The Forum > Article Comments > 'Man-made' climate change: the world's multi-trillion dollar moral panic > Comments
'Man-made' climate change: the world's multi-trillion dollar moral panic : Comments
By Brendan O'Reilly, published 22/2/2019The Y2K scare was nevertheless a boon for consultants and IT specialists. It is estimated that US$300 billion was spent worldwide to audit and upgrade computers.
- Pages:
- ‹
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 10
- 11
- 12
- Page 13
- 14
- 15
- 16
- ...
- 29
- 30
- 31
- ›
- All
Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 28 February 2019 10:10:33 AM
| |
mhaze
Exxon Report, Figure 3, Table 4 and Figure 9. 1958 Shell "The Earth's Carbon Cycle" !965 Report for White House Report to American Petroleum Institute Report from Exxon scientists Shell Report All written before pseudo science began, all of those reports have been referred. I've also provided a reference to a short article written in a New Zealand paper published in 1912 Global temperature has reached 1.1C, if you read Murdoch press you will not get much sense from the journalists. Logic plays a part in forming a hypothesis, it is objective data and observation that either proves or disproves a hypothesis. Science is not governed by ideology, Dr Richard Alley is a conservative, like a number posting here. Kerry Emanuel is an expert on the atmosphere, he is also a conservative voter. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tMeqjbA94I Physicist Richard Muller was a climate science skeptic until he was commissioned to review the science, once having done so he changed his mind. His Agency now provides temperature information which is Internationally recognised. Title of film, I Was wrong about Climate Science is about his conversion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sme8WQ4Wb5w Jerry Taylor worked for Heartlands, he became concerned about the lies being told. http://theintercept.com/2017/04/28/how-a-professional-climate-change-denier-discovered-the-lies-and-decided-to-fight-for-science Jerry Taylor began to realise that the information he had been presented from Heartlands had been doctored. Posted by ant, Thursday, 28 February 2019 4:55:43 PM
| |
Lego
You do not understand that there is no debate about science, data and observation says whether a hypothesis is right or not. Read my last post, watch the short the Muller video, read the Jerry Taylor article which reflect what I have been writing. http://www.climatefiles.com/exxonmobil/1970-exxon-imperial-oil-pollution-is-everybodys-business/ View the Collection Index from the reference. Posted by ant, Thursday, 28 February 2019 5:14:33 PM
| |
To Ant.
I do understand that when an opponent refuses to answer a very simple question, regarding the logic of a particular aspect of an argument he has submitted, he is certainly not being scientific. Got you in the corner, haven't I? You desperately do not want to answer that crucial question because you know it is a clanger. It sits above you like the Sword of Damocles. All you can do is bluster, stand on your dignity, say you won't respond to me anymore, or hold your breathe until you turn blue. Answer the question, Ant, or concede defeat. Don't answer the question, and any impartial reader who may be following our debate will know you have been licked. Checkmate Posted by LEGO, Thursday, 28 February 2019 7:12:22 PM
| |
Lego
http://www.climatecentral.org/gallery/graphics/the-globe-is-already-above-1c http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/climate-change-global-average-temperatures-break-through-1c-increase-on-pre-industrial-levels-for-a6727361.html "The threshold will be reached when average global temperatures are only around 2C higher than they were in pre-industrial times, new research suggests. They are already 1C higher, and rising." from: http://www.sbs.com.au/news/runaway-global-warming-just-decades-away http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-draft/warming-set-to-breach-paris-accords-toughest-limit-by-mid-century-draft-idUSKBN1F02RH Posted by ant, Thursday, 28 February 2019 8:20:19 PM
| |
To poor Mr Ant.
I actually anticipated your latest attempt to dodge the question you so desperately do not want to answer. I wrote a paragraph recounting how, when in a similar checkmated position like yourself, another frightened question dodger opponent simply tried to squirm out of answering it by flooding me with hot button links. Do you lefties have a common "how to debate" book with headings like "How to Avoid Answering Questions You Know Will Expose You as an Idiot" ? But I deleted the second paragraph before I hit the "Post revision" button because I didn't think it would be necessary. I didn't think you would stoop that low. Silly me. But anyhoo, I am sure any impartial observer would agree that you are well and truly checkmated. And that is important. Because even you can now see how easy it is to corner climate alarmists with the self evident failures of their wild predictions. Dr. Tim Ball should have had me on his defence team. I would lovde to have had a go at that fraudster, Michael Manne. You must be feeling how Manne felt when he lost his court case with Tim Ball. It is a very sad day when scientists resort to lawsuits to shut up critics and settle scientific debates. But in a way, it was the best thing that happened because it displayed just who was telling the truth and who submitting the "peer reviewed" falsified data. And like yourself, who was the more credible because they were not trying to evade crucial questions. Perhaps I should take you to court and have the judge force you to answer? If any good came out of this, it must be the realisation that, if you really are just an naïve young lefty who got hoodwinked into supporting a fashionable false cause by peer pressure, then you have backed the wrong horse. Or, if you really are an unreformable leftist with a global warming agenda to destroy capitalism, that your HIGW hoax, which worked spectacularly well at first, has run out of steam Posted by LEGO, Friday, 1 March 2019 5:19:58 AM
|
Thank you for once again dodging a very simple question which I know you would have the greatest difficulty in answering. The more you duck and weave, the less you look like a towering figure of science, reason, and logic, and more like an evangelical ideological advocate, vainly trying to defend his disintergrating holy cause by dodging the issues.
There was no "supposition" in my premise, it is pure arithmetic that any nine year old can handle.
Here it is again. The more you dodge it, the more credibility you lose with any impartial reader who may be following our exchanges.
You said that scientists working for the oil companies in the 70's and 80's predicted a 1.25% rise in global temperatures by 2030. It is 2019 now, so by simple arithmetic, global temperatures must have risen by about 1 degree. Media sources quoting publicly accessible climate statistics say that has not happened, and global temperatures have not risen at all for twenty years.
Unless you can explain away this glaring discrepancy in your scientist's predictions, then sheer logic compels you admit that their scientific theory could do with a lot more work. And basing government policy, witch will ruin our economy, cause massive tax rises on the poor, blackout entire state electricity grids, and spend billions on useless infrastructure, on the basis of a doomsday theorem which direct observation shows is flawed, is completely potty.
You are losing the debate.
Only ten years ago, every media organisation published articles on the perils of HIGW as if it were God's Holy Truth. HIGW advocates were interviewed with reverence like the saviours of the world, while sceptics were interviewed like dangerous lunatics. One very good indicator that the HIGW hoax is unravelling, is the difference in tone in the news and current affair articles today on HIGW. Suddenly there is real scepticism by the media, and HIGW sceptics are being interviewed with respect.
It is as if the media itself now realises it has been had, and they are covering their arses before the penny drops with the public.