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 > Bargaining with the climate devils > Comments

Bargaining with the climate devils : Comments

By Lyn Bender, published 15/12/2015

Beyond its declared purpose of deal making, the Paris Summit was a massive witnessing and outpouring of grief.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All
If we could just convince the greedy and stupid that;
"There is no economy on a dead planet."
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 9:31:36 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
"real significance of the climate emergency"

The relevant fact is that 99% of the world's population doesn't accept the climate alarmists' belief. Those who do are wealthy elites in the richest countries. Climate change is their religion.

The problem is that the “very high HDI” countries like Australia have a high proportion of rich people who are prepared to spend money on supporting the Greens’ religion. The governments of these countries are competing to make the largest commitments to emissions reductions. They are ramping up spending on near useless renewables and other equally useless policies. The funding wasted on useless policies will slow global GDP growth. Lomborg says the increase in energy costs alone will slow global GDP growth by $1-2 trillion per year. That means more poverty for longer, more useless, poorly directed handouts, more conflict and all that compounds the economic losses.

9.7 million people from around the world – nearly half from the poorest countries – have voted in the online UN "Have your say" poll to say "what matters to you" http://data.myworld2015.org/ . Climate change ranks dead last. However, the details of how different groups voted is interesting. Compare the ranking of the importance of climate change in the very high HDI countries with the ranking in countries with lower HDI. Only the high and very high HDI countries rank climate change above last. The higher the HDI the higher climate change ranks.

It’s also interesting to compare the education levels of the Australians, Americans and British responders. The proportion of voters who completed only primary school or high school are much higher in Australia than in other very HDI countries (where most voters competed a higher level of education). I expect Australian school teachers (led by the far Left Teachers Union) have been telling their pupils to vote …. after ‘educating’ them on how to vote of course.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 10:01:11 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
'Denial is a defence used to manage fear. '

Plenty of real fears to manage instead of made up ones Lyn. Paris was made up of charlotans and gullible people who really think they have control over the weather. Organise a clean up day and you will be doing much more than those polluting the planet by flying to Paris and drinking fine wine. You really have to be kidding? No doubt Lyn was oblivious to the amount of security needed to protect the goons at the airports and meetings in Paris. Oh thats right Islamic violence is a made up problem.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 10:15:28 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
Yes we can have clean coal, but not by just wishing for it or waiting for some investment angel to do it for us!

It's possible to feed all the smokestack emission into clear plastic pipes filled with nutrient laden currently problematic effluent and algae. And given sufficient tonnage of algae, clean up all/more than the relevant power station emission.

Algae absorb 2,5 times their bodyweight in Co2 and given optimum conditions as described, are able to double that bodyweight and absorption/oil production capacity every 24 hours.

Some types produce virtually ready to use unrefined, diesel or jet fuel and almost indefinitely, even after the power station is decommissioned!

Even with a fuel excise added can be profitably marketed for as little as 44 cents a litre, providing a massive break the door down market and potential!

But take everything they can foreign investors don't think like homegrown patriots and therefore, we could wait till hell freezes over before one lifts a finger to invest more than they need to to continue to gouge profit for little or no real outlay or do more than the piss weak law and even more piss weak Aussie politicians with their eyes glued to the prize, require.

Extracting the oil is child's play and done with very simple technology!

After that the remaining biomass may be fed into digestors to make, food and arable land free, ethanol and yet another layer of profit for the investor; which given the lack of progress on the part of the itinerant coal/power industry, or private players, needs to be the government, which has really run right out of excuses for lack of any real or visible action on this front!

None of it fixed by endless promises by word smiths and all too clever accounting!

Time to can the can and the endless excuses, clean the wax out and just get on.

The additional income would do no harm to the current and rising deficit!
Rhrosty
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 11:05:14 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
Oh well it was a "given" that the trolls would join in on this. Goodbye guys see you on another thread no doubt.
Posted by Robert LePage, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 1:32:08 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
Robert

Why do you require other people to force you to stop using fossil fuels and consuming natural resources?

Why don't you just stop using them? Then you would have the additional moral benefit of practising what you preach, wouldn't you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 6:09:33 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 relevant facts that people should be aware of (if they are not deniers) are:

1. Earth is in a coldhouse phase. In fact we are in only the third cold house phase in more than half a billion years (the time when multi-cell animal life has thrived on Earth).

2. There have been no ice sheets at the poles for 75% of the past half billion years, demonstrating the planet is unusual cold.

