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 > General Discussion > A Possible Explanation for Climate Sceptics Reasoning

A Possible Explanation for Climate Sceptics Reasoning

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All
Sorry I am not going to look at all the blogs, but I did look at the silly article, and all I have to say is - "what about the evidence against GW?"
Posted by bridgejenny, Thursday, 22 December 2011 10:16:52 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
You just have to laugh don’t you?

How will the “Brown Whore of Babylon” explain the 75% acquisition of two Tassie wind farm projects by China’s state owned coal giant Shenhua?

My sides are splitting; tears of laughter are rolling down my cheeks at the hypocrisy and unconscious incompetence of the warmertariat and the Australian Greens. Their March of Folly is taking them into increasingly uncharted nightmare zones. He, he he.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 23 December 2011 6:59:14 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
What evidence is that ? bridgejenny , against GW.

Where is this evidence that proves that humankind is "not " having an effect on our climate or environment.

If there were such evidence it would even be on the front page "The Age" Banjo.

The only case that really exists( as you say against GW) involves the refutation of the science. If there was no science there would be nothing to refute.

On the other hand, there is simply no science that proves that humankind is doing the right thing by it's planet and it's inhabitants. The notion is absurd.

And there is no science that proves that human habitation is neutral in effect either.
Posted by thinker 2, Friday, 23 December 2011 5:52:34 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
Thinker,
Not thinking again?

Dispite evidence that your so called scientists were fiddling the figures and making outragous claims about sea rises and UK kids not knowing what snow was, which have all been untrue. Not to mention the scientists ostrocising the ones that questioned AGW.

Your still believe, with religous fervour, that humans are responsible for a variation in climate. You are the one making the claim so it is up to you to prove it. Not me, I am sceptical, but if someone comes up with the evidence I will change my mind. As i said before I am sure Tim and big Al will let us know if that ever occurs.

Did you notice there was another earthquake in NZ today? Does that not indicate to you that there are somethings that humans have no influence over. Maybe climate is just one of those things. Hey, tides could be another.
Posted by Banjo, Friday, 23 December 2011 10:01:38 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 so silly Banjo, you must realise that all earth quakes are caused by elevated CO2 levels.

Just ask bonmot, I'm sure he'll tell you.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 23 December 2011 11:55:01 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
Your faith in humankind is touching Banjo, but frankly irrational.

Making a sarcastic assertion about CO2 and earthquakes doesn't constitute debate Hasbeen , so why do it ?.

I too Banjo would change mind in the face of evidence proving the humankind is not effecting climate negatively. Whilst none is forthcoming, the environment around me in my life is evidently changing. The changes I have witnessed in my life time, don't seem positive.

As religion has become redundant and irrational since Darwin's theory of evolution, climate change and environmental destruction denial in the face of evidence, is little more than an antiquated blind faith in itself.

Your arguments Banjo and Hasbeen are still based in either refutation of climate science or mockery or both.

Neither of you or bridgejenny, would be able to supply any data proving that we are "not" effecting our climate negatively, because no one is looking at that question.

Because a study to disprove a fait accompli would be preposterous.
Posted by thinker 2, Saturday, 24 December 2011 5:34:39 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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