• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Iamme said:
I figured such a report would eat at the craw. :sdl:
Isn`t it sad that so many people take in stuff they say as gospel?
Click to expand...

In a revisionist twist of Mencken's words (but not his intentions) no-one has gone broke yet by over-estimating the ignorance and gullibility of people seeking to avoid their own personal responsibilities, regardless of consequences.
 
r-j said:
Tribbles started off as cute and everybody wanted one. Then they became a serious problem, leading to the disaster of them eating all the wheat seeds.

Then it turned out the wheat was poisoned, and they saved the colony from a disaster.

So tribbles were liked, then hated, then praised for saving the day. (but they all died doing so)

So tribbles are like global warming.

And also they responded badly to the evil alien, who was in disguise.
Click to expand...
So you've got nothing then.

Nobody liked AGW when it was first mooted as a problem. Some people like it because they think it will have a positive impact (Arrhenius was one; being Swedish he could see an attraction in a bit more warmth) but they mostly still do, when they're not claiming it isn't happening. It hasn't saved any day, nor will it. The only aliens involved are invasive species which respond well to it, and they're entirely open about it.

There simply is no sense in your post. It reads like a motion-to-dismiss drafted by Mark Steyn's lawyer (who has a fool for a client).

The actual moral of Trouble With Tribbles is that unbounded growth in a finite environment leads to disaster. Which really has nothing to do with AGW.
 
Iamme said:
Of course not. But isn`t hearing what i posted above, like a scratch you have to itch? How about calling up his radio show and setting him straight? If you might consider it, let me know, so i can tune in and listen. Lol.
Click to expand...
That's like gambling in a casino - the House wins because it controls the arena. Talking quietly doesn't work when you can't swing your big stick, and I never shout. I'm not very good at it, frankly.

In the big picture these people, and their listeners, count for nothing. It's the billionaires you have to watch out for.
 
Iamme said:
Isn`t it sad that so many people take in stuff they say as gospel?
Click to expand...
If they didn't we'd be a different species; you have to take the whole package. Intellectual progress might well have depended on the gullibility of the masses, who always have to do the hard lifting. Persuasion can get much more out of people than brute force.

You and I are lucky, of course; we're not gullible, are we? We're of the rational, thoughtful minority. ;)
 
macdoc said:
You do your credibility no favours putting up stuff out of context that you clearly do not understand the implications. ( or one would hope you would not publish it )
Click to expand...
HUH ???? .... all I did was quote a CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952

You dislike the report so then you attack me !!!!

Typical of you David .... any hint of global cooling and you deny it .... then you attack those who mention it .... and then you ultimately blame Koch & Exxon.

The cooling-deniers all seem to do that.

I would think that any hints of cooling would be seen as good news.

I would think that if the predicted catastrophies were wrong it would be good news for the planet
 
Arnold Martin said:
Many people still continue to be influenced by the scare tactics and propaganda

However , It appears the planet has refused to obey the false prophets.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
Click to expand...


You're perilously close to conspiracy territory here. Is that really where you want to pitch your tent?

I've posted this long ago in this thread, and it still stands. There are but two choices:

(1) All the evidence demonstrating the reality of global warming for decades by scientists around the world is simply wrong. In which case you have to explain how all those scientists got it wrong and continue to get it wrong, and furnish some proof;

(2) All the evidence demonstrating the reality of global warming for decades by scientists around the world is false and has been deliberately manufactured. In which case you're going to have to explain how this global conspiracy was created, who started it, how were people brought into this conspiracy and why they support it, who funds it, how is it organized and managed, and what it's ultimate purpose is. And you'll have to furnish some proof for all of that.

So, which option are you going to choose?
 
Corsair 115 said:
You're perilously close to conspiracy territory here. Is that really where you want to pitch your tent?

I've posted this long ago in this thread, and it still stands. There are but two choices:

(1) All the evidence demonstrating the reality of global warming for decades by scientists around the world is simply wrong. In which case you have to explain how all those scientists got it wrong and continue to get it wrong, and furnish some proof;

(2) All the evidence demonstrating the reality of global warming for decades by scientists around the world is false and has been deliberately manufactured. In which case you're going to have to explain how this global conspiracy was created, who started it, how were people brought into this conspiracy and why they support it, who funds it, how is it organized and managed, and what it's ultimate purpose is. And you'll have to furnish some proof for all of that.

So, which option are you going to choose?
Click to expand...

Are you saying it is a conspiracy to point out the incorrect predictions of the IPPC ?
Do you agree warming trends have plateaued for the past 14 years or so ?
 
Arnold Martin said:
.


In 2008 the same people said it would happen by 2010.

But they were wrong

Many people still continue to be influenced by the scare tactics and propaganda

However , It appears the planet has refused to obey the false prophets.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
Click to expand...

Exactly what evidence leads you to believe that these statements were incorrect or wrong, yet alone "scare tactics and propaganda"?


