenting the positions of their opponents. And they're usually also displaying an ignorance of the science, and often ignorance of what the problem is.

In this instance John Robertson has quoted the extent of seasonal Antarctic sea ice, but ignored the decline of the perennial Antarctic sea ice. It is the latter that's significant as it plays a role in holding back the land ice. And as someone else has already pointed out, he quotes the area of land ice as being constant (unsurprisingly as it depends mainly on the area of land) but ignores its volume, even though it's the latter which is a potential problem.

He also wrongly equates progress with more favourable environmental conditions. Farmers have become much better at growing grain, but that doesn't mean that we have conditions more conducive to doing so. And better medicine, rather than anything to do with CO2, is the main reason life expectancy has risen so much.

I don't think anybody is claiming that our Ocean is 'acidic, polluted and nutrient-depleted'. The ocean is not acidic and will always remain less acidic than pure water. But ocean acidification, though it's not a big problem yet, could if CO2 levels keep rising become a serious problem as it would change the environment far faster than many species could adapt to.

Marine pollution is a serious problem, particularly with persistent organic pollutants. As for nutrient depletion, that's usually the natural state, and it means the amount of dissolved CO2 is usually not the limiting factor. But the opposite problem (nutrient overload) is far more serious as fertiliser runoff can upset delicate ecosystems.

As for those whales, 10% annual increase is not remarkable when it comes off a very low base. We're very far from the conditions where food supply is the limiting factor.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 25 April 2015 4:15:17 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pollution of any kind is not good and despite the arguments against cleaning up our act, cutting down on pollutants must be a good thing.

Hands up all those who remember London before the Clean Air Act?

When there were deaths of people because they couldn't breathe when the smog came down.
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 25 April 2015 4:55:10 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
lol...."Hands up all those who remember London before the Clean Air Act?......:) I don't think the net can support so many wheel-chairs:)...lol.... climate zealots, you'll get them all the time.

Tally:)
Posted by Tally, Saturday, 25 April 2015 6:37:39 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
Typical Poirot, smug as ever when you see a comment that shoots holes in you climate religion believe system. Sorry to point out your guru Flannery is a fool. Why is it your types see no issue with such a wrong prediction but you'll jump all over anyone who brings it up?

I don't know if your comment was supposed to be a put down, but I'm quite happy to be a man-made global warming sceptic, or hackneyed climate denier in your terminology.
Posted by ConservativeHippie, Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:04:07 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
ConservativeHippie, do you have any evidence that Flannery ever made that claim? It seems very unlikely and quite out of character.

____________________________________________________________________________

Is Mise and Tally, the Clean Air Act was before my time, but I do remember the London Underground before the smoking ban.

But to say "pollution of any kind is not good" is Rather misleading, because pollution of some kinds is good for some organisms. Indeed it's even good for some ecosystems. There's somewhere where oil (naturally) leaks into the Southern Ocean, and it has a strong positive effect on marine life.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 25 April 2015 7:42:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I can remember the London Smogs and certainly the last one when I was in Primary School. We were all sent home at two o'clock in the afternoon and visibility was about three metres. After they stopped people burning coal things improved greatly.
There is no need to "Clean up" the environment just stop people making it dirty. The irony here is that the white coated experts with their clipboards and smug attitudes convinced everybody to go diesel. Now apparently the soot in that is causing problems. Why should we trust these over qualified monkeys to get anything right?
My apologies to the actual monkeys, they are lovely and never smug.
Posted by JBowyer, Saturday, 25 April 2015 9:15:57 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
tally,

The Clean Air Act (July, 1956) in England was well within living memory for many of us as it's only 56 years ago. lol.

Aidan,

I wouldn't consider a natural oil leak to be pollution, not in the sense that we usually use the word.
I believe that the levels of BO are also way down compared to what they were in the London Underground in the 1950s and 60s.
Just by way of comparison, I have never smelt BO in the super crowded suburban trains in Mumbai (India)
Posted by Is Mise, Saturday, 25 April 2015 9:50:54 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
ConservativeHippie,

I was merely referring to your hackneyed rhetoric.

I mean how many times have I heard the same old thing from people around here who pretend to know what they're talking about. Almost nobody on this forum is qualified in any way to speak knowledgeably on the subject of climate science (including the author of this article, it seems) - so what do we get.

