Australian Politics Forum - Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #15 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 1:17pm:

It's an implication of what you said. Your opening statement was with regards to a tax. Therefore, your main objection is political.

You did say that. It was actually the first point you made.

Any one in their right mind would look at the overall picture right.........?????

I mean even if we spend the last dollar on Earth on the carbon credit derivatives market for no net gain what is the point................????

Quote:

OK, Let's start with the established fact that you don't believe in the Greenhouse Effect then.

Are you going to change my mind...........????

Quote:

If you ask any smart high school student studying science, they will call that causation the "Greenhouse Effect". By the above statement, you are denying the existence of the Greenhouse Effect.

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #16 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:54pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Hey, they also teach that the sun is at the gravitational centre of the Solar System. That's known with the same level of confidence.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't believe in the Greenhouse effect?

So are you saying that these Spectra that show CO2 peaks at 15 microns, are fabrications?

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139651
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #17 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Yes, it is brainwashing.

However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method).

As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

If you can find a more closed-minded bunch of people, let me know. I won't hold my breath though.

Back to top

IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #18 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:56pm

Don't get out of bed tomorrow morning. There is only a 95-100% certainty that you won't get run over by a bus or meet your demise in some other way.

Are you going to risk it? Maybe you've been brainwashed and you're putting your life in danger subconsciously.

It's not a fact that you'll survive tomorrow. Better stay in bed.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139651
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #19 - Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:58pm

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:56pm:

Don't get out of bed tomorrow morning. There is only a 95-100% certainty that you won't get run over by a bus or meet your demise in some other way.

Are you going to risk it?

Oh dear.

You're struggling now.

You really should have quit while you were behind.

This is fascinating to watch though. Do continue ...

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139651 Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #20 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 12:25am Too easy.
Back to top	IP Logged

Innocent bystander Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 4220 Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #21 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:03am greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm: If you can find a more closed-minded bunch of people, let me know. I won't hold my breath though. The Taliban?
Back to top	IP Logged

muso

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 13151
Gladstone, Queensland
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #22 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:30am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Yes, it is brainwashing.

However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method).

As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

The very fact that you use the word "alarmist" shows that you have closed your mind on the possibility that AGW is valid, even though the vast majority of experts in the field say that it is with an unprecedented degree of certainty.

You are drawn to the subject. You are interested in the subject as a kind of morbid curiousity, but that's all.

Back to top

1523 people like this. The remaining 7,134,765,234 do not

IP Logged

Old Codger Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 547 Melbourne. Gender:	Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming Reply #23 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 9:04am Why? Because AGW is the greatest fraud/contrick/fabrication/lie/mass hysteria/ in human history. OC
Back to top	IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139651
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #24 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 9:25am

muso wrote on Oct 9^th, 2013 at 6:30am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 11:37pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 9:01pm:

How can a science that is VERY FAR from SETTLED be taught as fact in our schools.....brainwashing.....!!!!!!

Yes, it is brainwashing.

However, some of these alarmists actually believe that the science is settled (thus, they totally reject the scientific method).

As hard as it is to believe, there are alarmists on here who actually think that AGW is "an undeniable fact of nature".

The very fact that you use the word "alarmist" shows that you have closed your mind on the possibility that AGW is valid ...

Incorrect. More lies from muso (it seems to be all you have these days).

I have consistently maintained that the AGW theory might be correct. I'm very open minded on the subject (find me a post where I've said that AGW is 100% crap with no possibility of being correct - just one).

However, alarmists like you and Chimp just want to shut down debate. Chimp makes a ridiculously naive statement like "Anthropogenic Global Warming is an UNDENIABLE, OBSERVABLE FACT", and you actually support him. Unbelievable.

"undeniable"? Really? That doesn't sound very open-minded. In fact, it sounds like you guys have made up your minds and nothing will ever change them.

And, your comment on the term "alarmist" is laughable.

The shoe fits perfectly.

"alarmist

"A person who needlessly alarms or attempts to alarm others, as by inventing or spreading false or exaggerated rumors of impending danger or catastrophe.

"The alarmist prefers intimidation and coercion to reasoned debate, and is often motivated by the desire to bring themselves to the forefront of discussion.

"a person who tends to raise alarms, especially without sufficient reason, as by exaggerating dangers or prophesying calamities."

Back to top

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #25 - Oct 9^th, 2013 at 9:39am

muso wrote on Oct 8^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

Hey, they also teach that the sun is at the gravitational centre of the Solar System. That's known with the same level of confidence.

Why does it not surprise me that you don't believe in the Greenhouse effect?

So are you saying that these Spectra that show CO2 peaks at 15 microns, are fabrications?

I'm not interested in someone's opinion i'm interested in the science.

