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 > Arguing against the irrational > Comments

Arguing against the irrational : Comments

By Mike Pope, published 21/1/2010

The vast majority of people, including every national government in the world, accepts the scientific explanation for global warming.

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

Yes. “Arguing against the irrational is difficult, particularly when its proponents either fail or refuse to offer a shred of cogent evidence to support their position - primarily because they have no evidence” is true, as Mike Pope claims. The problem is, though, that it is Mike Pope and the alarmists and confidence tricksters who are on the wrong side of rationality. And, whether or not the majority of people agree with the alarmists, ‘might (still) doesn’t make right’
Posted by Leigh, Thursday, 21 January 2010 10:57:27 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
Mike puts forward an argument against irrationality, while being on the side of the irrational.

Ian Plimer is a scientist, of impeccable professional background. His science is vastly superior to the pretend science of the warmists.

Science has not shown to what extent human activity contributes to global warming, and it is likely that it is insignificant. During the present period of increased human activity, and increased proportion of CO2, the globe has been cooling.

There is some dispute about this from the IPCC and its “hide the decline” crew at East Anglia, but there are still reputable sources, like the lead scientist on sattelite temperature, Roy Spencer.

http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt

The IPCC, a political organisation aimed at setting up a swindle based on global warming, says it is “very likely” that human activity causes global warming. This is code for “there is no scientific proof, and despite spending billions on scientific research, we have found none.”

“Very likely” was the IPCC’s assessment of the disappearance of the Himalayan glaciers. This was based on a phone call to someone who knew little about glaciers, but told them what they wanted to hear.

If you wish to be rational Mike, you had better change to a scientific basis, and dump the pretend science of the IPCC, and dissemblers like Hadley.

Read Ian Plimer’s book. You might then stop talking the nonsense you do, about CO2

Every nation in the world does not support this scam, and the majority of people, if it is vast, is becoming less vast every day, as the truth seeps out, and the lies of the IPCC are exposed. Gore has a cheer squad now, at any public appearance, which chants “Liar” and “Fraud”. He cancelled his address at Copenhagen.

The Czech Republic tells its citizens the truth, and 89% of them believe that global warming is baseless. The President Vaclav Klaus, says he has approached many world leaders to join him in telling the truth, and has been uniformly rebuffed. He was refused an invitation to Copenhagen, where he wished to give an address.
Posted by Leo Lane, Thursday, 21 January 2010 11:14:49 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 really is an insult to have articles by this bloke continually produced on here.

Anyone who can say that "CO2 is the most common of the greenhouse gasses" has no place pushing his ideas here.

If he can't be bothered doing enough studdy to get even the basics right, surely we should be spared his rubish, particularly when he calls us, irrational.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 21 January 2010 11:44:56 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
Mike, <<The vast majority of people, including every national government in the world, accepts the scientific explanation for global warming. >>

You’re absolutely right of course, but it’s obvious you’ve been away for the past few months, so we’ll give you a bit of an update on what happened during your absence, that way you won’t look so, you know, silly.

Just before Copenhagen an insider at the CRU leaked some reports, data and emails. You and I know that these revelations mean nothing of course, however, some people feel, quite irrationally, that these damage the creditability of some of the things we’ve been telling the public. You know, like Consensus, Peer Review, Impeachable Professionals, Procedural Compliance, Good Data, Certified Computer Programs and State of the Art Modeling.

It’s almost as if people somehow “expect” the IPCC and its lead authors to exercise some sort of accuracy, due diligence and attention to detail. Goodness knows why, given that the world has already spent $74 Billion in response to IPCC predictions in the last ten years and we fully understand that we will have to cough up between $200m and $400m per annum just to keep the show on the road.

Anyway, look, just don’t mention the IPCC, OK. There are plenty of good things out there like Keith Briffa’s tree ring proxies, the hockey stick and the glacial melt in the Himalaya’s.

Anyway, Copenhagen was a roaring success, every “national government in the world”, supported by their own “vast majority of people” demonstrated total commitment and “signed off” on nothing.

There were a few of what Al Gore might describe as “blips”. The EU carbon trading price dropped about 60% to $18.50 and renewable energy certificates fell from $50 to $30. Look, it’s not a problem; don’t worry yourself, all it means is that there is declining revenue for alternate energy projects.

Fortunately, China, India, the US and Russia got right behind us by committing to absolutely nothing, adding the encouraging words, “go take a long walk on a short pier”.

Keep it going but don’t mention the IPCC. OK?
Posted by spindoc, Thursday, 21 January 2010 1:42:05 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
Mike Pope wrote:-

“Given time, animal and other life forms are often able to adapt to warmer or cooler conditions but when there is relatively rapid movement in the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere outside the range of say 300-450ppm, adaption is difficult or impossible.”

Now I do not claim to understand the philosophy behind your phrase-“a demonstrated scientific fact.” However it would be nice to know your evidence that plants and/or animals can not adapt or only adapt with difficulty to CO2 outside your arbitrary stated range.

By the way is it not an established scientific fact that the radiative effects of CO2, CH4, water vapour etc are logarithmic and NOT linear in respect to concentration. Thus a change from 300-350 ppm would have a greater increment of effect then the change from 400-450 ppm.

One other thing the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) paradigm is under attack from many sections of the community. This must inevitably excites a response from proponents of the theory. I wait with great intellectual anticipation the attempts of the AGW supports to defend the indefensible
Posted by anti-green, Thursday, 21 January 2010 2:37:46 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
Time will tell. In the meantime let us not wreck the economy by imposing nonsolutions such as a carbon tax. Only the left wing could dream up a tax on the fourth most common element in the universe.
Posted by Boethius, Thursday, 21 January 2010 2:57:18 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. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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