3. The planet has been cooling from its normal tempts for the past 50 million years.

4. Life thrives when the planet is warmer and struggles when colder.

5. The climate does not change in smooth curves as projected by the GCM's. The climate changes abruptly; always has always will.

6. We are currently past the peak of the current interglacial. If not for humans' GHG emissions the next abrupt change would be to cooler - that's catastrophic. Warming is not catastrophic, as clearly demonstrated by the paleo evidence

7. Our GHG emissions are reducing the risk of the next abrupt climate change - we are delaying the next abrupt cooling and reducing its severity. This has to be balanced against the risks of potential (but temporary) increased warming (the long term cooling to the next ice age will continue, and the sequence of ice ages and interglacials will continue until the plates realign so North and South America are separated and ocean currents can flow around the world in low latitudes).

Those interested in the climate debate are urged to do their own reality checks, not just confirm their biases by reading only the doctrine according to the preachers of the Greens religion.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 6:30:12 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
Yes Robert, but the too stupid to know when they are being scammed were in first.
Posted by Hasbeen, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 8:53:23 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
Believe it or not, in this disjointed jumble of tired baseless slogans, I found a statement with a sliver of truth in it, obviously left there by accident:

“he search for solutions is not coming entirely from the starting point of science and truth, but from politics.”

It is not coming, at all, from science or truth, but from the baseless assertion of human caused climate change. There are no solutions to a problem which does not exist, other than in untrue assertions, which have no scientific basis. There is no science to demonstrate any measurable effect of human emissions on climate.
The actions of those who support this travesty evince, not grief, but ignorance and dishonesty, the only bases for support of the fraudulent assertion of human caused climate change.

Nice to see that the leader of the trolls, Robert le Page, has left this thread, or has at least represented to us that he will do so.
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 10:47:22 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
Dear Peter Lang,

Are you a scientist?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 4:34:22 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
It is said that if you repeat something often enough it will be believed.
So, the real problem is that expensive conferences such as COP21 do
not seem to achieve anything but a mountain of emails & pdf documents
all full of wordy Diplomatese.
Governments will implement taxes & programs concentrating on reducing
the emission of CO2. It will cost big time and achieve very little.

Why not bypass all that talk about CO2 and concentrate on tackling the
real problem, the decline in the net energy from our major sources of energy.
That would solve the global warming activists problem.
We do have to change our energy system, but the time scale of the
change required by the AGW activists is not ideal for the energy transition.

Noting how major oil companies are running into financial problems
I suspect that the EROEI of oil is going to reach a crisis of
affordability fairly soon.
It is not the low oil price that is the cause of the majors problem
but the poor return on oil search & development expenditure at any reasonable price.

Find a solution to this problem, ie how to avoid burning oil to get
energy at the wheels of transport.
The future will be electrically operated so concentrate on better ways to produce it.
Storage would be nice, but that has to be secondary due to the scale of the problem.
Posted by Bazz, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 10:51:39 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
Mr Opinion

Science is an intellectual methodology, not an employment category.

Science requires at the minimum an attempted explanation of cause and effect that
a) is complies with the principles of logic
b) that is consistent with the evidence, and
c) that makes no appeal to alleged or assumed supernatural or magical forces.

The belief in man-made catastrophic global warming that policy can improve, fails on all three counts. They simply assume the problem before entering the discussion, meet any challenge by referring to absent authority, fail to account for the same quantities on both sides of the equation, count any change as automatically negative and supporting their hypothesis, and assume that government is come kind of magical optimising agent without any reason.

Every time you repose open-ended unquestioning faith in authority you employ the religious, not the scientific methodology.

You do understand, don't you, that science cannot rely on assuming what is in issue and appeal to absent authority?

Yes? You do understand that, don't you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 12:28:42 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
Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

Are you a scientist?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 1:19:56 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 answer my prior question of you first.

You do understand, don't you, that science cannot rely on assuming what is in issue and appeal to absent authority?

Do you understand that, or not?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 3:35:34 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
Mr. Opinion.
We would like to get rid of time-wasting, ignorant trolls, like yourself, on this thread, so would you please leave?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 3:47:11 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 first.
Posted by Bugsy, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 4:07:54 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
No surprise that the insect has allied himself with an ignorant, time wasting troll?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 5:10:23 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
Dear Leo Lane,

That is the behaviour of a bully. Are you an engineer?

My point is that if one is not a scientist than how can one engage in scientific debate when one does not have the training and knowledge to understand and practise science.

