longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 3:28pm:


They could very easily sue Maqqa for the fact he never properly cites them and redistributes them.

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 9:31am:


Well, that's just ridiculous LW!

I fail to see any reason why you should be banned!

In fact, you are generally one of the better reasons why people should support such things as action on Climate Change etc, because your posts are so totally unconvincing for your cause/s.

So, I would think you should stay online and posting, as it makes my position easier to explain, rationally!

Ha! Ha! Ha!
That's a joke boy,
I say, that's a joke!

The obvious Strawman statement is evident in the fact that the predictions you make are false, nobody is making such predictions, and even though you may be attempting to parody the case, the real predictions of the scientific community have been consistently conservative, and almost universally outpaced by the real world events being measured.
Take the Arctic Sea Ice predictions, and I quote;
Quote:

That was from this article linked below.
http://triplecrisis.com/can-low-carbon-growth-save-us/

So this characterisation of extremists making false and unfounded predictions goes against the evidence we have at hand, yet the characterisation of the Denialists maintaining that Climate change is, "absolute crap", is entirely accurate.

Quote:


While Al Gore may have been guilty of a degree of sensationalism, in his attempt to have this issue receive the degree of serious examination he felt it needed, to claim he is thoroughly discredited is just untrue, he is merely a politician who used his political skills to have a critical issue highlighted, and is not the architect of the scientific examination, of the IPCC, and is not particularly relevant to the current scientific issues being debated, which are all of a quantitative nature, rather than substantive, as the serious debate has moved beyond that point, and it is only the denialists who are still questioning the substance of the scientific knowledge currently agreed upon, by not only the bulk of the world's governments, but also the bulk of the climate science community.

Quote:
longy

This is the Holy Grail for the denialists, an unfair demand that their lack of scientific opinion, their lack of credible argument, and their politically motivated objection to taking any action on Climate Change is intellectually, and morally equivalent of the work and opinions of the world's leading climate scientists, and therefore we need to ignore the accumulated evidence accrued over decades of hard, observational science, and revert to a childish debate based on the denialists demanding the right to not believe the scientific opinion of the most eminently qualified scientists in the climate science field.

This is akin to the creationists demanding to have god created the world in six days, being taught as valid competing theory in earth history or geology classes, and we need to just stop pandering to such groups.
They can either do the scientific work to collect data and write up papers and theories to be open to constructive analysis, or else stop demanding that their unfounded opinions be treated with the same gravity as those people who have done the serious scientific work, and had it examined and rigorously reviewed, and found to be relevant.
Currently they demand the right to dismiss scientific work out of hand, and have their opinions accepted in their place, and to any fair minded person that has to appear as idiocy.

Quote:
longy

Well that is the truest thing you have said so far, the science is certainly not settled, it is ongoing.
The fact that it is ongoing does not however mean that was has already been done is discredited, in fact the opposite is true, as more and more evidence accumulates the evidence keeps mounting to show the original concerns were entirely valid, and if anything, understated.

Now, I shall provide the link to that article I mentioned earlier, which goes into just what mitigation strategies we should be considering.
It is a pretty technical read, but worth the time for those of you who do not put themselves in the corner with the extreme, "Absolute Crap", camp.

http://ssis.arts.unsw.edu.au/tsw/IPCCcrit.html

PS, you will like this article Longy, because it shitcans the IPCC, Stren, and Garnaut, but it is evidence of the type of debate we should be having, the debate about the HOW, not a silly debate about should we, as all serious minds have already gone past that point.

Last year the US invested $34 billion, Germany $41 Billion, and China topped the world with, $54 Billion investment in clean energy options.

Edumacate yourself Andrei.

http://triplecrisis.com/can-low-carbon-growth-save-us/

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:10pm:



So why pray tell, are they not willing to reduce their total emissions and be held to emissions targets?

Their standard position, along with their Indian partner-in-crime, is that they will not accepted 1990 based binding targets.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 5:23pm:


That has been asked and answered. Why do you love to ignore and repeat all the time?

China refused to budge Wednesday on its demands that rich nations commit to large greenhouse gas cuts at upcoming climate change talks, while also declining to put a ceiling on its own emissions.

China and other developing nations will call on rich countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 40 percent by 2020 from 1990 levels at negotiations in Copenhagen in December, said Yu Qingtai, China's top climate negotiator.

"We have all along believed that due to the historical responsibility of the developed nations, they must continue to take the lead with large reductions beyond 2012," Yu told reporters.

We "have demanded that developed nations reduce emissions by 40 percent... this is fair and reasonable... China's position has not changed."

The December negotiations are aimed at hammering out a new climate change pact to replace the Kyoto protocol that expires in 2012.

As a developing nation with low per-capita emissions, China is not required to set emissions cuts under the UN Framework on Climate Change.

The European Union has said it will slash emissions by 20 percent by 2020 compared with the 1990 level.

The US Congress is considering legislation that would reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 17 percent from 2005 levels by 2020.


China, the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases along with the United States, has said neither of the cuts are enough.

Yu further called on rich countries to lay out concrete plans to finance technology transfers to help developing nations cut emissions.

His comments came after weeks of discussions between China and the United States on climate change and after UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said late last month that Beijing was key to the success of the upcoming talks.

Yu said China is seeking to increase energy efficiency by 20 percent from 2006 to 2010 as part of a plan to address global warming and will set similar targets for the period until 2020.

However, China still has not projected when it will reach its peak of greenhouse gas emissions, he added.


"When China reaches its emission peak will depend on its development stage, per capita GDP, national resources, technological level," Yu said.

"Our experts and competent authorities are studying when China will reach its emission peak."

Copyright © 2011 AFP. All rights reserved.

mozzaok wrote on Jun 7^th, 2011 at 4:59pm:


You make some good points but it is not even remotely like an unbiased one. There have been several very respected scientists say that the ACC hysteria is just that - hysteria. But you reject them - simply because of their opinion.

While saying that the predictions are accurate you really miss so many of the past predictions. 100m sea level rises anyone? or even 6m? and the 50million refugees nonsense!  and there have been mutiple embarrassing idiotic predictions that have failed to materialise. every summer the arctic is melting and every year ot fails to do so.

then there are the predictions of TOTAL melt of greenland and the antarctic despite the actual impossibility of such a thing.

Nope, there are many predictions made and many astonsihing failures.

And I have to say that supporting Gore's actions and predictions discredits you enormously. Virtually everybody in climate science says he is an idiot and that his movie is an embarrassment. You might as well get your science from the movie 'The Day after Tomorrow' which at least was entertaining!