Jump to content

Climate Change Consensus?


Recommended Posts

Steve Fielding recently asked the Obama administration to reassure him on the science of man-made global warming. When the administration proved unhelpful, Mr. Fielding decided to vote against climate-change legislation.

If you haven't heard of this politician, it's because he's a member of the Australian Senate. As the U.S. House of Representatives prepares to pass a climate-change bill, the Australian Parliament is preparing to kill its own country's carbon-emissions scheme. Why? A growing number of Australian politicians, scientists and citizens once again doubt the science of human-caused global warming.

The number of skeptics, far from shrinking, is swelling. Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe now counts more than 700 scientists who disagree with the U.N. -- 13 times the number who authored the U.N.'s 2007 climate summary for policymakers. Joanne Simpson, the world's first woman to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, expressed relief upon her retirement last year that she was finally free to speak "frankly" of her nonbelief. Dr. Kiminori Itoh, a Japanese environmental physical chemist who contributed to a U.N. climate report, dubs man-made warming "the worst scientific scandal in history." Norway's Ivar Giaever, Nobel Prize winner for physics, decries it as the "new religion." A group of 54 noted physicists, led by Princeton's Will Happer, is demanding the American Physical Society revise its position that the science is settled. (Both Nature and Science magazines have refused to run the physicists' open letter.)

Wall Street Journal

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good article, particularly this part;

"The collapse of the "consensus" has been driven by reality. The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans. A global financial crisis has politicians taking a harder look at the science that would require them to hamstring their economies to rein in carbon."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of scientists still believe global climate change is real.

I would have less of a problem with the WSJ article if it left out the politics. I also have a hard time with anyone who only looks at an 8 year period to say global warming is not happening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A new survey of over 500 peer reviewed scientific research papers on climate change, written between 2004 and 2007, has concluded that less than half endorse what has been dubbed the "consensus view," that human activity is contributing to considerable global climate change.

Majority do not believe in Global Warming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No evidence of global warming here in ontario the past 2 years,as a matter of fact its cooler

I do it the scientific way,i stick my nose out the door,and the past 2 spring and summers have been wet and cool

Hardly use the air,thats a simple and accurate test for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will take your link with a grain of salt SD as the content of the website looks a bit out there.

I have said this before. Whether or not you believe in global warming or global climate change, and whether or not you believe it is man made or not, does it not make sense to do what ever we can to help out the environment.

I think buying carbon credits is a huge scam but I do not see the downside to trying to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Let the links posting begin:

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real

Global warming not a new idea

The supposed "global cooling" consensus among scientists in the 1970s — frequently offered by global-warming skeptics as proof that climatologists can't make up their minds — is a myth, according to a survey of the scientific literature of the era.

Interesting reading here and at least it is citated:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to the most common skeptical arguments on global warming

Link to comment
Share on other sites

June 2009 on Southern Vancouver Island will be the warmest June since 2006, with a median temp of 15.9, (compared to 16 in 2006, 14 in 2007 and 13.4 in 2008).

This is the first time in quite some time a month has been warmer than the corresponding month the previous year. It's happened just 4 times since Jan 2007.

May was easily the coldest in at least 4 years, as was Jan, Feb and March.

April was about the same as 2008, and a full degree colder than 2007 and 2006.

Global warming?

Not here.

cool26.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bogeymen Of The C02 Hoax Losing Ground

You can discover what your enemy fears most by observing the means he uses to frighten you. Eric Hoffer

James Hansen, head of NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS), and Andrew Weaver, lead author of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Reports, made statements clearly designed to frighten people.

Both men are politically active in climate change and at the forefront of the attempt to convince the world that CO2 is a problem. Their remarks are intended to scare people by threatening impending doom – nothing new - except there is increasing urgency and fear because their message is failing. As Andrew Weaver summarized, ”All those fossil fuel emissions need to be eliminated. And we must do so quickly if we are to have any chance of stabilizing the climate and maintaining human civilization as we know it.”

Hansen increases urgency for action claiming we are on the verge of a tipping point, defined as follows. “Tipping points can occur during climate change when the climate reaches a state such that strong amplifying feedbacks are activated by only moderate additional warming.”

We’re reaching a tipping point, but it’s not the one Hansen anticipates. We’re close to the point where the public and politicians realize they have been totally deceived about the nature and cause of climate change. Even before a shift to concern about the economy polls showed a growing shift in public opinion.