I think it is nice that the public is fascinated by science but let's leave science to the scientists. Otherwise one runs the risk of being seen as a 'would-be-if-he-could-be' and a 'know-all-know-nothing'.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 5:12:04 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
Mr.Opinion. Have you left school yet?
If so, have you gained any tertiary qualification?
If so, what is it?
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 5:43:11 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
Dear Leo Lane,

I have four degrees. Each in a different field. A vocational degree and the others in Arts. But not one in science. That's why I leave the science to the scientists.
And yourself?
Posted by Mr Opinion, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 6:04:46 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
Mr Opinion

Do you understand that scientific proof cannot take the form of reliance on illogic reasoning? Yes? No?

You are openly admitting that you actively advocate abandonment of reason and critical thought as a criterion of knowledge or action.

So if a "scientist" tells you that animal reproduction is by spontaneous generation, or that burning is caused by phlogiston, you just flaccidly accept whatever they say without any critical inquiry of your own? Yes? Please acknowledge that that's what you're saying.

And even if you identify a logical error in their process of reasoning, which they cannot and do not identify, acknowledge, address or disprove, or answer but with ad hominem or circularity, you still maintain that this illogic is "science"?

Yes? That's what you're saying isn't it?

And do you do the same with ethicists? If an "ethicist" tells you it's okay to attack people to get what you want, you "leave ethics to the ethicists"?

And economists? If an "economist" tells you that by burning down our houses, we will make society richer because of all the "jobs" that will create, you suspend any critical judgment of your own, and just parrot what they say as the truth, because you "leave economics to the economists"? Please admit that's what you're saying? But if you're not, why not?

With an intellectual class as flaccid, docile and self-interested as the warmists, it's no wonder there's a world wide hysteria over global warming.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 17 December 2015 9:03:05 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
Dear Jardine K. Jardine,

I feel sad for people like you.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 18 December 2015 4:15:24 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
Mr. Opinion,
Your degrees account for the naivety and immaturity of your contributions, which was the reason I had the impression that you were still at school.
My qualification is in law, which I practiced for some years, so I have some experience in exploring flaws and deception in assertions by people, be they scientists or otherwise.
Your assertion that science should be left to the scientists, is quite silly, apart from being unclear in its meaning. You have given no explanation of what you mean by it.
Have you read the Climate-gate emails?
Is it to miscreants like these to which you wish to leave the science. Michael Mann, one of the principal scientists in the group, is quite busy at the moment, having started a couple of court cases against people who have called him a fraud, his time is occupied preventing the matters from reaching a hearing, where the result would be quite significant, and devastating, for him, if he loses.
His first ploy was to neglect to comply with a procedural requirement to produce to the court the material from which he concocted the notorious “hockey stick” graph. He has now complied, to avoid his action being struck out, but the matter still has no hearing date.
The scientist Tom Karl, is filling in for him, running the misleadingly named website “Realclimate”, which asserts human caused climate change, with no science to support the assertion.
Karl produced a paper to assert that the ”pause” in global warming did not occur. To support this he adjusted good data with bad data, which supported his baseless conclusion.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

How do you propose your inappropriate slogan be implemented?

Where are the scientists to whom you wish to leave the science?
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 December 2015 11:01:19 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
Leo Lane,

I suggest you should stick to commenting on topics that are related to law. You don't have the knowledge needed to comment on scientific topics.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 18 December 2015 2:09:11 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
Mr. Opinion.
Understood, as expected, you have no concept of what you mean by your senseless slogan.
By your reasoning, you have the capacity to comment on nothing. No qualification, no life experience, and an appalling record on comments that you have made. Even your choice of name is an impediment to acceptance, if you had the capacity to say anything sensible
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 December 2015 2:46:55 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 Lane

If you continue to dabble in fields outside of law people will begin to see you as a 'would-be-if-he-could-be'. I know how you feel about having been stuck in a trade like law all your life (I started in engineering but managed to get out before brain rot set in) but don't blame others because you were unable to study interesting subjects.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Friday, 18 December 2015 4:15:33 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
MrOpinion

I feel sad for people like you: openly arguing that blind faith in authority trumps logic and critical thinking; lacking the intellectual honesty to answer questions because you know they prove you wrong; and only able to respond with trite and reasonless ad hominem. Sad.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:02:46 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
I thought I had covered the appropriate adjectives for Mr. Opinion: Naive, immature, and silly, but now he says:” If you continue to dabble in fields outside of law people will begin to see you as a 'would-be-if-he-could-be'”
I have to add “imbecilic” to describe him. He thinks that making comments on a web forum, like this, is dabbling in fields outside of the law. What an ignorant troll.
Posted by Leo Lane, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:32:37 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
Yeah, the trite ad homs are just so sad aren't they?

