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 > General Discussion > How to demonstrate your sincerity as a global warming 'sceptic'

How to demonstrate your sincerity as a global warming 'sceptic'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Your body needs energy. So does the Earth if it is not to freeze.

Your body gets its energy in the form of food. The Earth gets its energy from the sun, mostly in the form of visible light.

While utilising food your body generates heat. Your body is hotter than ambient temperature. Actually your body works hard to maintain a temperature of +-37 Celsius.

In bed on a cold night your body starts cooling down, sometimes too much. You may retard the heat loss by wrapping yourself in insulation in the form of pyjamas or blankets. The insulation does not generate heat but it retards the heat loss sufficiently to raise the equilibrium temperature of your body.

The side of the Earth that faces away from the sun also experiences heat loss. Energy in the form of infrared radiation is radiated into space. If there were not some sort of insulation the heat loss every night would kill most life forms.

Fortunately for us the Earth has an insulation layer in the form of "greenhouse" gases – mainly CO2 and water vapour. They really should be called blanket gases because their action is more akin to the actions of a blanket than a greenhouse. They retard the radiation of heat into space and raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth The blanket gases stop many life forms freezing to death every night.

But if you're a climate change "sceptic" you don’t believe in the physics of insulation. To prove your sincerity you may not use any blankets or pyjamas no matter how cold the night. You have to lie naked on your bed. If for some reason you don’t want to be naked a pair of "budgie smugglers" is acceptable; but nothing more.

You may insulate your house against draughts to protect you against the wind chill factor, but not against heat loss.

If you do this I shall believe your sincerity. If you insulate your body on a cold night you're either confused or a hypocrite.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 8:29:44 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
Stevenlmeyer “Sincerity” is not some divine state to aspire to

Objectivity is a far more useful thing but we seem to have a bunch of pseudo scientists (and pseudo people) who are overdosing on hubris to tell us we are both individually and collectively responsible for “Global Warming”.

Imho I think those who postulate the “sincerity” of

others viz-a viz the myth of “AGW”

should get their hand out of their shorts and find something useful to do with it

like picking their nose or ear or other orifice.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 December 2009 9:40:28 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
Over the past couple decades globalists like Al Gore and Maurice Strong have used the cloak of pseudo climate science as their veil. Now that ‘climategate’ has removed the curtain and shone the light on the slithering cockroaches within the backrooms of climate cookbookery, there is no longer any debate about the science. The only thing that now exists is laid bare before our eyes – a deliberate attempt to subjugate the people of the earth to global governance under the guise of science.

As the newly ‘elected’ EU President Von Rompuy puts it:

“2009 is also the first year of global governance, with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis.

The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step towards the global management of our planet.”

http://www.infowars.com/who-will-stand-up-against-the-coming-global-climate-tyranny/

Former UNEP-Chieftain and Bilderberger
Admitted to “International Consensus” on Population Policy

Linked population to integrated/..long-term approaches to environmental problems.
http://www.infowars.com/former-unep-chieftain-and-bilderberger-admitted-to-international-consensus-on-population-policy/

i thought of haarp..as i noticed the hot spot here...on top of australia
noting that hot spot...is where OUR HAARP is

http://www.cpc.noaa.gov/products/Global_Monsoons/Global-Monsoon.shtml

it also occurs.. to me that these...fires on the north pole could be attempting to melt some ice...noting nz has recently built one

look at the hot spots...on the link
again

also there was a linkage..between china making snow...then britan getting floods a week later...then india near the same time...[i was looking...am looking for last mths weather front movment...in the northern hemi/sphere...to back that up

but think how come our haaarp sone is so hot?
our rain comes from the indian oceon...heat from the haarp hot spot...stops it falling...thus the droudt...from the haarp

http://www.infowars.com/carbon-capitalists-warming-to-climate-market-using-derivatives/

http://www.infowars.com/wake-up-america/

http://www.infowars.com/un-defends-scientists-over-leaked-emails/

http://www.infowars.com/gore-copenhagen-targets-not-tough-enough/

http://www.infowars.com/schwarzenegger-googles-schmidt-push-climate-change-agenda/

http://www.infowars.com/judge-napolitano-and-steve-milloy-on-climategate/

http://www.infowars.com/yahoo-threatens-cryptome-over-leaked-surveillance-document/
Posted by one under god, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:18:01 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well speaking of OBJECTIVITY Col Rouge,

Let's start with some OBJECTIVITY about simple physics.