Weaver is also troubled by his own definition of dramatic change occurring. He wrote in a March 24 article, in the Vancouver Sun, “There are many depressing things about being a climate scientist these days. The emerging data is going from bad to worse and the political leadership is still acting as if we have all the time in the world to deal with global warming.”

Yes, it’s depressing but because people are not fooled any more and politicians are not acting as Weaver expects. And yes, emerging data is going from bad to worse, but only because it shows CO2 is not causing warming.

Other remarks by both men indicate their fear. For example, Hansen said, “The democratic process doesn’t seem to be working.”

It’s a bizarre comment from a civil servant prior to his apparently breaking US law (the Hatch Act) again by participating in a public protest at the headquarters of E.ON, a power firm in Coventry, England. The push for elimination of CO2 emissions is failing because, despite his histrionics, democracy is working.

A few days later in the Vancouver Sun article ironically titled “’Environmentalists’ are abandoning science,” Weaver wrote, “The scientific community has a very solid understanding of what is causing global warming: It is overwhelmingly because of the combustion of fossil fuels. Thus, the solution to the problem is as simple as it is daunting: The elimination of fossil fuel use in our economies.”

Weaver claims he and his IPCC colleagues “have been as a clear as we know how about the science and the measures needed.” This is simply not the case. Their rules mean they only look at human causes of climate change. They produce a political summary for policymakers then used to make sure the science report agrees with the summary. (Canada Free Press)

More important, the entire claim of human caused CO2 global warming is based on computer models that simply can’t work.

It’s not surprising Hansen and Weaver are computer modelers; they have the most invested in these claims and the most to lose professionally and politically. I watched over the years as computer modelers took over and dominated climate science, particularly through the IPCC. But as Freeman Dyson, Professor Emeritus of Physics at Princeton, said in the May 1999 issue of the American Physical Society and still valid today, “They are not yet adequate tools for predicting climate.” However, “If we persevere patiently with observing the real world and improving the models, the time will come when we are able both to understand and to predict. Until then, we must continue to warn the politicians and the public: don’t believe the numbers just because they come out of a supercomputer.”

Or as Pierre Gallois put it, “If you put tomfoolery into a computer, nothing comes out of it but tomfoolery. But this tomfoolery, having passed through a very expensive machine, is somehow ennobled and no-one dares criticize it.” - but more and more people are criticizing it.

Why have two prominent scientists made such unsupportable sensationalist comments? Simple – they’re losing control of their ability to achieve their political objectives. Here is a list of events raising their fears:

• Even the lowest computer model temperature projections have overestimated the reality. They failed to project the cooling that has occurred since 2000.

• That cooling occurred as CO2 levels rose in complete contradiction to IPCC assumptions.

• Scientists doing proper science yet derogatively labeled skeptics by Hansen and Weaver have consistently shown the fallacy in the assumptions and methods of the IPCC.

• The Kyoto Accord has failed and attempts to find a replacement are failing.

• Proponents of the claims of human induced global warming, such as Al Gore, have lost credibility by making money from the sale of carbon credits.

• Increasingly illogical statements, such as the claim that current cooling is due to warming, raise doubts even if you don’t understand the science.

• More and more politicians, such as Northern Ireland’s Sammy Watson and Czech Republic President Vaclav Klaus are speaking out against global warming claims.

• The real cost of reducing CO2 emissions and the inadequacies of alternative fuels are emerging.

• The public does not see warming as a concern. A Pew Center poll of January 22, 2009 showed it 20th on a list of 20 top priorities. On March 25, 2009 the Gallup Pole reported, “Global warming is clearly the environmental issue of least concern to Americans. In fact, global warming is the only issue for which more Americans say they have little to no concern than say they have a great deal of concern.”

• The growing lack of commitment of the Obama government who they believed would implement their policies. Hansen notes, “he was growing “concerned” over the stance taken by the new US administration on global warming.”

Instead of accepting that their science and proposed actions are wrong they blame the people. Hansen’s comment that democracy isn’t working means it is not doing what he wants. Weaver’s remark that, “The public debate is becoming a caricature” is an arrogant insult and sadly typical of my experience with too many of the climate modelers. The people whose fears and lack of knowledge they exploited and who they thought were too stupid to understand are using democracy to stop the fraud. Hansen and Weaver’s comments disclose their fears as Hoffer predicted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada to match U.S. climate change rules

Environment Minister Jim Prentice says regulations must be ‘comparable' to avoid punitive tariffs on oil sands and other big greenhouse-gas emitters

Tuesday, Jun. 30, 2009 - Globe and Mail

Shawn McCarthy

Ottawa - Canada will adopt climate-change regulations comparable to those of the United States – including new rules for oil sands producers and refiners – to avoid punitive “green” tariffs, Environment Minister Jim Prentice says.