So glad you don't do that.
Posted by Bugsy, Friday, 18 December 2015 10:14:10 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
Dear Leo Lane and Jardine K. Jardine,

I have no objection to people making comments but the two of you actually believe that your arguments constitute concrete rational statements that are scientific fact. What lies at the heart of your problem is that you are not happy with the way your lives have turned out. Instead of being locked in a trade like law or engineering or accountancy etc you really wished that you were astronomers, anthropologists, archaeologists, evolutionary biologists etc. That's why I escaped from being an engineer to study Arts so that I wouldn't have to go through life as a 'would-be-if-he-could-be' and a 'know-all-know-nothing' like the two of you.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 19 December 2015 4:39:46 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
. Opinion requires another “adjective: delusional”.
I ran a successful law practice for many years, and when precluded by health from continuing, my years of service were recognised by an honorary life membership of the Law Society. A small part of my health regime, in retirement, is the mental activity gained from participation in discussions on the web.
Our failed engineer projects his frustration on to others, rather than face the reality, that he could never make anything of himself, and has developed into a delusional troll, his faith in the climate fraud, for which he has no science, seems to be his sole consolation in life. People, on the forum, feel sorry for him. I believe he needs regular kicking in the backside. He is a “never was and never will be”
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 December 2015 12:40:03 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
Dear Leo Lane,

I am extremely happy with the way things have turned out for me. I would have been extremely unhappy if I had decided to try to become a successful engineer. Reason is I see engineering as just a trade, like law, architecture, etc. I wanted to do something more than work in a trade all my life like you and I wanted to do something interesting with my life instead. I have achieved that end. So I'm quite happy.

Did you know that an honest lawyer is an oxymoron?

By the way, there is a discussion section in Forum called 'Law and Liberties'. Maybe you could concentrate your attention there. At least it's an area you actually know something about.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 19 December 2015 1:02:04 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 delusional one:“ I wanted to do something interesting with my life instead. I have achieved that end. So I'm quite happy.”
He decided that he did not wish to do anything useful with his life, so he collected a few useless degrees, and became a climate fraud supporter,sustained by ignorance of science, or dishonesty, since there is no science to support his position. He is a “never was and never will be”.
What a clown.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 December 2015 1:43:19 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
Dear Leo Lane,

I did my Arts degrees because they involved interesting subjects like archaeology, anthropology, history, sociology, classics, philosophy, etc and not because I needed to make money. I did a trade degree i.e. engineering for that purpose. Just like you did a trade degree in law.

I use my Arts degrees every day to help me work out why things are happening in the world. You are only a lawyer so you don't understand how that works. I look at the world through the medium of my Arts training whereas most of the lawyers I have come across look at the world through the bottom of a gin bottle.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Saturday, 19 December 2015 3:08:46 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
Mr. Opinion.
I agree that the subjects you studied are important to intellectual development. I attended to that by reading, sometimes by following a topic, and sometimes by following an author. This occupied many lunch hours. The internet enabled me to find books easily, before that it was by trawling second hand bookshops. Nietzsche and Jung were helpful models in understanding how life works for human beings.
James Fraser, I consider, was the father of anthropology, which is a relatively new discipline, and I took to heart his statement that the importance of studying primitive tribes, was that it enabled us to see how our ancestors lived. Current anthropology seems to have strayed from the path.
Napoleon Chagnon produced an excellent study of a primitive Amazon tribe, and was severely criticised for it by the Anthropology elite. I have yet to read his account of his experience of the tribal savages compared to his experience with the anthropologists, but look forward to reading his book.
Certain behaviour, I believe, is hard-wired into the human psyche, which enables me to understand how a blatant fraud like the climate travesty can gain so much traction in our society.
Posted by Leo Lane, Saturday, 19 December 2015 5:32:16 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
MrOpinion

I reject your mind-reading, and your last post contains nothing else. You wouldn't have the faintest idea of my subjective thoughts or motivations, what I do for a living, or how happy I am.

You are only demonstrating that your Arts degree never taught you what logic is, and you think it means your arbitrary opinion backed up by personal insult.

Your argument is only that we face catastrophic man-made global warming *because* Jardine K. Jardine, an anonymous poster on the internet, is a bad person.

When I say that is stupid, it’s not a term of abuse, but only mere description.