We get sentences like this:

"Climate guru Tim Flannery predicted Sydney airport would be under water by 2010. So much for climate projections."

And this:

"How is taxing the air and redistributing wealth going to change the climate?"

And this:

"Don't be suckers, climate change (global warming) is the biggest con since Y2K."

...ad nauseam.

That's all there is...apparently.
Posted by Poirot, Saturday, 25 April 2015 10:20:20 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
To all commentators supporting Robertson's blog - the time for debate on such views is past.

The world is heading quickly towards strong mitigation and adaptation actions.

That we are causing major change to the world's climate is well and truly beyond debate.

Grow up and become part of the progress towards a future without coal.

It is happening now - the era of the electric car and Tesla batteries is with us.

The demise of the fossil fuel industry is in front of your eyes - should you choose to look
Posted by Tony153, Thursday, 7 May 2015 2:02:34 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
Some backup to the claims of Tim Flannery's comments

http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm

and some Lateline http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2005/s1389827.htm

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 7 May 2015 5:58:17 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
Professor Judith Curry’s Testimony to the US House of Representatives Hearing on “The President’s U.N. Climate Pledge”

“Major points:

Recent data and research supports the importance of natural climate variability and calls into question the conclusion that humans are the dominant cause of recent climate change:

• The hiatus in global warming since 1998

• Reduced estimates of the sensitivity of climate to carbon dioxide

• Climate models predict much more warming than has been observed in the early 21st century

We have made some questionable choices in defining the problem of climate change and its solution:

• The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century.

• Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence.

• Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution

• It has been estimated that the U.S. INDC of 28% emissions reduction will prevent 0.03o C in warming by 2100.

The inadequacies of current policies based on the Precautionary Principle are leaving the real societal consequences of climate change and extreme weather events (whether caused by humans or natural variability) largely unaddressed:

• We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide policy makers with a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change.

• Pragmatic solutions based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction measures have justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation.”

Read or watch the testimony here: http://science.house.gov/hearing/full-committee-hearing-president-s-un-climate-pledge-scientifically-justified-or-new-ta
Posted by Peter Lang, Thursday, 7 May 2015 6:09:20 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
When are you people going to wake up?

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/08/climate-change-un-hoax-end-democracy-abbotts-chief-business-advisor-says

I tried to tell you all, but you wont believe it even when its right in front of you. Oh no we can't allow ourselves to listen to the crazy conspiracy theorists.. Well news flash - We were right, and you can't even get your peanut brained heads around it, so you ignore it and go back to your comfort zones instead.

How about this?

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2015/05/08/un-using-climate-new-world-order

When will you listen?
Posted by Armchair Critic, Friday, 8 May 2015 8:32:17 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
Armchair, I'll listen when they have something worth listeninng to. But when one of Tony Abbott's advisors is clearly in tinfoil hat territory, I think you're the one who needs to wake up.
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 10 May 2015 12:23:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc!
After, therefore because of it!
That’s the logical error that John Robertson is using here.

The global population grew, life expectancy grew, and grain production and many other things grew. All completely irrelevant to whether or not the climate is changing, and whether or not that change WILL be more devastating in the future!

It’s as if I’m claiming that smoking cannot hurt people because I’ve been smoking for years, but lead poisoning has decreased in Australia. Umm, what? Are the 2 even related at this point?

John Robertson: the WHO already estimates that climate change kills something like 300,000 people a year. Not only that, while Antarctic and Arctic sea-ice coverage might expand, tell us all about its depth will you? It’s a bit telling that you omit multi-year Arctic ice depth!
Why not also tell us about the Antarctic Ross Shelf where huge amounts of ice are below sea level or at sea level, and currently melting because of the estimated additional 4 Hiroshima bombs per second we’ve added to the global atmosphere, and most of this extra heat going into our oceans? Drawing our attention to the height of inland Antarctica is like yelling, “Look, bright shiny thing over there!” while our house burns down.

Hmm, not impressed with the ‘logic’ on display here. I guess you believe the world’s climate community are all in on some huge conspiracy? Was the Moon Landing faked as well?
Posted by Max Green, Wednesday, 13 May 2015 10:02:01 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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