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. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All
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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 7
  9. 8
  10. 9
  11. All

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