Answer the question you dishonestly evaded. Do you understand that a scientific proof cannot rely on logical fallacy including appeal to authority, or not?

Bugsy
What ad hom? Read what Mr Opinion wrote. He's openly telling us that he rejects critical or independent thinking, and arguing to the effect that no-one is entitled to form an opinion on anything, because *he* feels *he* must just slavishly follow the opinion of people who he thinks know more than him, even if he can demonstrate they're logically incorrect. He's using the same intellectual methodology as a dark ages peasant. Look up the definition of ad hom, because this argument doesn't contain any. My insults are not the premise of my argument, but the conclusion based on the sheer anti-rational stupidity of what he’s openly saying.

All
Notice how ALL warmist argument, when challenged, simply degenerates into personal argument? Challenged about their illogic and interested corruption, the economics, the ecology, the ethics, they have nothing but endless slogans and evasion. All they have is abusing people for not believing what they believe. They openly admit that they reject independent thinking, and argue that people should just suspend their critical thinking and blindly follow authority.

There argument is simply this:
Warmists: "The globe faces catastrophic man-made global warming!"
Skeptics: "Prove it."
Warmists: "Deniers! Lunatics! Bastards! Losers! Know-it-alls!"
Skeptics: "How do you know the globe faces catastrophic man-made global warming?"
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 19 December 2015 10:52:23 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
Warmists: "I just switch off my critical faculty, swallow anything that big government bureaucracies tell me, ignore any evidence or reason against it, and evade any question that I can’t answer without proving myself wrong.”
Skeptics: "Prove how you know what the temperature of the globe should be; how you took account of the distribution and abundance of species in either scenario; how you accounted for the benefits and detriments, including your discount for futurity if any; and show your workings."
Warmists: "Deniers! Lunatics! Bastards! Losers! Know-it-alls!"
Skeptics: “You are advocating mere blind faith, which is not science or scientific. Appeal to authority is a fallacy, and that’s all you’ve got, and all you’ve ever had.”
Warmists: "I know, but it is unthinkable for me to give up my faith in total government control of everything, even though I know I cannot defend it."

What you guys have and display is religious fervour, not science.

ant and Aidan openly admit that their method is fallacious, and then still insist that all their premises and conclusions hold true! So what’s the point of talking about it?

And then we have MrOpinion giving us his Arts-degree mind-reading about things he knows nothing about, and arguing us that no-one is entitled to have an opinion on anything, but we should all just docilely and blindly obey government.

You warmists are a throw-back to the dark ages. Read what you're writing for gossake: you're arguing that reason has no place in the search for knowledge. It's just too arse-brained for words.

Answer my questions: what does it matter to your whether other people share your illogical opinions about the weather? How do you know what the temperature of the world should be? How did you work out the benefits and detriments? DON'T bore me with your stupid links. I'll just post them back and, according to your theory of knowledge, that settles the question.

If you're not interested in discussion, or you think that no discussion can possibly prove you wrong, then shut up and go away!
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 19 December 2015 10:52:55 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
Dear Leo Lane,

That's nice to hear that you have an interest in Arts fields and read up on them during lunch breaks. However, all that really tells me is that you know how to read. Try proving that you actually know anything about philosophy, anthropology, etc. Unless one has a degree it would be a real battle to demonstrate it. That's why I took myself back to uni and spent extra years earning several degrees. It is through those useless Arts subjects (your words) that we can learn and understand what it is to be human.

But getting back to reality. Yes, I am one of those who believe that global warming is real. I believe that its greatest extent can be measured from the start of the Industrial Revolution about 250 years ago. I believe that the constant reference to climate change per se is a distraction from the real focus for understanding global warming as the great danger threatening life on Earth. I believe that it is now too late to arrest global warming and all that can now be done is to manage the effects of global warming e.g. things like climate change. I believe that global warming is unstoppable and will lead to a hot planet and will eradicate all life on Earth. The Earth will eventually go the way Venus went. I believe that people like Jardine K. Jardine behave like complete ratbags who would be doing all of us a favour by keeping their heads buried in the sand.
Posted by Mr Opinion, Sunday, 20 December 2015 6:18:15 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
//And then we have MrOpinion giving us his Arts-degree mind-reading about things he knows nothing about, and arguing us that no-one is entitled to have an opinion on anything, but we should all just docilely and blindly obey government.//

What on earth does the government have to do with science? They don't carry out theoretical or experimental research, and the number of Federal parliamentarians with science degrees - even just the humble B.Sc, let alone higher qualifications - could be counted on the left hand of a very clumsy right-handed butcher.

