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 > '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 22/2/2019

The 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.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 29
  15. 30
  16. 31
  17. All
It is science that informs people about climate change
ant,
Assuming of course that those scientists are competent & have integrity.
Posted by individual, Monday, 25 February 2019 7:33:10 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
Lego

Sorry, you are wrong, there has been tampering of graphs, quite a number of studies display the hockey stick, you have been misled through fraudulent tampering of graphs.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11644-climate-myths-it-was-warmer-during-the-medieval-period-with-vineyards-in-england/

Fredrik Ljungqvist, has also had a paper published on past temperature. A film displays a graph purported to be from Fredrik Ljungqvist shown by deniers, and has a photo of the actual published paper. The graph has been fraudulently tampered with by deniers.
Above, I gave a referral about ice cores, the work of Dr Alley it, was misrepresented by deniers trying to suggest his work supported denier views.

The film ..Medieval Warm Period- Fact Versus Fiction, displays how the Ljungqvist graph was distorted:

http://youtu.be/CY4Yecsx_-s

There had been a previous article where Dr Ball was mentioned, I made a comment at Tuesday, 19 February 2019 9:57:36 AM in relation to: Global warming won't make it colder!

My comment:

Harris quotes Dr Ball as saying "Dr. Ball explains that the real cause of the severe cold outbreaks in the US is a wavy jet stream." The hyperlink in the article to Dr Ball's comments does not work.

Dr Ball states extremely cold conditions are going to be experienced in the Northern Hemisphere for a lengthy period. Global temperature takes into account Regional variations world wide, so while one area might be extremely cold others are extremely warm. It is the aggregate that counts.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20162&page=6

On the same onlineopinion I gave a reference to Professor Dan Britt a little further down who covers ice ages in a lot of detail. The nub of what he says in the film is that we should be going into an ice age, except anthropogenic climate change is warming the planet. Oceans warming is illustrative of such warming taking place. Also, permafrost thawing creating ponds, lakes and swamps flies in the face of Earth cooling. Tundra areas are greening.

Lego go to sources of information where possible, see what scientists are actually stating or writing, research is often different to how it is expressed by deniers.
Posted by ant, Monday, 25 February 2019 8:37:16 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
individual

Are you suggesting that Fourier (1820s), Foote and Tyndall (1850 >), and scientists employed by fossil fuel corporations before anthropogenic climate change denial began in earnest, were without integrity? Since the 1980s the sophistication of measuring devices have improved; and so, current climate scientists are building on the foundation of prior science.
James Hansen early in his career came up with three projections of how a warming planet might fair, he gained much criticism from Michaels and McIntyre in relation to two of his projects. But, his third project was quite accurate .. integrity on the part of McIntyre and Michaels? They did not acknowledge his third projection.

Do marine scientists observing changes in habitat and fish species, lack integrity? Fish species have been moving North and South from original habitats depending on Hemisphere, due to warming waters. Kelp forests have been lost, coral reefs world wide are in decline. So what is it about marine scientists that they do not display integrity? Their work supports anthropogenic climate science.

Archeologists working on Alaska's coastline have had to work extremely quickly due to erosion of their dig sites. Many artefacts would be lost if they worked in their normal way .. lack of integrity? The question arises why the erosion?
Posted by ant, Monday, 25 February 2019 9:34:51 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 finds some report that he asserts means something although quite what he never makes clear. The report includes a graph he asserts predicts that when CO2 levels reach 380ppm temperatures will rise by 0.8c

That is patently wrong but when I point it out ant asserts that I'm misreading the graph

Astonished at his innumeracy I try to set him straight. Finally I find with the same report a table that the graph is based on. Said table totally concurs with what I've been telling the dill.

I explain it to him again and show him the conclusive evidence of his utter misunderstanding of the issue. I invite him to display some modicum of honour by acknowledging his error

And what does he do? Ignores the new evidence, creates a fictions math teacher who he says agrees with his idiocy and maintains that his interpretation of the data is correct even though the actual data says otherwise

The man has zero honour, zero honesty and zero self respect.

And I'm done with him. One can only spend so much effort trying to educate fools before realising they are perfectly comfortable with their ignorance.
Posted by mhaze, Monday, 25 February 2019 12:24:11 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
'And I'm done with him. One can only spend so much effort trying to educate fools before realising they are perfectly comfortable with their ignorance.'

yep mhaze that is exactly why the dishonest charlatans have won. I am not having a go at you but the old saying that you tell lies often enough especially when they fit the narrative and people give up on the truth. I can understand the gullible pushing this gw c-ap but have little respect for the intelligent who have caved in. Thank God for Donald Trump who has boldly stood his ground and stopped the US from being robbed by these charlatans.
Posted by runner, Monday, 25 February 2019 12:36:35 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, Climatologist Tim Ball proved beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury, that his own data and graph displaying climate variability was accurate, and that Michael Manne's hockey stick was a complete fabrication drawn from a deliberate misrepresentation of the available data. I have seen the two graphs and they bear no relation to one another at all. Now, you are claiming that New Scientist magazine supports Manne, because it has published a new hockey stick graph which is practically identical to Manne's.

You are saying that Frederick Ljungqvist had data supporting Mann's position. Too bad he did not go to court to help Manne. Maybe he did not want his own "evidence" picked apart by a sharp lawyer in front of a jury. It was noted during the trial, that Manne was on his own and lacked supporters. Too many PC frocked climate "scientists" who had their snouts and front trotters in the public research fund trough, knew that the jig was up. And it better to just let Manne hoist himself on his own hockey stick than make fools of themselves by submitting their own data in court, and having that data picked over too.

Then you say that another professor named Dan Britt supports HIGW. Whoopee. Did he give evidence to support Manne in court? Or, was he hiding under bed with the rest of the "97%" of climate scientists who supposedly support HIGW, but let Manne do the dirty work of shutting up a very credible scientific opponent like Ball? It is a sad time for science when scientific validity is being decided by juries, and all because the fabricators who knew what the PC establishment wanted, and knew how to please them, are trying to shut up the real scientists by threatening them with court action. Manne lost against Ball and he will lose against Mark Steyn as well.

Time for even the ants to flee the sinking HIGW ship.
Posted by LEGO, Monday, 25 February 2019 1:50:16 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. 11
  13. ...
  14. 29
  15. 30
  16. 31
  17. All

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