Australian Politics Forum - Global cooling

adelcrow

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 20133
everywhere
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #165 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:00am

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

Soren wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:35am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 4^th, 2013 at 6:18pm:

Its the hottest day in Hobart since records have been taken and one of the hottest in Adelaide....yep the planet is cooling just like the deniers said it would Grin

Jan 5 (Reuters) - Temperatures in China have plunged to their lowest in almost three decades, cold enough to freeze coastal waters and trap 1,000 ships in ice, official media said at the weekend.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/05/china-weather-idUSL4N0AA0D820130105

NASA scientist says events like these prove global warming is natural and finished for now.

So Abbotts wasting our money by having the same targets for green house gas reduction as the Gillard govt?

Back to top

Go the Bunnies

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #166 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #167 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:08am

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Really?!?!

Could you show us some of this "conflicting evidence" please?

Or are you like gold medal? Just make things up then run away when people ask you to provide evidence?

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #168 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:19am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

good to see that you are unable to address the actual debate. No one is really surprised.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #169 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:22am

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Really?!?!

Could you show us some of this "conflicting evidence" please?

Or are you like gold medal? Just make things up then run away when people ask you to provide evidence?

you are just like MOTR. there is no conflicting evidence in your worldview because by definition anything that conflicts with ACC is not evidence. It is the circular argument of fools and ideologues. Unfortunately, I expected more of Motr with his protestations of 'critical reasoning' but alas, that was a lie. There is a mountain of conflicting evidence and if you had the integrity to view it then there might be a debate to be had. But when you take the words and works of a professor of climatology who is a sceptic and simply ignore them then your opinion is really rather worthless.

Back to top

IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: Global cooling Reply #170 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:11pm There are a considerable number of high profile dissenting voices and you know that the global warming hysterics have simply lost the plot when they start bringing up smoking or big oil or some other idiotic rubbish to discount alternative ideas, science doesn't work that way, only the moronic leftist mindset does.
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Global cooling
Reply #171 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:20pm

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

There are a considerable number of high profile dissenting voices and you know that the global warming hysterics have simply lost the plot when they start bringing up smoking or big oil or some other idiotic rubbish to discount alternative ideas, science doesn't work that way, only the moronic leftist mindset does.

You have to be skeptical of a science that says 'trust us because you should trust us with smoking consequences'

Trust us because some science somewhere was correct at one stage.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #172 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:37pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

good to see that you are unable to address the actual debate. No one is really surprised.

I addressed you post directly. You were 100% wrong in both of your statements.

While a small handful of the few remaining deniers may indeed be scientists - virtually none of them have ever published any relevant research on the matter

and

CO2 can be a pollutant. To deny this is just stupid.

Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has a negative impact on global climate and excessive CO2 dissolved in the oceans has a negative impact on marine ecostystems. ie - CO2 is a pollutant. It pollutes.

Now - could you please tell us why you lied about receding glaciers?

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #173 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

good to see that you are unable to address the actual debate. No one is really surprised.

I addressed you post directly. You were 100% wrong in both of your statements.

While a small handful of the few remaining deniers may indeed be scientists - virtually none of them have ever published any relevant research on the matter

and

CO2 can be a pollutant. To deny this is just stupid.

Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has a negative impact on global climate and excessive CO2 dissolved in the oceans has a negative impact on marine ecostystems. ie - CO2 is a pollutant. It pollutes.

Now - could you please tell us why you lied about receding glaciers?

since CO2 is the cingle most important case - ahead of oxygen - in the maintenance of the bisphere, your statement borders on the insane.

but the number of published anti-ACC articles rises daily and the number of sceptical climate scientists also rises. It really is an example of your blind allegiance when you assume that all the climate scientiest that have been listed in this and other threads have somehow 'not published'. As much as you would like it to be different, the fact is that the sceptical position continues to grow daily both in numbers but also in the mountain of evidence.

you still see the emperors new clothes. However the rest of us see him as smugly naked.

Back to top

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #174 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:08am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Really?!?!

Could you show us some of this "conflicting evidence" please?

Or are you like gold medal? Just make things up then run away when people ask you to provide evidence?

you are just like MOTR. there is no conflicting evidence in your worldview because by definition anything that conflicts with ACC is not evidence.

Really?!?! Perhaps if you ever showed us any evidence we could put your theory to the test.

All you have done here is told lies and then run away when asked to provide evidence.

Let us start with your lie about glaciers receding? I have asked you dozens of times to provide evidence of that statement - you have run away every single time.

THe when you have shown us some evidence to support your notion that glaciers are receding globally - I will ask you for evidence to support your other silly claims made - such as the arctic ice cap being melted by an undersea volcano, and that the MWP was 3-4 degrees warmer globally than today.

When you cannot provide this evidence (have you have been unable to do up to now ) I will expect you to apologise to the forum for telling lies.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:22am:

It is the circular argument of fools and ideologues. Unfortunately, I expected more of Motr with his protestations of 'critical reasoning' but alas, that was a lie. There is a mountain of conflicting evidence and if you had the integrity to view it then there might be a debate to be had. But when you take the words and works of a professor of climatology who is a sceptic and simply ignore them then your opinion is really rather worthless.

When you tell lies your opinion is really rather worthless.

Please explain to us why you lied about receding glaciers? Who did you think you would fool with that lie?

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Global cooling
Reply #175 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:47pm

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:20pm:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

There are a considerable number of high profile dissenting voices and you know that the global warming hysterics have simply lost the plot when they start bringing up smoking or big oil or some other idiotic rubbish to discount alternative ideas, science doesn't work that way, only the moronic leftist mindset does.

You have to be skeptical of a science that says 'trust us because you should trust us with smoking consequences'

Trust us because some science somewhere was correct at one stage.

I believe you are avoiding adels question:

So Abbotts wasting our money by having the same targets for green house gas reduction as the Gillard govt?

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

rabbitoh07

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 2783
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #176 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:51pm

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

Innocent bystander wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:08am:

When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

good to see that you are unable to address the actual debate. No one is really surprised.

I addressed you post directly. You were 100% wrong in both of your statements.

While a small handful of the few remaining deniers may indeed be scientists - virtually none of them have ever published any relevant research on the matter

and

CO2 can be a pollutant. To deny this is just stupid.

Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has a negative impact on global climate and excessive CO2 dissolved in the oceans has a negative impact on marine ecostystems. ie - CO2 is a pollutant. It pollutes.

Now - could you please tell us why you lied about receding glaciers?

since CO2 is the cingle most important case - ahead of oxygen - in the maintenance of the bisphere, your statement borders on the insane.

You don't actually know what the word "pollutant" means, do you.

Find yourself a dictionary. Look it up. CO2 can be a pollutant. As can clean, fresh water - when it is introduced in large quantities into a marine environment.

Look the word up. Stop making a fool of yourself.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

but the number of published anti-ACC articles rises daily

Evidence please. Otherwise I can only assume you are telling lies again - as you did when you told the lie about the receding glaciers

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

and the number of sceptical climate scientists also rises.

Evidence please. Otherwise I can only assume you are telling lies again - as you did when you told the lie about the receding glaciers

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

It really is an example of your blind allegiance when you assume that all the climate scientiest that have been listed in this and other threads have somehow 'not published'.

Evidence please. Otherwise I can only assume you are telling lies again - as you did when you told the lie about the receding glaciers

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

As much as you would like it to be different, the fact is that the sceptical position continues to grow daily both in numbers but also in the mountain of evidence.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

you still see the emperors new clothes. However the rest of us see him as smugly naked.

The rest of us are waiting for you to show us evidence to support your statement:

"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please post that evidence or apologise to the forum for telling lies.

Back to top

IP Logged

gold_medal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3897
Gender: male

Re: Global cooling
Reply #177 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:37pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 11:19am:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 10:06am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 9:02am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 8:54am:

[quote author=Innocent_bystander link=1357287527/160#160 date=1357596498]When you look at all the conflicting evidence I can't see how anyone can not be a sceptic, some people have forgotten the true meaning of science, science has become political propaganda, appalling really.