If it's government policy and not research that determines the validity of a scientific hypothesis, why did we waste all that money building the LHC? We could have just got the government issue a statement confirming the existence of the Higgs boson and saved ourselves a lot of trouble.

Scientists do science; governments govern. I wouldn't trust governments to do science because they're not qualified, and I wouldn't trust scientists to govern because as soon as they got their hands on the purse strings they'd blow the budget on education and R&D and leave no money for other important areas.

...
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 20 December 2015 8:53:25 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
...

Climatology is an applied science and not really my cup of tea, but I see no more reason to believe that climatologists en masse are perpetuating some sort of fraud or hoax than I do, say, particle physicists. If they say they've got the data from the LHC to support the existence of the Higg's boson, then I'm happy enough to believe them without checking the data myself - because believe me, that data will have been checked rigorously. There is nothing that scientists hate more than other scientists who cook the books (look at what happened to Andrew Wakefield when he falsified data: he was tarred and feathered). And also, why would they lie? What's the point? If anything, they would have more incentive to lie about not finding it because then they'd need to do more research, which means more research grants and maybe even a bigger, shinier toy than the LHC to play with.

There is no incentive for climate scientists to lie about global warming. The scientists who benefit from attempts to reduce greenhouse emissions are those involved in developing alternative energy sources, not climatologists. There's really nothing in it for the climatologists to be making this stuff up - they have to pay carbon taxes too you know. One can dispute their research methodologies and the conclusions they draw from their data - if one understands their field of science enough to do so - but the notion the climatologists are involved in some big con job is a ludicrous conspiracy theory in tin-foil hat territory.
Posted by Toni Lavis, Sunday, 20 December 2015 8:58:24 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
Jardine stated:

"...ant and Aidan openly admit that their method is fallacious...."

What arrant nonsense, Jardine brings politics and sophistry to science topics.

He is unable to produce any completely up to date references to science.
This arrived in my inbox yesterday in relation to Arctic methane voiding. The article is about how during the colder months little was done in relation to measuring methane voiding, the news is not good.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

The Arctic has quite an impact on the climate of the Northern Hemisphere, it is not in a healthy state:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

ExxonMobil scientists have projected that temperatures can increase up to 5C and more above pre industrial times without any kind of regulation:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

Temperature increase is constantly mentioned as having stopped by deniers. A bit of a problem for deniers when the 2015 temperature will be high by quite a margin.

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 10:40:20 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
Toni, your speculation, stemming from your ignorance, as to the absence of motivation of climate scientists, to make false assertions, is irrelevant.
The facts are that there is no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate, and some climate scientists, without science to support them, continually assert that global warming is human caused. Global warming stopped almost 19 years ago, so they falsely assert that it has not stopped.
They are making false assertions. The fact that some uninformed individual says that they cannot ascertain the motive for the lies does not alter these facts.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 1:13:16 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
My comment here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17895#317164 shows that human caused GHG emissions are not dangerous, let alone catastrophic.

My comment here http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17895#317134 shows that the 9.7 million people who have responded to a UN online survey have voted climate change the least important issue. They do not want money wasted on it when there are much more important issues to deal with.

The Climate Industry is a $1.5 trillion per year industry according to the Climate Change Business Journal, reported in Insurance Journal here: http://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2015/07/30/377086.htm . That's a massive waste of money delivering no net-benefit whatsoever.

But importantly, the major inputs to the models used for estimating the costs and benefits of climate change exaggerate the temperature change and the damages.

Cook et al, 2013, assert 97% of climate scientists agree that most recent warming was caused by humans. The claim is bogus. Only 0.5% of the 12,000 abstracts reviewed explicitly stated that. And even that figure is overstated because of ratings misjudgements; What is there a 97% consensus about?

A reanalysis of his data shows just 0.5% of the abstracts analysed “explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of global warming” and 8% “explicitly states that humans are causing warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a known fact”.

I agree with the 97% of the abstracts - that made implicit or explicit statement about attribution - that state humans are having some effect on the climate, but we don’t know how much. Nor do we know whether GHG emissions are doing more good or more harm.
Posted by Peter Lang, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 3:37:48 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

The Berkley reference in relation to temperature above showed 5 separate projections of temperature from 5 different sources. They all show a trend of temperatures going up.