And when did,

Low confidence

Very unlikely

Became science fact

Source: AR5-Chapter 12. Table 12.4 page 78

Quote:

Table 12.4: Components in the Earth system that have been proposed in the literature as potentially being susceptible to abrupt or irreversible change. Column 2 defines whether or not a potential change can be considered to be abrupt under the AR5 definition. Column 3 states whether or not the process is irreversible in the context of abrupt change, and also gives the typical recovery time scales. Column 4 provides an assessment, if possible, of the likelihood of occurrence of abrupt change in the 21st century for the respective components or phenomena within the Earth system, for the scenarios considered in this chapter.

http://joannenova.com.au/

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #26 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:16am

Gosh, it all gets a tad challenging when credibility actually comes along though;

Someone did some reeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeeearch here;

http://desmogblog.com/2012/11/15/why-climate-deniers-have-no-credibility-science...

oh noes, not scientific credibility. Damn, don't bring that in to a opinion laden debate bullshit argument...

That was not very difficult to find, so I have to say, I am astounded at the deliberate reframing of information.

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Phemanderac

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 3507
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #27 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:24am

This from the linked article, now, take note of the word (and link) methodology - Generally speaking in any research, offering methodology demonstrates your process, assumptions and potential flaws/challenges to the information. Hell one would even include, as this bloke did, what information you left out and why.

"Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology."

and this is just priceless'

"By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

A graph too,

Back to top

On the 26th of January you are all invited to celebrate little white penal day...

"They're not rules as such, more like guidelines" Pirates of the Caribbean..

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #28 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:41am

Phemanderac wrote on Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:24am:

This from the linked article, now, take note of the word (and link) methodology - Generally speaking in any research, offering methodology demonstrates your process, assumptions and potential flaws/challenges to the information. Hell one would even include, as this bloke did, what information you left out and why.

"Polls show that many members of the public believe that scientists substantially disagree about human-caused global warming. The gold standard of science is the peer-reviewed literature. If there is disagreement among scientists, based not on opinion but on hard evidence, it will be found in the peer-reviewed literature.

I searched the Web of Science for peer-reviewed scientific articles published between 1 January 1991 and 9 November 2012 that have the keyword phrases "global warming" or "global climate change." The search produced 13,950 articles. See methodology."

and this is just priceless'

"By my definition, 24 of the 13,950 articles, 0.17% or 1 in 581, clearly reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for observed warming. The list of articles that reject global warming is here. The 24 articles have been cited a total of 113 times over the nearly 21-year period, for an average of close to 5 citations each. That compares to an average of about 19 citations for articles answering to "global warming," for example. Four of the rejecting articles have never been cited; four have citations in the double-digits. The most-cited has 17.

Of one thing we can be certain: had any of these articles presented the magic bullet that falsifies human-caused global warming, that article would be on its way to becoming one of the most-cited in the history of science."

Its a bit like the consensus isn't it...a joke.....?????

Quote:

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus…Not! – Forbes

By Larry Bell

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from?

It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois.

Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic.

That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions.

The first:

“When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?”

Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked:

“Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?”

So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged

Ajax

Gold Member

Offline

CO2 has never controlled
temperature on Earth

Posts: 10982
Australia
Gender: male

Re: Why I dont believe In Anthropogenic Global Warming
Reply #29 - Oct 10^th, 2013 at 7:42am

This is how John Cook from sceptical science tried to prove the consensus...!!!

Quote:

Cooks ’97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors

UPDATE: While this paper (a rebuttal) has been accepted, another paper by Cook and Nuccitelli has been flat out rejected by the journal Earth System Dynamics. See update below. – Anthony

“0.3% climate consensus, not 97.1%”

PRESS RELEASE – September 3rd, 2013

A major peer-reviewed paper by four senior researchers has exposed grave errors in an earlier paper in a new and unknown journal that had claimed a 97.1% scientific consensus that Man had caused at least half the 0.7 Cº global warming since 1950.

A tweet in President Obama’s name had assumed that the earlier, flawed paper, by John Cook and others, showed 97% endorsement of the notion that climate change is dangerous:

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” [Emphasis added]

The new paper by the leading climatologist Dr David Legates and his colleagues, published in the respected Science and Education journal, now in its 21st year of publication, reveals that Cook had not considered whether scientists and their published papers had said climate change was “dangerous”.

The consensus Cook considered was the standard definition: that Man had caused most post-1950 warming. Even on this weaker definition the true consensus among published scientific papers is now demonstrated to be not 97.1%, as Cook had claimed, but only 0.3%.

Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate papers Cook examined explicitly stated that Man caused most of the warming since 1950. Cook himself had flagged just 64 papers as explicitly supporting that consensus, but 23 of the 64 had not in fact supported it.

This shock result comes scant weeks before the United Nations’ climate panel, the IPCC, issues its fifth five-yearly climate assessment, claiming “95% confidence” in the imagined – and, as the new paper shows, imaginary – consensus.

Read more here

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/03/cooks-97-consensus-disproven-by-a-new-pape...

Back to top

1. There has never been a more serious assault on our standard of living than Anthropogenic Global Warming..Ajax
2. "One hour of freedom is worth more than 40 years of slavery & prison" Regas Feraeos

IP Logged