Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:


Yeah, I kind of think the article pretty much agrees with some of what you say ironically.

And, my admittedly limited understanding of scientific process is far less limited than my understanding of the history of scientific practices. Hence I am very well aware of how accepted theories are constantly (maybe over decades) tested, revisited, adapted and changed as new data and technology allow us to think we know more. To my mind, science is basically the sport of eventually proving the things we think we know as either right or wrong. Getting acceptance of the knowledge is down to politics, business and marketing. There is the major flaw behind all science.

ok, a new PB, triple posted.

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 11:24am:



You want a list of what I agree with as far as AGW? I don't think I agree with anything about the AGW theory. But if you check back I made some predictions about what the fifth assessment report was going to push.

- Reduced ice coverage
- Ocean Acidification
- Extreme weather events
- Ocean warming

None of the above I'm willing to say is human induced. We're returning from a mini ice age and warming is expected, the hilarious thing is people thinking a 0.25/0.5 degree warming after coming out of a mini ice age is some how abnormal.

I agree that coming out of this mini-ice age the prediction done by Akasofu that the earth will probably warm another 0.6 degrees or so over the next decade or two then trail off again. I'll attach his little prediction at the end of this post.

The increased temperature and increased c02 seems to causing warming in the top 70m of the ocean which is not detrimental at all that's a joke, as well as some slight Acidification alongside some rise in the ocean. All is to be expected as the earth heats up and then trails off to go cool again.

My main gripe you need to remember is two things:
1. Carbon pricing is useless and detrimental to all civilized countries
2. The earth will heat and cool, so far there predictions have been utter failures, leading me to believe it's happening just as it always has, if our effect was as large as they say the data would prove this, not some 17 year stall and 0.25 degree rise  and some slight few mm rise in the ocean.

No one here is against a transition to alternative energy, hell I want deregulation and less restriction so people can be truly innovative and work towards energy that's more efficient then almost useless wind/solar. So we aren't stopping you guys we aren't some enemy trying to keep the world on fossil fuels until peak oil drops off and everything goes to sh*t.

Climate change whether it's man made or not is an issue shared with the majority of earths people, same with pollution. Get the government out of the market and allow people to adapt and prepare for the climate change that will happen regardless and allow people to be innovative in clean technologies.

But my big gripe with the IPCC and the AGW theory besides the above is data manipulation and the failure of the AGW theory to hold up to empirical testing. When the data starts matching what comes out of their mouths then I will listen until then I will despise their political tactics of manipulation and fear mongering.

.

Vuk11 wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

So you need to call yourself a denier not s skeptic. Skeptics acknowledge room for doubt buy their is no doubt in your mind. Nothing that the experts say about AGW is credible or gives you cause to pause. Everything they say about AGW is undeniably wrong to you. And you wonder why we dismiss you as a propagandist? You with no relevant science qualifications. If you were genuine and honest you would clearly see the the stupidity of your position but your not genuine and honest. Your here on a mission and you need to piss off now cause you've been found out.

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 19^th, 2013 at 11:55am:



Well, it would seem to my simple mind that the patently obvious solution would be to ascertain the scientific cred of the link. i.e. is it from a recognised and respected scientific institute? I realise that these links only lead to more work, because basically the poster will have to actually do the writing work to explain what their link is all about in that it may be that the link will be to pure data (measurements, graphs etc etc etc).

This is why I point to both sides of the debate, which you seem to be attempting to question....

I am not questioning the actual science here, because, as I see it, that is not being presented presently. This is regardless of what I feel to be correct, but as an observation of how this debate is played out for the main part in the main stream (media) and on these forums.

By the way, I am not arguing for or against your position here, I have clearly expressed my view that the bigger picture debate should be about stopping pollution broadly. Mainly because that seems to me to be far more pertinent, more easily grasped by people not from scientific backgrounds and being totally avoided by this silly debate. Now, before you start, it is a silly debate because of how (observably) it presently plays out in the media and public forums - I am sure for those who the science is decided this is very frustrating, but, I think it evident that;

a) The science is complex and, therefore, not easily understood by people not well studied in specific sciences.

b) On such a large scale that it is difficult to observe the changes that occur and, therefore, easy to dismiss. Fear plays a part in this, I don't mean fear as in "OMG the world is going to end", but, fear that we (humans) may have stuffed it up and cannot (are afraid to) accept responsibility for this.

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 7:31am:


...well according to priests the only infallible thing in the universe is their religion

Science I suppose is religious in the sense that it has priests, holy texts and temples of worship commonly known as laboratories

The difference being is that their bible is continually being re-written and added to.

With all its human frailties, the peer reviewed process combined with the scientific rigour of reproducibility and validation, is very effective. The important thing is that corrections and improvements are encouraged and form part of the process

Over the decades the scientific evidence that supports AGW has merely grown. If any scientist can attribute the recent warming trends and their rapid rates to a natural mechanism or non-human driver they are welcome to publish their theory and data.

Ajax wrote on Oct 20^th, 2013 at 9:24am:



where are the models that predict ZERO warming or even cooling as CO2 levels rise in the earths atmosphere?

Havent you found one yet?

(hint: even EXXON cant produce one and they are the largest corporation in human history - in fact EXXON are quite comfortable with the global warming science and recommend urgent action be taken to mitigate climate change effects in the future. Why would EXXON hold this position which is so different to your religious beliefs and paranoid conspiracy tax dogma?)