Sky Pilot wrote:I don't denounce science - just the whole climate change sham. I firmly believe it is tainted with self interest, corruption, industrial espionage and interest. The science varies from country to country and whose vested interest has the most to lose or gain.
Thats a nice opinion SP got any facts or examples to back it up?
No facts or examples yet.
I'm beginning to think you just made it all up!
Fish I think you are wasting your time doing whatever it is you do to earn a living. You should be a comedy script writer.
Lie Pilot if the climate scientists are so wrong why do you need to resort to lying to try to discredit them?
I'm beginning to think you just made it all up! [/quote]Fish I think you are wasting your time doing whatever it is you do to earn a living. You should be a comedy script writer.[/quote]Lie Pilot if the climate scientists are so wrong why do you need to resort to lying to try to discredit them? [/quote] okay I'll pull your stunt. Give me the proof that all this is legit. Show me how you can disprove the corruption and/or self interest that I believe is going on. Illustrate to me who wins and who loses in the scheme with some evidence to support your claims. I'll think of some more questions later but these should keep you busy for a while
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
Sky Pilot wrote:okay I'll pull your stunt. Give me the proof that all this is legit. Show me how you can disprove the corruption and/or self interest that I believe is going on. Illustrate to me who wins and who loses in the scheme with some evidence to support your claims. I'll think of some more questions later but these should keep you busy for a while
You're the one making the outrageous suggestion that Science is systemically corrupt so it should be up to you to back this up with evidence.
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
Oh well then. No need to embarrass yourself Jimmy, Sky Pilot & Straight Talker have got the far-right lunatic fringe bit sewn up.
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
You and "straight talker" have both made ridiculous statements that you have been totally unable to substantiate and that is why I've questioned your credibility. However as I'm in a generous mood I'll give you one more chance - I'm off-line for the next week whilst on holiday let's see if you can come up with anything by the time I return...
The statements I've taken exception to are:
Sky Pilot wrote:I don't denounce science - just the whole climate change sham. I firmly believe it is tainted with self interest, corruption, industrial espionage and interest. The science varies from country to country and whose vested interest has the most to lose or gain.
straight talker wrote:how bout flannery,garnaut and gore i mean they all said the dams would be empty high rise buildings would be engulfed by the rising sea level etc
Any facts or evidence whatsoever to back up your statements would be appreciated!
You and "straight talker" have both made ridiculous statements that you have been totally unable to substantiate and that is why I've questioned your credibility. However as I'm in a generous mood I'll give you one more chance - I'm off-line for the next week whilst on holiday let's see if you can come up with anything by the time I return...
The statements I've taken exception to are:
Sky Pilot wrote:I don't denounce science - just the whole climate change sham. I firmly believe it is tainted with self interest, corruption, industrial espionage and interest. The science varies from country to country and whose vested interest has the most to lose or gain.
straight talker wrote:how bout flannery,garnaut and gore i mean they all said the dams would be empty high rise buildings would be engulfed by the rising sea level etc
Any facts or evidence whatsoever to back up your statements would be appreciated!
Nice try Fish.
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
Oh well then. No need to embarrass yourself Jimmy, Sky Pilot & Straight Talker have got the far-right lunatic fringe bit sewn up.
Fear not Gozu - I rarely embarrass myself like you do. Anyone that you disagree with is either a far-right lunatic or unhinged. But I dont call myself Gozu or have the e-mail address that you do
Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
Oh well then. No need to embarrass yourself Jimmy, Sky Pilot & Straight Talker have got the far-right lunatic fringe bit sewn up.
Fear not Gozu - I rarely embarrass myself like you do. Anyone that you disagree with is either a far-right lunatic or unhinged. But I dont call myself Gozu or have the e-mail address that you do
You're more in the unhinged category. How's that Collingwood tat going Jimmy?
"The factory of the future will have only two employees, a man and a dog. The man will be there to feed the dog. The dog will be there to keep the man from touching the equipment" – Warren Bennis
Jimmy_041 wrote:My father in law is a scientist and he's says its all a crock of shite
Oh well then. No need to embarrass yourself Jimmy, Sky Pilot & Straight Talker have got the far-right lunatic fringe bit sewn up.
Fear not Gozu - I rarely embarrass myself like you do. Anyone that you disagree with is either a far-right lunatic or unhinged. But I dont call myself Gozu or have the e-mail address that you do
You're more in the unhinged category. How's that Collingwood tat going Jimmy?
dont know thw womans name , but on late night agenda at least twice in the past 2 weeks on Sky news this older aged lade with short hair has really got a problem with Tony Abbott and has even written i think a book on him?
think this woman has opposite sex issues and thinks every man is sexist against women the way she talks and she gives it to abbott like he owes her money...
Bully wrote:dont know thw womans name , but on late night agenda at least twice in the past 2 weeks on Sky news this older aged lade with short hair has really got a problem with Tony Abbott and has even written i think a book on him?
think this woman has opposite sex issues and thinks every man is sexist against women the way she talks and she gives it to abbott like he owes her money...
Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Well said
People who bought this book also bought a stool and some rope. Unknown literary critic
Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Grahaml wrote:Climate change has been proven again and again and again using many various scientific techniques. Whether you're talking global or local, scientists have been able to demonstrate the climate both on a global scale and also at any given point on the earth's surface has changed dramatically over and over. They have evidence to show one time of equatorial glaciation and another of an average surface temperature of around 45c (current is around 17-18). There is no doubt that for several thousands of years the global climate has been changing.
However, what is in doubt is the cause. When we can track climate change over millions of years why do we seem to assume the current trend is due to carbon emissions? There is clearly the chance that carbon emissions are increasing the rate we're seeing change but there is so far no proof that carbon is in fact doing such a thing. There is some small scale evidence that backs it up but it is scratchy to say the least. The part of the argument that worries me is we seem to be making the assumption that (A) Climate change is anthopogenic and (B) Once our activities cease we will see it all go back to "normal" (whatever that is). This is clearly false. There are other factors that will continue to drive climate chance whether we contribute or not. I don't think trying to reduce emissions is a bad thing, in fact I think it's a worthy pursuit, but when we put all our eggs in that basket and find it keeps happening, we run the very serious risk or having spent trillions and trillions on a false solution.
Is it your opinion that evidence is 'scratchy' and 'small scale' or are you just regurgitating denialist opinion that fails to examine the scientific data.
I would say a 0.9 correlation coefficient is better than 'scratchy' and that the research is far from 'small scale'.
Grahaml's summary is essentially correct, and the previously highest recorded CO2 level was approximately 325,000 years ago. However, staff at the University of Adelaide's Environment Institute have managed to satisfy me that current flask air CO2 levels that exceed that old record are comparable technically, and so I am prepared to accept the premises that there is a human contribution on top of the current expected peak in the Milankovitch Cycles.
Nevertheless, it is true that in the current era temperatures are lower than the world average over millenia. It is not a simple issue, despite advocates on both sides tending to say it is. So lets do something real about CO2 output and other pollution. I don't think a Carbon Tax or a trading scheme is real enough - just token.
