|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Jul 17, 2009 12:15:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 17, 2009 15:29:33 GMT
This Pilmer guy has been ripped to bits too many times in the past for him to be taken seriously. Here some of the most obvious flaws in his halfwitted ideas being debunked AGAIN. tbp.mattandrews.id.au/2009/06/06/debunking-plimer-heaven-and-earth/The science does not change just because enough idiots tell lies, Alpha. you have to try and remember everything this Pilmer guy has said before on this subject has been debunked. Try and find someone with credible ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Big Lin on Jul 17, 2009 21:48:29 GMT
GG is a man who knows a lot about this subject and IS a scientist.
I'm looking forward to hearing you and him have what will be a fascinating debate, RV.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Jul 18, 2009 0:31:49 GMT
We call that GoreBull Warming
|
|
|
Post by Alpha Hooligan on Jul 18, 2009 18:45:41 GMT
RV, I'll take MMGW more seriously when somebody gives me some research based on the several billion years of earth's existance, not 150 years worth of it.
I'm sick of people banging on about "warmest temps since records began"...it sounds good to the mindless sheeple, but not those of us who are aware that the earth has been far hotter and far cooler in the past 4 billion years or so.
AH
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 19, 2009 18:47:58 GMT
We call that GoreBull Warming Yes, but that only proves that American Republicans are backward anti science halfwits who would still be teachin the creation crap in science classes.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Jul 19, 2009 19:06:59 GMT
RV, I'll take MMGW more seriously when somebody gives me some research based on the several billion years of earth's existance, not 150 years worth of it. I'm sick of people banging on about "warmest temps since records began"...it sounds good to the mindless sheeple, but not those of us who are aware that the earth has been far hotter and far cooler in the past 4 billion years or so. AH The problem is though, alpha, the 'Greenhouse effect' is an integral part of the entire history of the Earth. You cannot separate the greenhouse effect out from other aspects of science relating to life on Earth. None of the other theories make sense unless the greenhouse effect is helping to drive the climate. No one disputes that the Earth has been colder and warmer than it is today. No one is disputing that we have seen rapid climate change in the past or that the factors affecting the climate where natural. What we are measuring is not part of a natural cycle, we are measuring the results of man made alterations in the balance. There are many things that effect climate, and the greenhouse effect is only one factor in a very complex ecosystem and CO2 is only one small (albeit critical) cog in the larger ‘machine’. However, that does not mean that we can ignore what we have done in altering that single relationship. We can and have been measuring thousands of variations and we can predict what effect they have on our climate, we are now measuring man’s impact on the climate and the pro science people can see the damage. It is up to the anti science people to explain why they have been wrong on EVERY other occasion, but think pretending the science is wrong this will bear fruit. Alpha, you hate science that much, that is fine, why have the anti science morons been proved wrong so many times before?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 4, 2009 0:15:29 GMT
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 4, 2009 0:15:52 GMT
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 4, 2009 10:06:07 GMT
had you bothered to actually read or get someone to read for you the clips, you would have noticed that some of these people actually accept that Global Warming is true!
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Aug 4, 2009 10:52:12 GMT
And had YOU bothered to read on RV, you would have noted that while they can accept that global warming IS taking place, they do NOT accept that this warming is entirely down to CO2 generated by mankind. And you really must start to realise that personal invective is no substitute for discussion. If you can, of course!
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 4, 2009 12:10:20 GMT
they do NOT accept that this warming is entirely down to CO2 generated by mankind. Had you bothered to read the the links you will have seen that Lomburg and Dyson accepts that CO2 IS actually causing warming! Dyson claims that that the models are too simplistic and Lomburg claims that Global Warming is not going to as bad as everyone thinks! Lomborg has been ripped to pieces and gets no respect: climateprogress.org/2009/07/09/bjorn-lomborg-debunking-copenhagen-global-warming-deneir/All the rest more or less settle for the same ideas, but none are 'respected' by scienists within the field. In fact The Aussie Pilmer has been humiliated too many times that it ceases to be funny. All he has done is rehashed the old myths: www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/11/not-the-ipcc-nipcc-report/Most of the rest are just your typical Right Wing idiots how have no knowledge of the science. To trot out Ivar Giaever who has been retired for some time really is rather shameful. An 80 year old man who won a nobel prize in 1973 in a completely different field? He is respected (or was) in his field, but climate science is not his field. The foul this man's reputation for some publicity, really shows up the anti science people up as scum (no other words fit, sorry).
|
|
|
Post by Ben Lomond on Aug 5, 2009 15:00:35 GMT
There you go again, RV. You simply haven't got the hang of this debating lark, have you? But if calling people with whom you disagree "scum" makes you feel warm all over, then who am I to deny you that pleasure?