Na..political propaganda is still political propaganda..you just cant tell the difference between scientific debate and a few pollies trying to shore up their election chances.
But even so..its prudent to cut the amount of pollution we have been spewing into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution even if you think there only a 50/50 chance that polluting the planet is not a wise thing to be doing.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is SCIENTISTS driving the sceptic debate - not pollies
2) CO2 is not a pollutant. Only the craziest loon in the ACCC inner circle of high priests beleives that.

two major flaws in your argument.

1) it is a tiny group SCIENTISTS who have not published any relevant research to support their opinions driving the sceptic debate - not the vast majority of SCIENTISTS working in the field
2) CO2 is a pollutant. Only the craziest loon who does not know what the word "pollutant" means would deny that.

BTW: We are still waiting for you to tell us why you lied about receding glaciers. Are you hoping that people will just forget about the lies you tell?

good to see that you are unable to address the actual debate. No one is really surprised.

I addressed you post directly. You were 100% wrong in both of your statements.

While a small handful of the few remaining deniers may indeed be scientists - virtually none of them have ever published any relevant research on the matter

and

CO2 can be a pollutant. To deny this is just stupid.

Excessive CO2 in the atmosphere has a negative impact on global climate and excessive CO2 dissolved in the oceans has a negative impact on marine ecostystems. ie - CO2 is a pollutant. It pollutes.

Now - could you please tell us why you lied about receding glaciers?

since CO2 is the cingle most important case - ahead of oxygen - in the maintenance of the bisphere, your statement borders on the insane.

You don't actually know what the word "pollutant" means, do you.

Find yourself a dictionary. Look it up. CO2 can be a pollutant. As can clean, fresh water - when it is introduced in large quantities into a marine environment.

Look the word up. Stop making a fool of yourself.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

but the number of published anti-ACC articles rises daily

Evidence please. Otherwise I can only assume you are telling lies again - as you did when you told the lie about the receding glaciers

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

and the number of sceptical climate scientists also rises.

Evidence please. Otherwise I can only assume you are telling lies again - as you did when you told the lie about the receding glaciers

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

As much as you would like it to be different, the fact is that the sceptical position continues to grow daily both in numbers but also in the mountain of evidence.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

you still see the emperors new clothes. However the rest of us see him as smugly naked.

The rest of us are waiting for you to show us evidence to support your statement:

"actually glaciers have stopped recending,"

Please post that evidence or apologise to the forum for telling lies.

water is a pollutant, oxygen is a pollutant etc etc etc food is a pollutant. you are using the term ina context that renders it meaningless which actually renders YOUR original comment worthless. if the term pollutant can be used so widely and so indiscriminately then a statement like 'Co2 is a pollutant' is worthless as it conveys no meaningful information.

it is impossible to prove to you that the sceptic community is increasing rapidly because you just dismiss any evidence not to your liking. Just like in this and other threads where prominent scientists in the natural sciences and climatology put their name to the 'ACCC is crap' line you just ignore it. A nobel prize winner in physics says it and you discount it. A professor in climatology says ACC is crap and you dont even accept he has said so.

You are a mess of intellectual dishonesty. NOTHING can convince you or MOTR that you are wrong. there is no standard of proof that you will accept and because of that no argument that can be mounted.

YOU BELIEVE. that is all. But you certainly dont think critically. If you did you would at least accept that there is a credible sceptic argument.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137500 Gender:	Re: Global cooling Reply #178 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:32pm gold_medal wrote on Jan 8^th, 2013 at 1:03pm: YOU BELIEVE. that is all. But you certainly dont think critically. That's exactly right, and that's why AGW is gaining a reputation as a religion, rather than anything scientific: it's all based on faith.
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 137500 Gender:	Re: Global cooling Reply #179 - Jan 8^th, 2013 at 2:41pm I can hear the cries from rabbitoh07 now: "Really Greggery? A religion? And who's saying that Greggery, or are you just telling lies?" So, to keep the Bunny happy: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=AGW+Religion
Back to top	IP Logged