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 > Tomorrow's grim, global, green dictatorship > Comments

Tomorrow's grim, global, green dictatorship : Comments

By Viv Forbes, published 9/3/2018

The key slogan of the Green religion is

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All
I was about to post the observation that ateday has again posted the most stupid post in the thread, when I noticed the post by Alan B.
It is unlikely anyone can post anything more stupid than Alan B, but ateday has done it, in his implication that any green policy could benefit the planet
Yes ateday, very few people can outstupid Alan B
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 March 2018 9:56:53 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
By the way ateday, you use the term “denier”, which has no validity, because the fraud promoters, like yourself, have no science to deny.
Even the fraud promoter,John Cook, admits it has no justification.
“So he finally admits the banal, that there is no rational explanation for calling skeptical scientists “climate deniers” or “climate change deniers”. Bravo. (No one denies that climate changes, or thinks the Earth has no climate.). But this is terminology he uses everywhere, and it describes a group of people that don’t exist
http://joannenova.com.au/2013/02/john-cook-of-un-skepticalscience-admits-climate-change-denier-is-inaccurate-will-he-stop-name-calling/
Posted by Leo Lane, Sunday, 11 March 2018 10:19:41 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

A Denalist:

" A person who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence."

From:

https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/denialist

Your JoNova reference is nothing but sophistry; all major science apex Agencies agree that anthropogenic climate change is happening. Her article is meaningless compared to:

"Annual average temperature over the contiguous United States has increased by 1.8°F (1.0°C) for the period 1901–2016 and is projected to continue to rise. (Very high confidence). (Ch. 6; Fig. ES.4)"

"Extreme temperatures in the contiguous United States are projected to increase even more than average temperatures (very high confidence)."

"The world’s oceans have absorbed about 93% of the excess heat caused by greenhouse gas warming since the mid-20th century, making them warmer and altering global and regional climate feedbacks. (Very high confidence)"

"Global mean sea level (GMSL) has risen by about 7–8 inches (about 16–21 cm) since 1900, with about 3 of those inches (about 7 cm) occurring since 1993 (very high confidence)."

etc, etc

https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/executive-summary/
Posted by ant, Monday, 12 March 2018 8:33:32 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
Ant; then how do you explain the steady increase in temperature since
18th century & early 19th century, before oil use and coal use was in its infancy mainly in just one country ?

Could it just possibly be Malenakov Cycles ?
Sorry I think I have that name spelt wrong.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 12 March 2018 3:26:35 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
Bazz,

Its called Milankovitch cycles named after, surprisingly, Milutin Milankovic.

But they are unlikely to be the reason behind the rises since the 18th century.

Milankoviitch cycles work more on scales 10's or 100's of thouands of years and are therefore more appropriate to issues around ice ages.

As you say, the rise in temperatures began in the 18th century. Prior to that was a period called the Little Ice Age (LIA) when, among other things, the Thames used to regularly freeze. So the rise after that was merely returning the earth to more normal ranges. There was a further very cold period in the decades around 1800 (think Napoleon in Moscow) and after that there's been a fairly steady rise in temperatures through to current times.

Both of those earlier extremely cool periods corresponded with very low solar activity in terms of sunspots and solar cycle lengths.

Indeed if you look at plots of solar activity over these centuries they marry up pretty closely with temperatures ie the sun has been much more active since around 1850 and through to the late 20th century while it showed very little activity in the period around the cooler times.

So based on that, it seems more than likely that the big yellow thing was the main cause of the temperature rises from the 18th and 19th centuries.

Ponder this...many solar scientists predict that the sun is moving into a weakening phase which could carry through to mid 21st century. Some are even forecasting solar activity at levels like the Dalton minimum which occurred around 1800 or, worse, the Maunder minimum which was the main cause of the LIA.

So don't sell your fur coat just yet.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 12 March 2018 4:34:44 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 definition quoted by the flea includes the words “supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence."
Despite being requested on numerous occasions to give a reference to science showing any measurable human effect on climate, the flea has failed to reference any such science. His definition has no relevance to the discussion as the fraud promoters have no science to deny.
The flea’s assertion has no relevance, it is the time-wasting effort of the unqualified, incompetent, unscientific ignoramus he has acknowledged himself to be.
Posted by Leo Lane, Monday, 12 March 2018 4:46:45 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. Page 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. ...
  11. 13
  12. 14
  13. 15
  14. All

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