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 > ‘Global warming’ or 'climate change'? > Comments

‘Global warming’ or 'climate change'? : Comments

By Don Aitkin, published 27/10/2016

The only link that I could find at about that time was, paradoxically, the opposite of what I had remembered.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All
Ant, I don;t know why you waste energy replying to most of the trolls on this forum.

Leo lane is in the same camp (maybe he/she is Malcolm Roberts) who continually "bangs" on about proof or empirical evidence as if that proves that CC is not related to increases in CO2 which is from human activities

As all scientists know, you can't even prove Newton's inverse square laws of Gravity but you can infer the reason an apple falls to earth or a spacecraft stays in orbit is the absence of any other explanation and continual observation. In fact stellar paths of Mars landers etc while mathematically computed, are continually monitored just in case Newton made a mistake :)

Similarly we may never prove that CC is happening or having an adverse affect but there are overwhelming physical events that are detectable, observable, measurable and can not be explained with any other credible reasons.

The onus is on LL and co to provide a credible theory on why CO2 can not affect climate and also that CO2 increases are not related to human activity.
Posted by Peter King, Tuesday, 1 November 2016 2:53:19 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
Peter King,

The physics does not demonstrate that GHG emissions are doing more harm than good. That is the key issues. There is no empirical evidence to calibrate the damage function. It;s not physics, its economics. People like you and the rest of the deniers of the relevant facts, are the real trolls. You and your ilk are the true deners.

If you can show evidence that GHG emissions are or will do more harm than good, you'd have some basis for your beliefs, But you cant. So, using the same silly arguments as religious zealots use.

Figure 3 here http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/sites/default/files/climate_change.pdf shows that GW would be net beneficial to beyond 4 C GMST increase if you exclude the projected energy cost component. It should be excluded because there is no valid argument to say energy cost per until will increase. Real cost of energy has been decreasing sine man first began to be able to use and control energy (with short term reversals along the way.

IPCC and researches who have done most of the work on the damage function over 30 years and more all admit the evidence is sparse to not available to show that GHG emissions are harmful. (see my earlier comments on this thread.
Posted by Peter Lang, Tuesday, 1 November 2016 4:36:55 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
Peter Lang, all that tells us is you *LIKE* the skeptical environmentalist and his friends, and do not *LIKE* the messages of Stern, or Garnaut. If you want to read what a real climatologist says about climate change... gee, I don't know... why not read one? Try "Storms of my Grandchildren" by Dr James Hansen instead of the work of an ECONOMIST (who's PAYCHEQUE depends on his ability to tell a positive story!)

Indeed, Hansen agrees with you on nuclear power. So why not read him? Oh, that's right, because you're so right wing you predicted the Australian economy would end if the Labor government introduced a carbon tax. Except... it didn't, and Australia weathered the GFC better than most countries. Seriously dude, you need to take a chill pill on your right-wing anti-science suspicion so people will be more likely to believe you when you talk about nuclear power. The economics of climate change are an enormously complex field, but it really is instructive that you quote Tol. Well done, you've found yourself a friend on this vast internet of ours. I hope you've bookmarked him, it would be a shame to lose one of the only models that tells you what you want in this story. ;-)

It's just a shame that the vast majority of peer-reviewed work in this field like Stern and Garnaut are not so rosy. But they're all part of the 'conspiracy' aren't they?
Posted by Max Green, Tuesday, 1 November 2016 5:12:28 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
Peter King says:” The onus is on LL and co to provide a credible theory on why CO2 can not affect climate and also that CO2 increases are not related to human activity.”.
An incredibly ignorant assertion, Peter.
The fraud promoters made the assertion, and have the onus to provide the science upon which they rely. You obviously understand little or nothing about science, but to understand what I have said takes only a little bit of sense.
Obviously the party making the assertion bears the onus
If you had read my post above, I included an extract of the comments of an accomplished climate scientist, Robert Carter. Just to remind you:
” Rather, the key question concerns the magnitude of warming caused by the rather small 7 billion tonnes of industrial carbon dioxide that enter the atmosphere each year, compared with the natural flows from land and sea of over 200 billion tonnes.
Despite well over twenty years of study by thousands of scientists, and the expenditure of more than $100 billion in research money, an accurate quantitative answer to this question remains unknown."...
One explanation is that the human contribution of 3.5%being trivial. It is not measurable, so is not scientifically noticed.
Carter dealt with the assertionthat human emissions affected climate:” Given the great natural variability exhibited by climate records, and the failure to date to compartmentalize or identify a human signal within them, the proper null hypothesis – because it is the simplest consistent with the known facts – is that global climate changes are presumed to be natural, unless and until specific evidence is forthcoming for human causation.
... IRichard Feynman is correct to advise us that therefore the hypothesis is invalid, and that many times over.
-hypothesis-and-anthropogenic-global-warming.php
Posted by Leo Lane, Tuesday, 1 November 2016 10:33:40 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
LL says "...An incredibly ignorant assertion, Peter." and also " You obviously understand little or nothing about science, but to understand what I have said takes only a little bit of sense." Both ad hominem slurs but I am not on this forum for a job interview and in my late 60's am not about to provide a CV despite alifetime of work in the science technology sector.

You can not cite " comments of an accomplished climate scientist, Robert Carter." as a source of argument against CC. He never was a climate scientist, he was a palaeontologist, stratigrapher and marine geologist. None of his work was related to climate and as he is deceased, can not be held to account for his denialist incorrect statements. He was paid by the Heartland Institute; an organisiation with "skin in the game" and therefore not a dispassionate voice in a scientific debate.

To return to the original premise of my other post...science requires a theory and then peers work hard to disprove that theory...no scientist has advanced an explanation that disproves AGW is real so AGW is the best fit explanation of all of the measurable and observable global events
Posted by Peter King, Wednesday, 2 November 2016 7:44:15 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
Peter King says of climate scientist Robert Carter:” He never was a climate scientist,
As expected of a fraud promoter, Peter, you characterise the truth as ad “hominem”, since you have no sensible comments in respect of my justified assertions of your ignorance.
Robert Carter has so successfully demolished the climate fraud, that all the fraud promoters can say is that he was not a climate scientist. This pathetic lie is all that they have, in the absence of any science to show any measurable human effect on climate.
The United States Senate received Bob Carter’s sworn testimony on climate change, and the UK Court which heard testimony from him on Gore’s video, “Nineteen baseless lies about climate, in twenty minutes” I wonder why they did not notice the climate liars bleating”he is not a climate scientist”
As Carter points out, the assertion on human emissions is a hypothesis, not a proven theory, and he shows where the hypothesis fails, multiple times. It is an unproven hypothesis, and not something to be acted upon.
You do not show any evidence of knowledge of science, Peter, quite the opposite, you are just a standard fraud promoter.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 2 November 2016 1:51:58 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. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. Page 7
  9. 8
  10. All

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