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 royal commission into climate alarmism > Comments

A royal commission into climate alarmism : Comments

By Rod McGarvie, published 8/12/2015

When will scientists review the underlying assumptions and biases on which their climate change theories and models rely?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. All
Leo

Questions such as why, where, and how are obviously not in what you purport science to be.
Science is about continually asking questions.

Russian scientists are studying the pingo explosions on the Yamal Peninsula in Siberia; yet, you say it is not science.
You say the 11 year ARM study is not science; it has provided answers you don't like.
You will not acknowledge that the isotopes of CO2 can be measured.
You will not broach the area of atmospheric rivers.
The cause of glaciers in New Zealand and the Andes relates to climate change; yet, you are saying those issues are not matters of science.

You are not able to answer the science related questions asked; yet, you set yourself up as an expert in the area by suggesting climate change is fraud.
The irony is that ExxonMobil are being investigated for criminal action through funding denier groups, and at the same time supporting their scientists of the 1970s and 1980s who supported the consensus view of climate change. The criminal aspect is the alleged misleading of shareholders. A number of coal mining companies are going bankrupt in the US at present.

Leo, you are not a scientist; nor are you an arbiter of what constitutes science and what does not.

Incidentally, the Japanese Meteorological Agency has just declared that December 2015 has had a global temperature increase for December of 1.4C since they began measuring in 1890.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 16 January 2016 6:07:35 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 technique of lying by implying the untruth in a question is one of your techniques, flea.
You know that there is no scientific basis for asserting that extreme weather events are caused to global warming, you imply it in a question. The hound uses the same technique.
The questions are stupid, but their purpose is to imply an untruth.
I am not dealing with science, in any response to you, I am dealing with your dishonesty.
You are asked to give a scientific basis for your baseless assertion of human caused climate change.
You have ignored this, but continually refer to "science" which baselessly assumes human causation. Your position is based on your own denial of science.

The flea ignores the immense harm to the community and the human death toll arising from policies formulated on the basis of the climate fraud which he supports: “climate policy is already doing harm. Building wind turbines, growing biofuels and substituting wood for coal in power stations — all policies designed explicitly to fight climate change — have had negligible effects on carbon dioxide emissions. But they have driven people into fuel poverty, made industries uncompetitive, driven up food prices, accelerated the destruction of forests, killed rare birds of prey, and divided communities. To name just some of the effects. Mr Goklany estimates that globally nearly 200,000 people are dying every year, because we are turning 5 per cent of the world’s grain crop into motor fuel instead of food: that pushes people into malnutrition and death. In this country, 65 people a day are dying because they cannot afford to heat their homes properly, according to Christine Liddell of the University of Ulster, yet the government is planning to double the cost of electricity to consumers by 2030.
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-net-benefits-of-climate-change-till-2080/
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 16 January 2016 7:00:00 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
Leo

You can't answer the questions and so put out a smoke screen.

Arnold Schwarzenegger; former Republican Governor of California makes an interesting observation about the impact of coal emissions on death rates, asserting that 19,000 people die per day. There is a hyper link to his Facebook page in reference below.

http://fortune.com/2015/12/08/arnold-schwarzenegger-climate-change/

Your science is quite peculiar; Leo, quite idiosyncratic, the how, why and where type questions are eliminated. Regardless of what is put to you use abuse and semantics.
Posted by ant, Saturday, 16 January 2016 9:13:31 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
Yes, flea, you have demonstrated your mentality, or , rather, the deep flaws in it.
You showed your support of the assertion of human caused climate change, and were asked to reference the science which shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
A reasonable request, to which any reasonable person in your position would give a proper response.
But not you; your response was to avoid answering and to ask stupid questions, when there was nothing about my question which required clarification.
Your questions amounted to assertion of lies about climate, in the form of questions.
You refuse to conduct yourself in a proper manner, by way of response to my legitimate question, then have the addled-brained temerity to request that I answer the baseless nonsense which you put to me in pseudo-question form.
You have made the assertion and the onus is on you to answer the question about your assertion. What science shows any measurable effect of human emissions on climate? If there is no such science, and according to science, posted by me on a number of previous occasions, there is not, you should say so, and end your boorish, ignorant and disgraceful conduct, which makes you unfit for participation on this Forum.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 17 January 2016 7:07:15 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
Leo

The hows, whys and whats do not appear in your answer.

You are very creative Leo with your answer; except, it doesn't relate to science.

Research has no part in what you believe science should be involved in... the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory apparently doesn't involve itself in science according to you, Leo. I have provided the reference to the Laboratory a number of times
Posted by ant, Sunday, 17 January 2016 7:45:21 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
In a 2007 paper by Robert Carter, climate scientist, there is an excellent summary in his conclusions, on the fatally flawed assertion of human caused climate change. It also demolishes the IPCC greenhouse hypothesis.CO2 is a benign gas essential to all life on earth.
“The absence of significant global warming since 1979 - that is, over the very period that human carbon dioxide emissions have been increasing rapidly. The satellite data signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming, by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006, but also provide an empirical test

The IPCC advances three main categories of argument for a dangerous human influence on climate. The first is that over the last 100 years global average temperature increased by about 0.74°C, which indeed it did if you accept (against the odds) that the surface thermometer record used by the IPCC is accurate (cf Figure 6). More reliably, historical records and many geological data sets show that warming has indeed occurred since the intense cold periods of the Little Ice Age in the 14th, 17th and 19th centuries (eg Lamb, 1977). The part of this temperature recovery which occurred in the 20th century is the much famed ‘global warming’, alleged to have been caused by the accumulation of human-sourced carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. However, the high quality MSU satellite data discussed earlier signal not only the absence of substantial human-induced warming by recording similar temperatures in 1980 and 2006 (Figure 9), but also provide an empirical test of the greenhouse hypothesis as understood by the public – a test that the hypothesis fails.”
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/Carter2007.pdf
The flea continually asserts that I do not refer to science, but I have given science links on numerous previous occasions, showing assertions of human caused climate change to be baseless. The flea has posted no science to show otherwise. He has never shown science produced by Lavoisier to be other than sound, but posts scurrilous and ineffective ad hominem, directed at them, which is all that an unprincipled fraud supporter can do, when he has no valid answer for his position.
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 17 January 2016 8:35:31 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. ...
  6. 25
  7. 26
  8. 27
  9. Page 28
  10. 29
  11. All

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