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 > Arguing against the irrational > Comments

Arguing against the irrational : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 21/1/2010

The vast majority of people, including every national government in the world, accepts the scientific explanation for global warming.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Sceptics and others

Leo Lane, >"Ian Plimer is a scientist, of impeccable professional background. His science is vastly superior to the pretend science of the warmists."<
Perhaps you should read the following
"Ian Rutherford Plimer (born February 12, 1946) is an Australian geologist, academic (*was* # my comment) and businessman.

"Plimer is a director of three Australian mining companies: Ivanhoe, CBH Resources and Kefi Minerals."
Plimer is listed as an associate of the Institute of Public Affairs, a free market think tank.

Plimer A scientist? objectivity ??
He has been associated with mining all his life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ian_Plimer

As for the scientific credibility of his book...
http://bravenewclimate.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/plimer2a0.pdf
From real scientists. 300+ errors.
And you lot cane Others for 1 or two errors.

NB Plimer is a Geologist and thinks in terms of eons, eras timescales and knows squat about the multiple disciplines that make up the consensus.His is a retrospective science? not a predictive one.
He has no answers (consequences) for the following except to say it's happened before.

Antigreen, I challenge sceptics to explain the consequences of this.
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagegallery/igviewer.php?imgid=626&gid=42&index=0
http://www.worldviewofglobalwarming.org/pages/glaciers.html
http://asiasociety.org/onthinnerice check out "Green China option" while there.
Some 80 US glaciers gone in the 20th century 70 more going.
Andean, African and PNG are all decreasing at an unrepairable rate... the snow isn't replacing as fast as it melts.
Then refer to the results from satellite "G.R.A.C.E." that shows ground water is drying and hydrological cycles are changing. shows lessening depths of Antarctic/Arctic ice.
All this took 10000's of years to Accumulate and it disappearing at an unprecedented rate.
It doesn't take rocket science to see the writing on the wall
and then tell me we shouldn't be doing something

Agnostic at Mittagong, Monckton is classics trained and a journo. No science training or understanding at all and totally his utterances are self serving
Posted by examinator, Friday, 22 January 2010 2:08:22 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
Where were all you wise and hardened sceptics during the CFC/Ozone layer debate a few decades ago?

Despite all the research, there is little evidence that we have turned the situation around and there may not be for some time yet.
Maybe sunscreen alone will save us so it doesn't matter anymore.

Why were some people so willing to accept one circumstance but are so rabidly against the other when the science is so similar and they are inter-related?

Gee, I wonder if the comparative influence of the Oil Lobby as compared to the Freon industry may have something to do with it?

Then again, many of those same people who claim the Moon landing was a hoax also believe that Professional Wrestling is real, and some who believe unproven superstition as fact also demand evidence from others who believe otherwise.
Posted by wobbles, Friday, 22 January 2010 2:32:01 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
Another ad hominem attack from Examinator, nothing unusual about thisfrom the alarmists. Overall, however, they seem to be becoming more shrill as mother Earth resolutely refuses to obey the directives of their beloved computer models. Playstation science!
Posted by Boethius, Friday, 22 January 2010 2:32:40 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
Examinator.

You made the same observations regarding glaciers in the comments following the article “No fraud in hacked climate emails.” I posted a reply on 19 January to which you failed to respond.

The onus is on you to explain why the only important cause for the advance and/or retreat in glaciers is atmospheric CO2?

You must also explain why precipitation at the head of a glacier is not a significant factor? .

As I suggested in my posting on the current article, there is a case for a Royal commission to cross examine the experts on these matters. I do not claim expertise in climate science. However as a concerned member of the public I suspect a giant scam based on junk (if not fraudulent) science. The suggestion is that several of the public figures engaged in the scam stand to make a lot of money out of carbon trading etc.
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 22 January 2010 5:13:35 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
examinator "Antigreen, I challenge sceptics to explain the consequences of this" .. usual "believosphere data dribble", I reject your cherry picked data and say this, what will happen will be the world just keeps turning, cities and governments will rise and fall, babies will be born and old people will die. Everything else, we'll adapt, always have always will, regardless of what shrill doom sayers and false prophets say.

People will continue to do as they please regardless of fools shouting they must not, that's life, get used to it.

All your arguments come down to trying to pick narrow little scenarios then demanding they be answered to your liking. Irrational at best.

wobbles, you can be skeptical about some things and not others, you can actually be - wait for it, skeptical about AGW but not ozone holes! I know that's a shock, but there's more, you can be skeptical about a politician's or scientist's motives, but not your own doctors! I know I know, it's a revelation!

Being skeptical, does not mean disagreement with everything, just as the opposite is also not true, that if you are not skeptical about AGW, you are not skeptical about anything at all.

Do you seriously think all the skeptics about AGW are all in the pay of Big Oil or the freon lobby, that would be .. irrational.

Have fun fuming over your Climate Scientology over the weekend.
Posted by Amicus, Friday, 22 January 2010 5:33:51 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
Anti-green (12.50)

Well the House of Representatives Committee on Climate Change did hold an enquiry. Its report was completed, recently published and can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/ccwea/coastalzone/report.htm You might find it makes interesting reading, particularly Chapter 2.

Frankly your contributions leave me with the impression that nothing would change your mind, which is a pity and I hope I am wrong. I try to keep an op[en mind and would be willing to adopt a far more sceptical, even a denialist position if only those who reject the scientific explanation could come up with a convincing, coherent explanation for global warming.

So far they have not. Their only "contribution" has been to deny what science tells us is the most credible explanation, an explanation which is supported by a considerable body of empirical evidence. Dismissing it by simply saying "there us no AGW, no climate change and no scientific explanation because it is not happening" is not good enough.
Posted by Agnostic of Mittagong, Friday, 22 January 2010 6:26:19 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. Page 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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