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 > The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review > Comments

The Great Global Warming Blunder - Review : Comments

By William Briggs, published 3/12/2010

Feedback is where the real climate science debate occurs, and this book is a must-read contribution.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. All
I do not consider that words such as “idiotic” advance debate or provide new and useful information.

Like it or not humans hold diverse views on all subjects. The “world of ideas “is not homogeneous; to deny this is to be oblivious to the diversity of human culture. For instance, I have written in previous posts that life is better today than it was 50 or 100 years ago. People live longer, and have greater wealth and much more. The environment of cities has improved; consider slum renovations, clean air acts and improvement in the quality of many waterways, such as the London Thames.

At the time of writing Cancun has not yet come to an end. It appears that talks are deadlock –LOL. If there is an agreed statement on climate change, you can be sure that it will be bland and meaningless.

One other thing I do support nuclear power both on grounds of health and safety and also as being environmentally beneficial.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 11 December 2010 10:19:25 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
"God mocks the 20,000 Cancun alarmists, now debating fresh ways to scare us about global warming. He’s sent them not just blizzards burying Europe in snow, but six straight days of record low December temperatures in Cancun itself."

Sorry could not resist this, posted by Andrew Bolt 11th Dec
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 11 December 2010 10:26:36 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
Anti-green,

Andrew Bolt wants to be careful, he could get himself sued for making such offensive remarks >:(

Joe
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 11 December 2010 10:42:48 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
Anti-green

Given your response (Friday, 1:05:40) I think you are confusing me with PeterA - I linked to the full Dessler paper in which you quoted an excerpt.

It’s a pity you could not acknowledge Dessler’s observations - preferring to focus only on computer modeling. I'm not surprised though, you have shown an innate capacity to only read (or cherry-pick) what you want to read.

Do everybody (and yourself) a favour – take off the blinkers. I do, I have to - that's my profession. I have a gut feeling you used to be a 'real' sceptic (probably because of a profession) - but now? I think you are past it, retired, can't do it any more - whatever.

You're right though, that's playing the messenger - just like everybody and their dogs wants to 'kill' the IPCC, they/re the messenger after all!

<< Talk of changing goal posts is a little unfair as this is a vast subject covering numerous disciplines; so to compress all thoughts into 350 words is impossible >>

Precisely, but you are quite prepared to “compress” a vast body of literature into your 'innocuous' 10 point POV argument:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11314#192079

You must know each point has been answered/addressed in the already published literature, numerous times - and has been addressed numerous times in scientific/research institute's web sites? Unless of course you only frequent the 'denialosphere'.

Anti-green, it would really help rational discourse if you would do some real homework.

Ok, you say a “philosophical problem” – I agree. Ergo, it's NOT about the science!

It could equally be said that INACTION “will have serious and unforseen financial and economic consequences”.

Are you proposing SFA?

I would take your comments more seriously, anti-green, if you would refrain from such tunnel visioned hypocritical missives, exemplified most recently in your last 2 posts:

<< I do not consider that words such as “idiotic” advance debate or provide new and useful information >>

Not my words but fair enough ... BUT, you promptly follow up with an Andrew Bolt epistle ... just so hypocritical!
Posted by bonmot, Saturday, 11 December 2010 11:43:24 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
Anti-green,
Actually, the religious analogies can be useful. For instance I’d compare today’s Minimifidianists with the rabble of Noah’s day. Instead of the word of God warning of imminent disaster, it’s now the scientific community, our secular Gods, warning of Nature’s imminent wrath. True to form, of course, you all laugh such authoritative injunctions to scorn. I call that “IDIOTIC”. Unfortunately, what’s happening now is not a parable.
Posted by Squeers, Saturday, 11 December 2010 3:14:53 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
Do you know irony is..........once all you fuel junkies run's out of your gods infliction with the dead animals of time gone past........lol....you will have NO choice but to come to the greens.

BLUE

Just a tesssssze
Posted by Deep-Blue, Saturday, 18 December 2010 1:41:44 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. 12
  7. 13
  8. 14
  9. Page 15
  10. All

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