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 > Andrew Bolt gets a perfect score on global warming > Comments

Andrew Bolt gets a perfect score on global warming : Comments

By Tim Lambert, published 18/1/2007

A blow-by-blow, claim-by-claim refutation of Andrew Bolt’s denialist response to Al Gore’s 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Best Blogs 2006.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 35
  7. 36
  8. 37
  9. Page 38
  10. 39
  11. All
David Latimer “Internet posts are all talk anyway.”

I am pleased you agree with my previous observation of you

Re

“Talking the Talk but lacking what it takes to go Walking the Walk”

I see your up to your armpits in the semantics of inertia and inert. Yep, go sweat the small David, its about all you will ever be up for

Bye now
Posted by Col Rouge, Saturday, 17 February 2007 7:00:04 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
David Latimer,

Wake up to a reality: not FIGHTING the global warming but ADOPTING to new planetary conditions is the most - and so-called "Australian scientists", that is predominantly a bunch of pro-apartheid era South-Afrikaners employed by synonymously short of any practical clue in subjects but some English relatives of them at the local unis, are of no idea as usual about.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 18 February 2007 1:36:46 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
Michael K: That is complete nonsense!

Well, there we have it. Col Rouge keeps on with his upteenth empty personal attacks on science and those who support science.

Col Rouge, Andrew Bolt and other climate skeptics effectively reject science and objectivity. They see only politics, politics, politics.

The objectivity of the scientific community is alive and well and the results produced by thousands of experiments provides sufficient evidence so any reasonable person would say let's start looking for ways to reduce or eliminate this pollution problem. In contrast, skeptics conclude that the CSIRO must have has been highjacked by the Green's Party! That's the political mindset at work blinding out all other considerations. They see it as follows: Green's bad -> Scientists support Green's -> Scientists bad.

It is silly and unrealistic to expect scientists to dumb-down their concusions based upon political considerations.

Al Gore's 'An Inconvienent Truth' was a great film about a real scientific consensus and an important global problem. It is highly recommended for all.
Posted by David Latimer, Sunday, 18 February 2007 2:18:47 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
Dear David Latimer,



As Internet provided, you are involved in computing with emphasis on economical patterns.

With due respect to your opinion, I dare suggest that my both education, knowledge, professional expertise and degree of ENGLISH proficiency do allow analyses of and embedding the nature-related problems from very professional engineering grounds, as Al Gore's movie was a perfect doco reflecting a real climate change in progress - a NATURAL process taking place upon ALL the natural history.

Moreover, with some relevant worldwide accepted scientific achievements, your not-so-polished-in-playing-English thankful for attention modest respondent dare once again draw your priceless attention to a very possibility of a next epoch of the planetary COLD might surely follow the recent relatively short (from a view of a planetary longevity) period of warming as all natural history based on indisputably-scientifically-collated data existing testified to.

Nonsense is manipulating the politicians by having their places inhereted at academia - by a kind of so-called "scientists" Australia is one of the most perfect examples of, and even the bigger nonsense is imposing the figures of delusive imagination on nations for, one could say so, mere personal political gains only.

Of course, advisers rather than advised might probably be blamed for such a nonsense, - if the advised themselves not wanted being manipulated in reality.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 19 February 2007 9:33:34 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 global warming enthusiasts have a slight problem.

When reputable scientists give an honest assessment of global warming
the alarmists immediately come up with some specious attack on the scientist. It works, because the majority of Australians believe the myth of global warming from human activity.

The United Nations, probably the most enthusiastic of the doomsayers, is the darling of the AGW faith. IPCC is the highest authority, to them, on science.

UN does employ top scientists to produce reports, but then publishes a Summary for Policymakers, prepared by UN employed publicists.

A recent case in Queensland, Australia, was brought by conservationists against Xstrata, a large mining company, to oppose an approval for coalmining on the basis that coal produced greenhouse gases, which produced global warming.

The United Nations summary was taken into account.

By carefully reading the key to one of the graphs, and scrutinizing
the graph itself, the judge found that it showed that there has been no global warming since 1998, but there has been some cooling.

The total warming of the globe in over one hundred years to 2006 is one half of one degree.

The web address of the case is:

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/qld/QLRT/2007/33.html

Relevant extract from the case :

"[17] ...A close examination of the global mean temperature chart (Fig SPM-3), reveals that the last 106 years had 3 periods of cooling (1900-1910, 1944-1976, 1998-2006) and 2 periods of warming (1910-1944, 1976-1998) and that temperatures rose only 0.5°C
from 1900 to 2006. The largest temperature change in the 20th century
was a 0.75°C rise between 1976 and 1998, But the fact that very
similar rises have previously occurred (1852-1878, 0.65°C and 1910-
1944, 0.65°C) was not specifically mentioned or causally explained in
the Summary. Also not mentioned or causally explained is the fact
that temperatures have actually fallen 0.05°C over the last 8 years.

[18] ...With all respect, a temperature increase of only about 0.45°C over 55 years seems a surprisingly low figure upon which to base the IPCC's concerns about its inducing many serious changes in the global climate system during the 21st century."
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 22 February 2007 9:48:27 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've read attack after attack on the work of the scientific community in this forum. In some cases scientists have been accused of delibrate corruption by members of this forum because the scientific community provides the evidence for increasing temperatures and carbon emissions as the primary cause.

There is a scientific consensus on this fact, and work continues to gather further evidence and investigate every aspect of the world's climate provide even more reliable predictions, anticipate the long-term effects and provide solutions.

So in this context we have the bizarre post of Leo Lane saying "When reputable scientists give an honest assessment of global warming
the alarmists immediately come up with some specious attack on the scientist."

The author of the article, Mark Lawson is a journalist not a scientist. It is a weakly argued and misleading critique on the scientific work done by the IPCC.
Posted by David Latimer, Wednesday, 28 February 2007 3:37:34 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 35
  7. 36
  8. 37
  9. Page 38
  10. 39
  11. All

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