The first sentences from the Berkley reference already provided states:

"In recent weeks we’ve seen a political controversy over NOAA’s adjustments to temperature records, with accusations from some in congress that records are being changed to eliminate a recent slowdown in warming and to lend support to Obama administration climate policies. This makes it sound like the NOAA record is something of an outlier, while other surface temperature records show more of a slowdown in warming. This is not true; all of the major surface temperature records largely agree on temperatures in recent years. This includes independent groups like Berkeley Earth that receive no government funding. A record warm 2014 and 2015 (to date) has largely eliminated any slowdown in temperatures, whether data is adjusted or not."

Temperature for 2015 is on track to be the highest recorded by quite a margin.

The reference below shows the Japan's Meteorological Agency temperature and graphs by WUWT:

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/charts-and-statistics-on-global-warming-climate-change-2015-12?r=US&IR=T
Posted by ant, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 4:05:08 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
ant

The data do not support your theory.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 10:36:15 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
Nothing new in the further post from the flea. Denial of doctoring of the temperature record, the usual stalling by denial, which will eventually crumble, as it always does.
The usual “hottest year” lie, for 2015, the same proclamation as for 2014, now shown to be baseless.2014 was not the hottest year as asserted by the climate liars
It is irrelevant anyway, flea, because you have no science to show that human emissions have any measurable effect on climate, you only have liars who make baseless assertions that it is human caused. Your posts are unsuitable for a sensible, honest discussion, flea, so give it up.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 23 December 2015 11:43:45 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
Jardine

You say:

"The data do not support your theory."

You make comments such as:

"Major Agencies such as NASA, NOAA, CSIRO et al are agreed that your beliefs about anthropogenic climate change are wrong and unscientific."

Leo

Is consistent in his ad hominem attack, he writes:

"Your posts are unsuitable for a sensible, honest discussion, flea, so give it up."

They offer no evidence and so their comments are meaningless.

A graph produced by Bob Tisdale from WUWT:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

No temperature increase, Leo?

Peter Lang

Judging by your comment you are somebody else who is led by politics instead of science?

Quote:

"I expect Australian school teachers (led by the far Left Teachers Union) have been telling their pupils to vote …. after ‘educating’ them on how to vote of course."
Anthony Watts has stated that the rationale for being involved with WUWT is due to being worried about big government taking people's rights.
In the long run ideology cannot withstand science.

Further news from InsideClimateNews, they have been vindicated in relation to their investigations into ExxonMobil.

Quote:

"The American Petroleum Institute together with the nation's largest oil companies ran a task force to monitor and share climate research between 1979 and 1983, indicating that the oil industry, not just Exxon alone, was aware of its possible impact on the world's climate far earlier than previously known."

First sentence from:

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

The Arctic is in a mess:

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

The Arctic has much influence over climate of the Northern Hemisphere and Ocean currents.
Concern is being expressed in relation to the Gulf Stream slowing down
Posted by ant, Thursday, 24 December 2015 8:49:06 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

What does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 25 December 2015 11:26:22 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
ant

Show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.

Show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.

How do you know what everyone else's values should be?

Where did you get the stupid idea that what you admit is a fallacy, is "science"?

Where did you get the stupid idea that a government monopoly is a "free market"?

Just because you're so confused and opinionated, doesn't mean everyone else has to comply with your opinions.

All you need to know about this entire topic, is that other people aren't as stupid or dishonest as you are.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 25 December 2015 11:31:51 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
Jardine

Keep up the good work. You completely misrepresent my posts, it is so patently obvious that you have no science you can offer. Your denier technique is so patently obvious.

Here is a graph provided by Bob Tisdale a supporter of WUWT, funny how it displays warming.

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp
Posted by ant, Saturday, 26 December 2015 7:40:13 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

The science disproves you. You are just a denier. All you have is sophistry.

Science without rationality is story-telling, superstitition. That's what you've got.

Either you admit that your method of appeal to authority is a fallacy - which you have done, thus losing the argument. Or you accept it from me as disproving you, thus losing the argument. But if you claim it as a proof for yourself, but deny it for others, that's equivocation - a logical fallacy - not science; thus you lose the argument.

This is not sophistry; it's because you're demonstrably wrong.

Your claims about global warming are scientifically disproved here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

and here:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

and here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

and here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

here:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

and here:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

and here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/

There. How do you like it?