And your final sentence is a grammatical nightmare.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 5, 2009 15:18:48 GMT
But if calling people with whom you disagree "scum" makes you feel warm all over, then who am I to deny you that pleasure? Ben, what kind of people would put an 80-year-old man with no qualifications in the subject up for public humiliation in order to gain a bit of publicity? What are they getting from that? To expose an 80 year old man to this type thing marks the deniers as 'scum' in my book. Do they think using the name of a Nobel prize winner from 1973 in an unrelated field, somehow gives their rather shoddy ‘science’ some credibility? Who, other than a halfwit is likely to be fooled by such disgusting tactics? The likes of Pilmer and the free market people are fair game, they are little more than industry shills and can expect no more than ridicule, but poor old Giaever? Why include him, just because he has said some mild statements concerning the science of climatology?
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 7, 2009 0:57:58 GMT
There is no doubt that we have a warming trend. But the evidence that man's activities are responsible is questionable at best. Even more questionable would be the proposition that man can do something about it.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 7, 2009 8:18:21 GMT
There is no doubt that we have a warming trend. But the evidence that man's activities are responsible is questionable at best. Even more questionable would be the proposition that man can do something about it. That is BS. All the evidence that has been gathered points to our CO2 emissions causing a serious and prolonged climate change. The American Right make the huge mistake of looking for an alternitive source for the heat, but you have got it the wrong way round: Isn't about 'hey look at this heat! Where is it comming from', it is the other way around, 'Look at the CO2 we are producing, how much extra heat will that trap? What you anti science people are unable to explain is if our CO2 is NOT trapping extra heat, then why isn't it. You have to explain the reason why natural CO2 is still absorbing infra red as predicted, but the huge human produced CO2 somehow does not. If you have a credible, scientific explaination as to why human CO2 does not react the way we predict, lets hear it sparky.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2009 5:39:15 GMT
The climate change deniers (or sceptics as i think they like to be called) are always complaining that their opinions are being ignored by the scientific community.
Someone (and I put a link up on a previous thread) tried to find people whose scientific research was rejected for publication, and failed. The Telegraph occasionally publishes stories like the one from the Spectator, and then the Guardian has great fun demolishing it.
So we need to see a proper debate - pit one scientist against t'other and put their arguments in print.
|
|
|
Post by DAS (formerly BushAdmirer) on Aug 8, 2009 16:22:09 GMT
Q. Is there a warming trend on planet Earth? A. I think yes.
Q. Is it caused by mankind's greenhouse emissions? A. Maybe. That's highly debatable.
Q. Can we do anything about it? A. Very very doubtful.
Q. Has the earth experienced similar warming trends in the past when there were no man-made emissions? A. Yes, most definitely.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 9, 2009 12:52:21 GMT
The climate change deniers (or sceptics as i think they like to be called) are always complaining that their opinions are being ignored by the scientific community. There is a World of difference between legitimate sceptics and just plain deniers. So we need to see a proper debate - pit one scientist against t'other and put their arguments in print. We have had proper debates on this for forty years and the cause of Global Warming is accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientific community. The odd denier dotted around the place, does not constitute science.
|
|
|
Post by randomvioce on Aug 9, 2009 13:07:15 GMT
Q. Is it caused by mankind's greenhouse emissions? A. Maybe. That's highly debatable. Debatable? What is there to Debate? The consensus among climate science is that human emissions are extra causing energy to be stored in the atmosphere. Can you explain why infra red radiation is NOT being stored in our CO” emissions? Q. Can we do anything about it? A. Very very doubtful. Doubtful? Why? Where is your data to support such an assertion? Q. Has the earth experienced similar warming trends in the past when there were no man-made emissions? A. Yes, most definitely. What kind of half asred ‘logic’ is that? No-one has disputed such events have occurred through natural causes, that does not change one iota of data collected on climate science. Natural and man made climate change are not mutually exclusive any more than natural deaths means murder cannot exist, does it? In fact, naturally occurring variance is used to strengthen the theory of climate change.
|
|