"Greenhouse" gases like CO2 absorb infrared photons. Some of these are reradiated earthwards. Thus, some IR energy that would have been radiated out into space gets sent back to Earth.

This experiment from the BBC website illustrates the point:

See: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8394168.stm?ls

This is OBJECTVE physics.

Everything else being equal the effect of "greenhouse" gas insulation has to be to raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth. That is an OBJECTIVE fact.

Or, OBJECTIVELY speaking what do YOU imagine happens to the heat energy that gets radiated back to Earth?

--Do little elves gather it up and feed it to Santa's reindeer?

--Does it vanish into one of the curled-up dimensions that string theory postulates?

--Or might it do what common sense says – raise the equilibrium temperature of the Earth?

In real life things are never equal. Climate is complex and there will be positive and negative feedback loops set up. Ultimately however add enough insulating gases to the Earth's atmosphere and you increase equilibrium temperature.

Unless you can come up with an alternative OBJECTIVE explanation for what happens to the heat energy that CO2 and other greenhouse gases reradiate earthwards, preferably one that does not involve elves, you have to concede that the net effect is to raise the equilibrium temperature of the surface of the Earth. Let's take it from there and have an OBJECTIVE discussion.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:19:55 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
Stevenlmeyer - You probably think you are funny, and you are but not in the way you think. Here is a clue Google "Amusing" and "Strange" and have a think.
Why space is wasted on your narcissistic ramblings is beyond me but I will not miss any opportunity to help you as I feel it adds to my positive Karma.
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:21:07 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
If you want to prove you are a genuine skeptic just look at facts rather than blind deceitful dogma thrown at us by corrupt scientist who employ gullible Governments and high priests to do their bidding.
Posted by runner, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:28:27 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
That is just too silly, Steven. Please do try to be honest.

You start with the suggestion that our blanket is "mainly" CO2, & water vapour, in a typical misrepresentation of the facts.

Our blanket is water vapour, with some trace elements, one of which is CO2.

A recently published paper on the greenhouse effect, which our conniving lying AGW "scientists" tried to prevent, has shown a beautiful ballance in these gasses.

AS CO2 has built up, [to a minor extent] in the mix, water vapour has decreased, to maintain the ballance. Neat hay? Of course, you won't believe it, but that's your problem.

If you have any more great ideas, please rush into print. Some days we need a laugh.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:33:29 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
ooops looks like web 2 has changed the link
while i was on the page

but hey i saved the pictures
and the new ones...that look even more suss..look at the arrows...some huge heats there...ask why?

anyhow the photos are now here
note the hot spot west of darwin

whats making that heat
http://forum.worldfreemansociety.org/viewtopic.php?f=69&t=3631
Posted by one under god, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

THAT IS VERY INTERESTING

If it is possible to demonstrate that a negative feedback effect such as the one you describe between CO2 and water vapour will keep the equilibrium temperature of the Earth roughly constant I personally would be delighted. It would be one damn thing less to worry about.

This is the sort of OBJECTIVE science that interests me passionately. So please do not assume that I would not believe it.

But I would like to see it for myself. Please give me a reference ASAP. At the very least please provide the names and affiliations of the scientists who did the research.

Runner & OUG,

My understanding is that both of you reject evolution. If you have decoupled your belief systems from OBJECTIVE reality to that extent there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.

JBowyer

Unlike Hasbeen you have not provided me with any OBJECTIVE reason to change my pov. Can you explain what happens to the extra heat radiated back to Earth or what possible feedback mechanism might mitigate the effects of increasing the Earth's insulation?
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:23:23 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
steven, despite the straightforward nature of your explanation, it doesn't matter. That's the whole damn problem.

Everyday people have got it into their head that they can wrap their minds around the science of climate change. That goes for both sides. Thus, they feel able to comment on something which is far beyond their understanding.

I don't understand all the physics of climate change. Unless you're a pretty serious climatologist, I'll wager neither do you.

It comes down to who you believe and unfortunately, most people aren't good at evaluating sources.

They don't seem to assess the motivations - for many, the idea that greedy scientists wants grants is a realistic one. Never mind that this seems pretty stupid once you've actually interacted with any kind of reputable research institution.

The fact that entrenched interests have a strong stake in maintaining the status quo, represents a far stronger motive to skew data doesn't seem to be appreciated.

Similarly, the peer-review process, which has been the hallmark of reputable science for decades, appears to be discarded with any old paper being accepted into the debate. All one needs to do is claim some scientist conspiracy (apparently for these alleged grants who scientists are willing to sell their integrity for) has corrupted the process. Or be entirely ignorant of the peer review process and how rare it is to find papers disputing global warming which actually pass muster with reliable evidence. I suspect this is even more common.