Migration, Environment and Climate Change:
ASSESSING THE EVIDENCE
http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefwe...FE4733F4D26C7C125768600396F64-Full_Report.pdf

The State of Environmental Migration 2010
http://www.iddri.org/Publications/Collections/Analyses/STUDY0711_SEM 2010_web.pdf

Climate Change Makes Refugees in Bangladesh
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-change-refugees-bangladesh/
 
Arnold Martin said:
If we are having a period of non-warming that is longer than the previous period of warming I see it as good news

Who wouldn't ?
Click to expand...

I think jelly bean bushes would be very cool, who wouldn't, but that doesn't mean that there is any compelling evidence indicating that jelly bean bushes are a reality.
 
Arnold Martin said:
HUH ???? .... all I did was quote a CBC article http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/arctic-sea-ice-volume-up-50-1.2465952
Click to expand...
Everyone likes the report - it is science!
An attempt to seemingly mislead everyone about the contents of the news article by missing out the sub-title:
Arctic sea ice volume up 50% But 2013 volume still among lowest of past 30 years, study finds.
lead people to attack your position since it implies that you are a climate change denier.

The correct response is to state your position on AGW and back it up with evidence. For example there is no evidence that there is your 'global cooling" and so that should not be your position.
There is evidence for global warming. There is evidence for natural variability in global temperatures. There is evidence that the global temperatures over the last decade are within the natural variability, e.g. New Paper: On Forced Temperature Changes, Internal Variability and the AMO
 
Arnold Martin said:
In 2008 the same people said it would happen by 2010.
Click to expand...
No they didn't.

But they were wrong
Click to expand...
That's why they didn't.

Many people still continue to be influenced by the scare tactics and propaganda
Click to expand...
If you're referring to windfarms, you're quite right.

However , It appears the planet has refused to obey the false prophets.

http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/ga10725.doc.htm
Click to expand...
What predictions do you feel have not been accurate? (Predictions of what would have happened by now, obviously, not predictions that 2020 would happen and it hasn't.)

I can think of one prediction that's been wrong : that the world would entered a long-term cooling phase around 2005. You may remember it; quite a few people jumped on that bandwagon. Ten years on it really hasn't worked out at all well and is looking less and less promising.

With regard to conflict, the Syrian violence was preceded by years of severe drought, the sort of thing which is predicted to become more common in that region. This led to a breakdown of rural society in many areas and an influx of peasantry to the cities. This destabilisation contributed to the explosion and general nightmare that's resulted.

Drought in the Ukraine is predicted to get more common; let's keep fingers crossed over that. Drought in the South-West US is predicted to become more frequent, and we have an ongoing example of what impact such droughts can have on food prices and rural communities. The same can be said of droughts in South America.

These are all examples of things which will get more frequent and are pretty undesirable.
 
Arnold Martin said:
The cooling-deniers all seem to do that.

I would think that any hints of cooling would be seen as good news.

I would think that if the predicted catastrophies were wrong it would be good news for the planet
Click to expand...
Well it isn't actually cooling, so there is no merit to that part of your post. However, the weather has not increased short term as much as it could have due to the oceans. So yeah, that's good news. It is a bit of a break for us. :cool: Gives us a bit more time to implement mitigation....hopefully.
 
Last edited:
Arnold Martin said:
Are you saying it is a conspiracy to point out the incorrect predictions of the IPPC ?
Click to expand...
He did not say that - he said "perilously close to conspiracy territory here".
The problem is that you cite a UN meeting with politicians going on about the need to act soon (in 2008) in the battle against global warming. There are no "incorrect predictions of the IPPC" pointed out in that meeting. There is no mention of the IPPC or IPCC at all :jaw-dropp!
There are probably incorrect statements by the politicians in that meeting, e.g. "estimated that there would be between 50 million and 200 million environmental migrants by 2010" when the estimates in 2008 were about 50 to 250 million people by 2050.

Arnold Martin said:
Do you agree warming trends have plateaued for the past 14 years or so ?
Click to expand...
Not really: The warming trend has decreased (no plateaued as in gone to zero change) over the past decade or so. This has just part of natural variability.
 
Last edited:
Arnold Martin said:
Are you saying it is a conspiracy to point out the incorrect predictions of the IPPC ?
Do you agree warming trends have plateaued for the past 14 years or so ?
Click to expand...
A couple of points:

1. It's IPCC not IPPC.

2. Even the surface temperature records are showing increases over that time period. OHC records show strong warming trends...

3. Applying the methods of Foster and Rahmstorf or Cowtan and Way show strong warming trends in the surface temperature records too.

Please provide evidence of a 'conspiracy' aiming to hide shortcomings of the IPCC reports, to me it looks like you are hand-waving to hide a lack of evidence to back up your claims.
 
One criticism of the IPCC is that it is too conservative (despite Richard Tol's rants). AR4 specifically excluded studies showing higher run-offs from Greenland ice-cap because studies showing that missed the publication deadlines.

Personnally I'm now in favour of annual update reports on the science and implications. This should capture recent changes in understanding better and would give a more frequent nudge to the general public about the implications.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom