Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[batvette]

Is Delingpole a climate scientist? No? Then he doesn't matter.

Neither do you. He's published by a major media source. You are not.

 

[DC]

Neither do you. He's published by a major media source. You are not.

so he is paid to sell opinion and stories? not for understanding science?

 

[batvette]

Uninformed octogenarians can’t find work? Shocking!

What is your solution to this, do you want the government to step in and force companies to hire someone they don’t want?

Is he lying?

 

[DC]

I was asked:




Sounds like you don't like evidence.

you did not post any evidence for the world wide conspiracy you were talking about.

 

[DC]

Is he lying?

about AGW? yes he is.

 

[uke2se]

I was asked:




Sounds like you don't like evidence.

Sounds like you don't know what evidence is.

 

[greybeard]

I was asked:

I think you will have to come up with something better than that to prove what is essentially just another conspiracy theory.

Sounds like you don't like evidence.

Was that really the best evidence you could find? A political commentary from a contributor to the Alac Jones programme. Going back a few pages, to my original question to you, tell us whether you believe in AGW so we can discuss that. Leave the politics out of it and let us discuss the science because this is after all a science forum not a political forum.

 

[uke2se]

Neither do you. He's published by a major media source. You are not.

So? He's still irrelevant.

 

[uke2se]

Seems we have reached the bottom of the barrel of climate denialism now. I didn't think it was possible for the denialist "arguments" to get any dumber, but I was wrong.

 

[Buckaroo]

Neither do you. He's published by a major media source. You are not.

Are you sure? Some of us here, myself included, have been "published by a major media source," and on this topic to boot. Where have you been published? Why do you matter?

 

[BenBurch]

Meanwhile, here is what to be watching the next 3-4 years;

http://nsidc.org/greenland-today/

 

[GeneMachine]

Don't mind me, I'm just over here in the corner talking about the "coming Ice Age" myth.

It's the annual thread reset alright.

 

[BenBurch]

Of course the old standard is going to be amusing too; http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

 

[batvette]

Was that really the best evidence you could find? A political commentary from a contributor to the Alac Jones programme. Going back a few pages, to my original question to you, tell us whether you believe in AGW so we can discuss that. Leave the politics out of it and let us discuss the science because this is after all a science forum not a political forum.

Why do you care what my position is on AGW? What in heaven's name bearing would that have on the issue, besides give you an opportunity to attack my person?
Let's see, I posted evidence of a US Senate inquiry into an attempt to marginalize dissent about climate change.
I posted a link to a book by a Telegraph UK environmental journalist, who documents an atmosphere of tactics including censorship and character assasination.
And I posted a link to an article about a former BBC wildlife broadcaster who was "shunned for his views on climate change" while his six years older colleague who toed the line on consensus easily found work.

You describe something else. I did not post any links to Alex Jones, though I am not surprised to see such a misportrayal.

As for this topic I see in the OP it describes this as for "general global warming discussion". I don't see how the failed policies are outside this.

 

[lomiller]

Is he lying?

Why would he need to be lying? He’s old and he holds beliefs related to his field that are completely unsupportable by the current science. These, by themselves, are adequate justification for not hiring him.

You have yet to answer my question as to why you think governments should step in and force companies to hire him even if they don’t think he’s suitable for the job.

 

[uke2se]

Why do you care what my position is on AGW? What in heaven's name bearing would that have on the issue, besides give you an opportunity to attack my person?

Well, because you are seemingly allergic to science, your opinion is the only thing you can contribute. If you won't even contribute that, you should leave the thread as your posts are just a waste of bandwidth right now.

Let's see, I posted evidence of a US Senate inquiry into an attempt to marginalize dissent about climate change.

You posted a news story about loony denialist James Inhofe doing his standard routine. Not evidence of any global conspiracy.

I posted a link to a book by a Telegraph UK environmental journalist, who documents an atmosphere of tactics including censorship and character assasination.

You posted a link to a book by a prominent climate denier and exposed liar who has no credibility with anyone even somewhat intelligent.

And I posted a link to an article about a former BBC wildlife broadcaster who was "shunned for his views on climate change" while his six years older colleague who toed the line on consensus easily found work.

You posted a link to a news story about an old contrarian who's angry at everyone and blames them and their conspiracy for not letting him work. Well done.

You describe something else. I did not post any links to Alex Jones, though I am not surprised to see such a misportrayal.

Nobody said you did. Perhaps you should learn to read?

As for this topic I see in the OP it describes this as for "general global warming discussion". I don't see how the failed policies are outside this.

What failed policies are those, and how and why did they fail?

 

[Mikemcc]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/9798713/David-Attenborough-was-sceptical-about-global-warming-claims-David-Bellamy.html

Hmmm, Bellamy stopped making programs 10 years before he started mentioning his new views. When he was picked up on his incorrect statements he "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", just one year after starting to talk about AGW.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change

The only organisation that did dump him for his climate views was the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. A little bit of research before posting up dribble from denial sites might not go adrift.

It's also a good idea to post up links to indicate where you get quotes from so that they can be placed in context.

 

[DC]

Hmmm, Bellamy stopped making programs 10 years before he started mentioning his new views. When he was picked up on his incorrect statements he "decided to draw back from the debate on global warming", just one year after starting to talk about AGW.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/climate-change-scepticism-climate-change

The only organisation that did dump him for his climate views was the Royal Society of Wildlife Trusts. A little bit of research before posting up dribble from denial sites might not go adrift.

It's also a good idea to post up links to indicate where you get quotes from so that they can be placed in context.

they never fact check anything, on YT i just had a denier claiming the IPCC dropped the Mann "hockey stick" from the AR4.... right after i posted a link to the very part of AR4 that uses the mann reconstructin lol.

 

[Mikemcc]

Why do you care what my position is on AGW? What in heaven's name bearing would that have on the issue, besides give you an opportunity to attack my person?
Let's see, I posted evidence of a US Senate inquiry into an attempt to marginalize dissent about climate change.

Does the Senate have the equivalent of Hansard? That post was put up by Marc Morano, hardly an un-biased source, about an alleged e-mail from the head of one lobby group (whom I'd never heard of previously) to the head of another lobby group who has history of distorting facts.

I posted a link to a book by a Telegraph UK environmental journalist, who documents an atmosphere of tactics including censorship and character assasination.

James Delingpole! The interpreter of interpretations!

You are seriously put forward James Delingpole as a source on a science based forum? You'll be using the creationist Christopher Booker next.

And I posted a link to an article about a former BBC wildlife broadcaster who was "shunned for his views on climate change" while his six years older colleague who toed the line on consensus easily found work.

About a tired old man who got caught out using Singers distorted 'facts' and decided to retire from te conversation because he realised he was wrong.

 

[batvette]

You can all just think about this:

The years since the implementation of the Kyoto Protocol have seen Global GGE not only rise, but their rate of increase has risen as well. Yet more of the same is all that is being discussed, and you people don't seem to care one bit and seem content to merely use it as a tool for political capital.

The reasons for this are probably as complex as they are simple and stupid. Like DC and Bill Gates, confused ideologies which have conflicting goals you will refuse to admit are just plain silly.

Political capital for some of you means nothing more than being able to point at a bogeyman and give you something to postulate upon, like labeling me a "denier" when I made it clear I DON'T know the science on this and it's too hard to determine when it's become so tainted by ideologues on every rung of the ladder, who will stoop to the lowest tactics to further their agendas.

Your agreement is never going to be a prerequisite for these issues to have merit, and since not one of you has seriously approached why Kyoto has failed your own actions more than validate my observations.