What's really disturbing is how this has become a political issue. Those who oppose global warming, by and large, are those who a) are vehemently anti-government and taxes and b) are staunchly conservative and pro-family values.

These issues are in no way related. This is an issue about science, not progressive vs conservative politics, however it suits some to make it a political issue.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:24:42 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
A couple of points
- there is a difference between a sceptic and someone who has rejected a theory. I tend to think we need to take AGW seriously (but AGW does not equal ETS) but am concerned about the behavior of many on both sides of the debate, there is a lot of spin and potential for corruption around this issue. The fact that so many people desperately concerned about AGW find using private (or publicly funded) jets to get to talk to people on the other side of the world when tele-conferencing is so readily available does have some shades of the emperors missing clothes.
- Not being convinced about a particular proposal does not mean that someone rejects all of the underlying science and assumptions. It is possible to believe that the earths atmosphere provides insulation without being convinced that a particular extrapolation of that has been proved or that a specific new tax or trading scheme is the solution.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:35:19 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
A sincere global warming skeptic? What an oxymoron. Or perhaps that should be a CO2moron….or just a plain old moron!

OBVIOUSLY, AGW is real. Those who say that they don’t believe this are either being dishonest or deluded….or downright moronic!

Now if by some strange chance there are actually genuine intelligent sincere climate change skeptics out there uninfluenced by the wishes of big business or continuous-growth-worshipping politicians or business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiots, then how can they possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?

And if they err on the side of caution, then they should be totally aligned with as those that are concerned about AGW?

Skeptics that aren’t have got to viewed very suspiciously as to why they aren’t.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:50:22 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
steven meyer...<<<Runner & OUG,..My understanding is that both of you reject evolution>>>

as you should be aware ...micro evolution...within the genus[specification ...of species/within their genus...is perfectly valid

what there is not one scap of evidence..for
is macro/evolution...

where species..changes its genus...note the huge gaps
i note you didnt reply that....yet claim the point...now

yet remained silent at the topic...that speaks for itself...
http://www.worldfreemansociety.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=184&t=3225&start=60

its the same science/types decieving...via out and out fraud...and peer revieuw...its the same decievers selling you a new tax..via their latest guilt delusional/theory...built on graphics..and imagry..to sell you out

they plan eugenics...linked to the carbon/dispensations/to polute.....read the links bro

present fact...see its economists...goving business certainty...selling this carbontax/security..to create their next bubble.

just as its godless athiest eugincs adgenda
pushing this deception of evolving species...creating new genus

what was the first life
what did it evoilve into
your tree has no root

<<<there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.>>>you cant be adjective..you swallowed science infalibility
Posted by one under god, Monday, 7 December 2009 11:51:22 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And if they err on the side of caution, then they should be totally aligned with as those that are concerned about AGW?"

I never feel the need to be totally aligned with anyone just because they claim to have the answer to something I might be concerned about.

Nor do I feel the need to assume that the champions of a cause are less influenced by external factors than those who oppose the same cause.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 7 December 2009 12:19:54 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
Stevenlmeyer “Unless you can come up with an alternative OBJECTIVE explanation for what happens to the heat energy that CO2 and other greenhouse gases reradiate earthwards,”

I am sure I could but I would rather spend my time doing something more constructive, like picking my nose, ear or other orifice.

Regarding elves.. .i am sure you , as a supposed believer in AGW (which I have never been able to find distinguishable from non-AGW Global Warming or other cycles of temperature change, as recorded throughout history) , are far more experienced in having exchanges with pixies, sprites and elves on any matter, not limited merely to the relative merits of your fanciful delusions.

I find something fundamentally “Insincere” is your inaugural posting to presume, as you did that

someone who is “prudently sceptical” lacks “sincerity”, when it comes to the “hype” generated by the “three ring circus & road-show” promotions and proclumations of Al Gore and other assorted pseudo-scientists, “world economists” and bulldust infested doom-sayers

aka “just another bunch of carpet-bagging Snake-oil salesmen” of which stevenlmeyer is trying to become just another MLM “diamond”.

To AGW

If it reads like tish, it looks like tish, it smells like tish and it is being pushed around by a tish peddler

It is, almost certainly

TISH

Sceptically yours,

Col Rouge
(A sincere AGW disbeliever)
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 7 December 2009 12:27:40 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
Ludwig wrote:
"OBVIOUSLY, AGW is real. Those who say that they don’t believe this are either being dishonest or deluded….or downright moronic!"

Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that conclusively proves global warming is driven by Human Created CO2. Not the supposed political consensus, but the actual scientific paper proving it!
And make sure it's one that wasn't peer reviewed by the persons writing it huh!

Ludwig wrote:
"Now if by some strange chance there are actually genuine intelligent sincere climate change skeptics out there uninfluenced by the wishes of big business or continuous-growth-worshiping politicians or business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiots, then how can they possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?"

Way to stereo type!
If it aint broke, why fix it?
And because I don't feel like giving some slimy poly-tick $5000 bucks a year (average family of 4) to fix something that isn't broken, does not make me a growth worshiper or even a business-as-usual-at-all-costs idiot.

Now if you're suggesting that continuous-growth is a major cause of concern, then lets look at fixing that, OK? But don't assume that reducing CO2 output or taxing everyone into oblivion for the CO2 they produce is by any means going to fix a completely different problem!

Why are all warmists so delusional to think that tackling a supposed warming problem is suddenly going to fix all their other pre-conceived woes?
Posted by RawMustard, Monday, 7 December 2009 12:59:06 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
stevenlmeyer, I believe in the theory of evolution but see the current hype of Human Caused Global Warming as total claptrap rubbish designed to seize more taxes and exert more control.
How can I have both of these views?
Posted by Austin Powerless, Monday, 7 December 2009 1:41:51 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
Stevenlmeyer,

You are right when you say that scientists would all agree that all things being equal, more CO2 equals an increased greenhouse effect.

But...

The same scientists will also agree that if you pee in the ocean, all things being equal, sea levels will rise. So what?

Without a qualitative understanding, such knowledge is meaningless.

Of course there are those who deal with the lack of quantitative certainty with the idea that we should give the planet the benefit of the doubt. It might be warming dangerously and we might make a difference if we do all we can to stop CO2 emissions. So lets do all that we can, just in case.

The foolishness of this "benefit of the doubt" approach is demonstrated by considering how it might apply to other situations.

Some examples:

If the temperature were cooling over the last 8 to 10 years, as some scientists now believe, should we also give the planet the benefit of the doubt by taking action to stop us from slipping into an ice age? Should we be pumping extra greenhouse gases out to counter a cooling trend which might have catastrophic consequences for life on earth if allowed to run unchecked?

Upon learning that electrical faults can lead to housefires with potentially fatal consequences for your family, do you A) give your family the benefit of the doubt and disconnect the house from the electrical mains to avoid this risk, or B) adapt to the risk of fire by installing smoke alarms and teaching your kids about fire safety.

Upon learning that many children drown during the summer months, do you give your kids the benefit of the doubt by ensuring that they never get access to bodies of water deep enough to permit a drowning, or B, do we adapt, teach our kids to swim and about water safety and then take them swimming
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 7 December 2009 3:59:27 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
<continued>

Scientists know that, on very short notice, it is possible that a cataclysmic meteor could strike the earth and devastate life on this planet at least as badly as GW. Surely then, according to the notion of "giving the planet the benefit of the doubt" we should be bending the worlds economy to building defences against the potential threat of such meteoric disasters?

The point is that there is no point dreaming up nightmare scenarios and then thinking "anything is better than that, so, no matter how unlikely that scenario, we should expend all our energies to avoiding it." There are just plain too many "nightmare scenarios" to deal with this way. The only sensible approach is to risk manage the challenges we face. That means assessing the risk of each challenge; the consequences of each challenge; and the cost of doing something about it; then weighing these issues up against other challenges before determining how we use our limited resources.

In the case of GW there may well be a consensus that it has broadly occurred over recent years, but no one can sensibly argue that there is anything like a quantitative consensus on the consequences, or our ability to influence it. Without answering these questions it is folly to commit ourselves to an economically catastrophic ETS, which is likely to considerably harm our ability to adapt to whatever global warming brings.

Even worse will be to lock in an ETS by signing an international treaty, when as any but the incredibly naïve know, outside the West, few countries will seriously enforce it. If you accept that, then the conclusion is almost inevitable that an international ETS will have the same effect as a tariff on the clean industries of the West and will instead promote the far more polluting industries of the developing world.

A globally endorsed ETS scheme will actually worsen the worlds emissions problems.
Posted by Kalin1, Monday, 7 December 2009 4:00:44 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
StevenMeyer You write

'Runner & OUG,

My understanding is that both of you reject evolution. If you have decoupled your belief systems from OBJECTIVE reality to that extent there is no way for me to have an OBJECTIVE dialogue with you.

You are arrogant or deceived if you think evolution has a true scientific basis. In fact you are far less rational than those who admit their position is based on rational faith.
Posted by runner, Monday, 7 December 2009 4:54:46 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
“Can you point me to the peer reviewed paper that conclusively proves global warming is driven by Human Created CO2”

No, but I can follow the news and the messages espoused by scientists and other people that I have faith in and I can believe the news when I hear about glaciers, iceshelfs and increasing atmospheric CO2 content and draw my own conclusions and present my opinion accordingly.

RawMustard, of course you can’t present anything in the scientific literature to the contrary, that is conclusive and that many other scientists wouldn’t strongly disagree with.

And you certainly can’t assert categorically that AGW in complete rubbish…surely.

So my question remains: how can you possibly justify not erring on the side of caution?

“If it aint broke, why fix it?”

Because intelligent people can see that if we continue on our current path it’ll become broke…big-time! Or at least there is a significant chance of it becoming broke. Look ahead Mr Mustard. Extrapolate. It really isn’t hard. Of course you can’t tell just exactly what will happen but you can see the general trend very clearly.

You seem to hold a very interesting position – you can appreciate the continuous growth issue but not the climate change issue. That seems like a very strange viewpoint to me.
Posted by Ludwig, Monday, 7 December 2009 5:16:47 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
Steven,

Go to the naughty corner and write 10 times "I shall not pick on other peoples prejudices."

Col,

I challenge you give us your proof on the topic (put up or shut up).
Or is picking sundry orifices the source of your inspiration and what you find the sum total of your reasoning.
Posted by examinator, Monday, 7 December 2009 5:26:48 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
Stevenlmeyer firstly you do not seem to have considered the heat dissipated by the continual evaporation of water but really I can close you down with only two points.
If the IPCC was anything there would/could not be any argument about temperatures but of course there is. K Rudd says last ten years have been the hottest but others say cooling? How on earth can there be an argument about that.
Secondly, easy peasy, you and all your worrywort friends turn off your house utilities and the resultant drop in power, water etc will fix the problem
Oh yes another thing have a look at Wilson Tuckey's Parliament home page he seems to have more ideas than Al Gore or you lol!
Posted by JBowyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 5:44:42 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
Thirty one THOUSAND US scientists, including 9000 PhDs sigined a petition to say AGW aint happening.

How much more do you want.

When the story of the lying & cheeting of the warmests is all over the net, does that convince you?

When the cops put the IPCC bosses, & the leading warmests in the clink, for fraud, will that convince you?

No, I thought not.

Try Jennifer Marohassy's blog. The report of gas balance was written up there, for one place.
Posted by Hasbeen, Monday, 7 December 2009 6:03:45 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 Col Rouge,

Once again thanks for the amusing read. Quiet enjoyable.

I have to ask though, I have seen you slamming the big Al repeatedly on OLO but I would have thought he was your kind of guy.

He didn't shirk his Vietnam service unlike many at Harvard. In fact he was only one of a dozen out of the 1100 in his year who went to Vietnam.

Despite being opposed to the war he went because he didn't want someone with less advantages than he to go in his place.

While at Harvard he studied under Roger Revelle, one of the word's first climate scientists to examine global warming and who had a huge impact on Gore. He didn't just pick this up and run with it for electoral gain unlike some of our Coalition politicians before the last election.

His contributions toward getting the internet to where it is today are well documented without which we would be unlikely to be having this online conversation.

He was one of only 10 Democrats to support the first Gulf War.

Rather than being referred to as a snake-oil salesman I would have thought the guy (granted a politician) might have deserved a little respect even if his world view differed dramatically from your own.

BTW while “should get their hand out of their shorts and find something useful to do with it like picking their nose or ear or other orifice.” isn't quite vintage Col Rouge it was still good for a laugh.

Dear Hasbeen,

The good ol 31,000 scientists petition has been pretty well sliced, diced, and dispatched with. The petition was conducted in 1999 but by 2001 a random sample (obtained by Scientific America) of those reputed to have climate expertise already had 20% saying they would not sign it again. With new evidence constantly reinforcing the GW position I would venture to that figure would be far higher 9 years on.
Posted by csteele, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:43:33 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
Hasbeen,

Disappointing.

You promised me some research that showed how atmospheric water vapour declined as CO2 built up. That would have been interesting because I would expect water vapour to ENHANCE rather than the mitigate climate change. As the air gets hotter it is able to hold more vapour. As ocean temperatures increase we have more evaporation. Result more, not less, atmospheric water vapour.