Now answer my questions or admit you are wrong. But if you skulk off, or evade answering, it means you concede the general issue:

1. what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?
2. admit that assuming all your premises and conclusions in your favour before entering the argument, and then expecting everyone else to agree with your as a precondition of their entering the argument, is not scientific method?
3. where did you get the stupid idea that a statutory monopoly is a "free market"?
4. show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.
5. show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.
6. How do you know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get the stupid idea that what you reject as a fallacy, is "science"?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 27 December 2015 11:05:10 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
Jardine

Science has nothing to do with political values. It is not possible to pull apart science by political or religious views.

But you ask a reasonable question about why we should care about anthropogenic climate change:

Climate change has proven deadly for multitudes.
Lancet and other medical Journals have published many articles on the impacts of climate change on people.
Already Inuit and Fijian communities have had to be moved due to sea level rise.
Extraordinary weather events have done huge damage to infrastructure, houses and vehicles.
Huge costs are created for families and communities.
The CIA and US military are concerned about the security issues created through food and water resources diminishing through climate change.

Britian has been hit very hard with flooding over the last weeks, the latest news:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/weather/12068981/UK-weather-severe-flood-warnings-as-rivers-burst-banks-live.html

A bridge that had been built in the 18th Century has become useable in the Cumbria area through a flood earlier in December.
Posted by ant, Sunday, 27 December 2015 12:39:16 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 science proves you wrong. You are just a denialist. Sophistry would be a step up from the blatant dishonesty of your current tactic of evasion.

Furthermore, let us assume - very much in your favour - that all you allege about the connection between CO2 and global warming were admitted - which it's not - and the Inuits, the Fijians, the hurricanoes etc., water and food security, huge costs, etc.

Okay, so what?

What are you saying follows from that?

You have just admitted that, even if all your contentions about global warming were conceded, everything you claim about global warming would not justify any policy? You can't use a thermometer to read off what policy should be, can you, fool?

And we have just established that, by evading answering my questions, you have just conceded the general issue, because you know you can't defend your illogical belief system.

But if not, then answer my questions or admit you are wrong.
1. what does it matter to you whether other people share your beliefs about the climate?
2. admit that assuming all your premises and conclusions in your favour before entering the argument, and then expecting everyone else to agree with your as a precondition of their entering the argument, is not scientific method?
3. where did you get the stupid idea that a statutory monopoly is a "free market"?
4. show how you calculated the distribution and abundance of species under the status quo versus your preferred policy alternative. Show your workings.
5. show how you identified, calculated, and took into account the evaluations of all affected human beings in either scenario. What discount for futurity, if any, did you apply? Show your workings.
6. How do you know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get the stupid idea that what you reject as a fallacy, is "science"?

Btw, your superstitious opinions about global warming are scientically disproved to your own standard here:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/21/bad-news-scientists-say-we-could-be-underestimating-arctic-methane-emissions/

and here:

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/common-thread-at-2015-agu-conference--the-big-melt

and here:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/12/07/3728921/exxonmobil-warns-catastrophic-global-warming/

here:

http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/

here:

http://static.businessinsider.com/image/56740a52dd089529598b4750/image.jp

and here:
http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22122015/exxon-mobil-oil-industry-peers-knew-about-climate-change-dangers-1970s-american-petroleum-institute-api-shell-chevron-texaco

and here:
http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Sunday, 27 December 2015 2:32:34 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
Jardine,

You keep posting links and claiming they disprove what ant's saying. But I've looked at a few of them and I can't see how anyone could reasonably come to that conclusion - it looks suspiciously like a fraudulent appeal to authority on your part.

If that's now what it is, can you tell me what ant said that is contradicted by http://berkeleyearth.org/nature-not-noaa-ended-the-slowdown-in-temperatures/ ?

As for your seven questions:
1. I've already answered that on another thread.
2. Scientific method is a method of research, not a method of debate!
3. What statutory monopoly are you referring to?

4. Rather than doing calculations in detail, I look at how changing input variables affects the outcome. Species already under stress form humans physically changing the landscape now have the additional heat to contend with but very little time to adapt. The warmer it gets above the temperatures they've evolved to be best suited to, the worse their prognosis is.

5.Again this was done qualitatively, by considering what can be done, what can be done cheaply, and the potentially catastrophic cost of doing nothing. I came to the conclusion that delaying action would add to the cost because although technological improvement will cut the cost of taking action, more experience will hasten technological improvement. Also, inaction greatly adds to the future cost, as counteracting the effects of that inaction will require a lot more to be done than would otherwise be needed.

6. Why do you assume anyone to know what everyone else's values should be?
7. Where did you get that stupid idea that you can dismiss science as a fallacy?
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 27 December 2015 4:30:14 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. 7
  7. 8
  8. 9
  9. All

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