Instead of showing me what promised to be interesting research you come up with an outdated petition!

R0bert,

I agree. Never before have so many behaved so badly – on both sides. I am totally opposed to an ETS.

Col Rouge,

I see you prefer ad hominem attacks to an OBJECTIVE discussion of basic physics.

Kalin1

I was not discussing temperature time series but the physics underpinning global warming. If Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are included then 2005 was probably the hottest year. It will be interesting see what next year brings now that we appear to be back in an El Nino phase.

We are going through a solar sunspot minimum. For reasons nobody has explained satisfactorily these appear to be linked with colder temperatures. (Google maunder minimum little ice age). In this case temperatures did not decline as much as expected which is a bit of a worry.

A global ETS would be the worst possible outcome.

JBowyer

Heat "dissipated" – as you put it – by evaporation returns when the water condenses and falls as rain. Higher temperatures should lead to more evaporation and more release of latent heat when the water condenses possibly driving stronger storms.

I am not discussing IPCC reports but basic physics.

Examinator,

AGW is actually a nefarious Zionist plot (NZP). We want to deprive those poor misunderstood Arabs of their oil revenue.

ALL:

Here are some interesting links that explain certain aspects of the BASIC PHYSICS of climate change. If you understand second year university level physics you should be able to follow it.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/gh_kushnir.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

TRTL

Will respond to your points when I am able to post again.

csteele, good post
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Monday, 7 December 2009 10:53:58 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
Stevenlmeyer “I see you prefer ad hominem attacks to an OBJECTIVE discussion of basic physics.”

No

I simply feel you have presented a topic in a manner loaded to invoke a certain response

and I simply delivered back the response which your loading deserved.

Pontificator “Col,

I challenge you give us your proof on the topic (put up or shut up).
Or is picking sundry orifices the source of your inspiration and what you find the sum total of your reasoning.”

I don’t jump to your command and I don’t have to prove my “sincerity” on any topic whatsoever.

This is an opinion forum,

I am here to express my opinion.

What you or anyone else considers as my “sincerity” is neither here nor there.

Like I said previously “someone who is “prudently sceptical” lacks “sincerity”, when it comes to the “hype” generated by the “three ring circus & road-show” promotions and proclumations of Al Gore and other assorted pseudo-scientists, “world economists” and bulldust infested doom-sayers”

My professional training taught me to be sceptical of what people say and rely more exclusively on what people do.

You sit around and produce facile posts full of pompous drivel, in which you attempt to “challenge” me.

Which means you are doing nothing worthy enough for me to bother taking up your challenge.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 10:16:33 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
Col(onel) Bluster, Hasbeen and all.
Neither your sincerity or training is at stake here, Just the evidence and your credibility.
An opinion without facts is just a prejudice. You are always big with ad hominem, you are yet to put up OBJECTIVE, up-to-date facts on almost anything.

You must be feeling somewhat hemmed in here especially with James E. Hansen came out last night on 'Lateline' and demolished your stance. With HARD SCIENCE substantiated FACTS (Physics)
(Heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Earth Sciences Division. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. His specialist

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology and relative transfer science. He has received several prestigious scientific awards etc.)

BTW Hansen, specifically demolished you water vapor furphy scientifically with basic physics, last night too.

Steven
I too have my doubts about an ETS for the reasons I gave on previous posts. Hansen demolished it on Lateline too. To me the answer is in a suite of actions there is no such thing as a magic bullet.
PS. Eliminating Zionists and their nefarious plots are optional, if, preferred ;-) (chuckle).
Posted by examinator, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 11:52:48 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
LOL Col Rouge,

There is a young man called Rouge
Whose ignorance of climatology is huge
Not scientifically literate
His posts still proliferate
From his "opinions" there is no refuge

OK it's not great but with that nick I don’t have much to work with.

Examinator,

Thank you for telling me about the James Hansen interview on Lateline. I don’t usually like Tony Jones – he and Andrew Bolt strike me as opposite sides of the same coin – but this one was worthwhile.

For those who are interested here is a link:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm

James Hansen is always worth listening to.

TRTL,

You are both right and wrong.

The essence of climate change is simple. Increase the blanket of greenhouse gases and, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, equilibrium temperatures will rise. This has been known for over a hundred years. The science is solid and does not depend on anything revealed by hacked emails. A schoolboy can understand it. In fact back in 1957 a 12 year old schoolboy called Steven Meyer did understand it. Yes I really am that old!

But here are the difficulties:

--Everything else is never equal. There are feedback loops some of which will mitigate the effects and some of which, such as added atmospheric WATER VAPOUR, will reinforce global warming. We don't know all the feedback loops.

--Does it matter if the world is a degree or two hotter on average?

--There are other changes such as a dustier atmosphere which cause global cooling.

--On top of all this there is natural climate variability.

It is around these matters that most of the MEANINGFUL debate centres. And they are the difficult issues.

The weight of evidence seems to be saying that we're running an unacceptably high risk by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I'm willing to be proved wrong but it will take solid science, not bluster, talk of orifices and promises of research about water vapour that never materialise.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Tuesday, 8 December 2009 1:02:48 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
how do you .. make..a carbon cap?
use silver foil

we heard the media cry wolf too often

recall sadman insane..
and his weopens of mass destraction..
standing in the un …with drawings?

recall the bird fluke..when pigs flew
it seems the latest children overboard media beat up

lets face it the spin merchants test market their proffitable spin
to sell us down the creek…im over their beat ups…if the media cant begin delivering real news…not sport.,,and spin…

and the 50/50 weather..[wether?...for casting..[or is it spinning]…todays talking points…econo-mists giving business certainty…lol…a new tax to rebuild yet more industry

a new cash cow…yes chicken little the moon is falling…maybe tghis time…maybe next time…itr may be true…but then it might be lies /spin and delusion…again

one thing is for sure….the media gets it on the fear side everytime..dosnt attempt to get it right..as the 5 media companies..entertaintment/conglomerates consolidate their powers..into 3…running their spin machine

now for the latest wepons of mass destraction…ho ho ho..yeah its media silly season…still…consumers..driven by fear..from the lackluster panic medium/media…to seek out comfort food…

let us alone…go spin your delusions to your kids…were trying to die in dignity here…from natural causes..if possable…with the air con on full if need be…and the heater..if you got it wrong again
Posted by one under god, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 7:32:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
StevenlMeyer,

Your links demonstrate the basis for a greenhouse effect, but they don't they don't do so quantitatively. In effect they establish what is widely known. Greenhouse gases have the effect of warming the planet. This is a trite question with a trite answer.

The relevant questions of the debate about what we should do is how much warming will occur due to our CO2 emissions and what can we realistically do about it.

Upon realising that all our pee ultimately goes into the oceans, do we start building sea walls to stop the flooding of our coastlines or move to higher ground or stop drinking so much in order to reduce our pee footprint? No, before we do anything so daft, we have to think hard about how much of a sea level rise we should expect from all that pee and that requires a quantitative analysis. Something the AGW camp just isn't able to give us at present.

There may be good reasons to reduce our use of CO2, economic/peak oil reasons, but the evidence on AGW does not establish it as one of them.

Finally, I note your response to JBoyer:

"Heat "dissipated" – as you put it – by evaporation returns when the water condenses and falls as rain. Higher temperatures should lead to more evaporation and more release of latent heat when the water condenses possibly driving stronger storms."

This is not correct. The point is that evaporation takes heat in at the surface and "releases it" high up in the atmosphere above a very large chunk of the greenhouse gases that otherwise trap it. It follows that evapouration is in fact a very significant mechanism by which considerable heat escapes without having to pass through the entirety of our greenhouse gases. As I have read this is mechanism is not well accounted for in the computer models because. as with clouds it is complex, chaotic and difficult to measure.
Posted by Kalin1, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 12:27:29 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
Runner, the last Fundy "pastor" I met in my home town had done time for fraud, which I think disqualifies him from ever having a moral opinion about others ever again. He espoused a similar position to you.

Meanwhile, honest scientists, who *must* publish their data, are employed *by* government institutions, not the other way around. The only time Scientists don't publish is as a result of private funding restrictions (such as Lateline described re: climatechange). These are in turn controlled by the shareholders. Try harder.

Rusty.
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 10 December 2009 12:33:47 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
To answer stephenLmeyer,

A sceptic would have to show that fourier was wrong about the properties of certain gas mixtures that result in greater heat retention.

Then they would have to demonstrate that all the "mechanisms" by which this retained heat would be removed will do so without (a) unpredictably altering atmospheric convection of both water and air (b) lagging perceptibly, so as to not change the amount of heat temporarily stored in the atmosphere and transferred to long-term sinks like the ocean and the polar ice (c) explain whether they did high school chemistry calorimetry experiments involving heat sources and melting ice and whether they actually learned anything that day, or remain just as ignorant as before.

We know some are depending on divine intervention, but that may not be good enough for the rest of us.

Rusty
Posted by Rusty Catheter, Thursday, 10 December 2009 10:24:32 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
Kalin1 thank you for coming to my rescue re evaporation. The supercillious Stevenlmeyer invokes his science but! I have an ordinary common sense approach. When someone tries to get my money by spinning me a line I am immediately suspicious. When there is talk about lots and lots of very necessary tax I am disbelieving and when one of the originators (Al Gore) is a multi millionaire with links to cheating and thieving banks well, Whoa boys I am not as silly as you think.
Steven look at the EU the most bloated organisation on the planet where faceless, useless public servants rule and rort the roost. The IPCC is the same meat different gravy.
Once the taxes are in there will be no more investigating the "Problem", everything will be improving just like the Ozone layer. Money has been made, the sucker has been milked, on to? Tell me again, is started as global warming, then AGW and now climate change there is a clue here steven. You really think you are such a hero but mate you are going to be milked just like the rest of us.
Posted by JBowyer, Friday, 11 December 2009 8:10:07 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
Shorter JBowyer (and other climate delusionists):

"I don't anything much about science, but if it's going to cost me money it must be wrong".
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 11 December 2009 8:26:32 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
CJ Morgan,

The trite dismissal of other people's views is one of the major problems with this debate. Both sides indulge this all to frequently, but the believers have been especially vocal once their 'leaders' took their line that there was a clear scientific consensus and the debate was over. As the Climate Gate emails show, that consensus doesn't exist.

Your misleading and contemptuous dismissal of any alternate views just demonstrates your own narrow-minded view of the world, an approach adopted by the feeble minded on both sides of this debate.

Is all that sensible skeptics are asking is that their doubts and reservations are answered before their lives and the economic welfare of their families are turned upside down. Being effectively told, "your too stupid to understand, so I'm not going to bother" is never going to win support in a democracy. Unfortunately for "believers" the more they rant that the debate is over, instead of answering legitimate questions, the less credible they will look to everyone with doubts.

So believers like you, ought to either answer the doubters concerns or otherwise ask yourself why you believe so fervently in something you can't explain to others?
Posted by Kalin1, Friday, 11 December 2009 9:39:21 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
Kalin1, all

The problem is that the scepics/denialists are usually one and the same. They just *don't WANT* to know. I and others have posted numerous objective explanations of the PROVEN, undisputed, science involved.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9806&page=0#157571
http://geoflop.uchicago.edu/forecast/docs/lectures.html.

The bottom line is that the denialists et sec want to re-write Physics or more specifically ignore the SCIENCE (not opinion)in favour of what?

FYI An opinion should be based on facts otherwise it is just prejudice.

I and others acknowledge where the areas of debate are i.e. is the precise when,how and by how much (even that is within tolerances), *modeling*.

AGW has at the very worse has the smoking gun *too much* CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
CO2's greenhouse capability is in its chemical structure.

The sources for these greenhouse gases are known and can be reasonably calculated as can the sinks, the natural uptake processes and capacity over time.

The EAU CRU 'scandal' isn't a breaker, because it doesn't effect the *Science* merely a limited amount of analysis from *one of many sources*. The raw data is widely available and unaffected.

I challenge any denier/sceptic to argue their case on *relevant* SCIENCE i.e. prove the science in chemistry, biology, glaciology etc. this includes all universities, the met offices, NASA etc but GW and AGW are wrong. All because some journalists and other science illiterate people say so? So far no credible argument has been mounted.

NB Paleogeology is of *peripheral*, if any relevance, at all.
Primarily their time frame is in a scale that precludes such small time frames necessary for this debate
Posted by examinator, Friday, 11 December 2009 12:48:30 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
Kalin, don't worry about Examinator, he thinks he has a direct connection to god, & therefore knows everything. I think the voices he hears come from somewhere else, perhaps his head.

He knows everything about defence too, although I never saw him at any of those appreciation of the situation courses at the college.

I know it's a bit painful when he keeps repeating the same spin that's now proven fraud, he even still believes in the Hocky Stick, although I don't know which of their cons in that area he still likes.

It must be hard for true believers, there is so little of their stuff left that isn't tainted beyond redemption.

He might still be unlucky enough th get his wish, of a poorer future. Those bast4rd pollies do appear to be going to try to brazen this thing through. I used to believe that pollies worried about their place in history, but not this lot it seems, unless they want to be remembered as doing more harm, to more people than Starlin. I wonder.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 11 December 2009 1:40:24 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. All

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