In an interview Tuesday, Mr. Prentice said it is too early to predict whether the bill that narrowly passed the U.S. House of Representatives last Friday will be adopted in its current form by the Senate, where it faces a rougher ride.

But he said Canada will bring in regulations to match new U.S. laws governing greenhouse-gas emissions – and vowed to be as tough on Canadian industry as the U.S. government is on its big emitters.

Under the American Clean Energy and Security Act, all U.S. industrial emitters will need permits for every tonne of greenhouse gases they send into the atmosphere. The U.S. oil industry argues that the bill will hammer the refining sector by forcing companies to pay huge fees for the permits, while other industries – notably the power sector – would receive free permits to cover a portion of their current emissions.

The Waxman-Markey bill (named for its co-sponsors, Democrats Henry Waxman of California and Edwin Markey of Massachusetts) also contains measures that would penalize Canadian exporters if Washington determines that Ottawa's regulations are less vigorous than those adopted by the United States.

'Canada would have little choice but to match the U.S. measures,'

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

I would have less of a problem with the WSJ article if it left out the politics.  I also have a hard time with anyone who only looks at an 8 year period to say global warming is not happening.

What politics did WSJ put in the article? It is an opinion column.

As for the other statement....we know global warming is happening. My property used to be under ice. The question is whether it is because of humans.

Global warming due to humans...the scam of the century.

"The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans." according to the article posted above.

Maybe soon Suzuki will go back to his global cooling theory and all the greenies that seem to want us to go back to caveman days will be disappointed, especially when they realize that their cry wolf led to a big increase in nuclear power.

Not much evidence of global warming in the east in the last two years either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Dear Woxof.... sigh.... do you still not know...? ....

Looks like myself and a growing number of scientists "Still Do Not Know".

Please, tell us what we should do.

You didn't really believe that Gwynn Dyer podcast with his scenarios including global warming leading to nuclear war did you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

SUMMER 2008.....

"Ontario’s summer peak electricity demand is now at its lowest level since 2004 when it peaked at 23,976 MW. The drop in demand was due to a combination of a cool summer, the downturn in our economy and energy conservation. According to Hydro One, for example, approximately one-third of the drop in its demand was due to cooler weather"

http://www.cleanairalliance.org/node/606

LAST WINTER......

On top of that, November and December were slightly cooler than normal and January was “relentlessly cold,” he says, noting the month’s temperatures were three to 3.5 degrees colder than its normal temperature and seven degrees colder than it was last winter.

http://dcnonl.com/article/id32514

THIS SUMMER SO FAR.....

"Still, Phillips said that this spring (March, April and May) has been the coldest season in five years, in terms of average temperatures right across the country."

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...hub=CTVNewsAt11

And last but not least for our western friends......

"How's this for cold comfort? Sask-atoon's deep freeze is likely the longest streak of low temperatures below -25 C that has numbed this city since record-keeping began in 1892."

http://www.canada.com/saskatoonstarphoenix...1c-8584a406604d

Woxof....for some, the obvious is not so obvious(sigh).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woxof.... sigh... one more time just for you... There is a vast difference between "climate" and "weather". Looking at the "weather" in any given location, over as ridiculously short a period as two years won't even get you close to seeing any "climate" change, regardless of what happened. By posting things like last year's weather you're proving yourself to be somewhat clueless. ....Ok, so maybe I shouldn't say that, but I'm losing patience with you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Woxof.... sigh... one more time just for you... There is a vast difference between "climate" and "weather". Looking at the "weather" in any given location, over as ridiculously short a period as two years won't even get you close to seeing any "climate" change, regardless of what happened. By posting things like last year's weather you're proving yourself to be somewhat clueless. ....Ok, so maybe I shouldn't say that, but I'm losing patience with you.

Hmmm...lets see. I said earlier in the thread...."we know global warming is happening. My property used to be under ice. The question is whether it is because of humans."

The Bean had mentioned about it being colder in the last few years on Vancouver Island and I tossed in at the end of my post how it has been cooler over the last two years in the east("Not much evidence of global warming in the east in the last two years either"). There have been several replies from Mitch with smirks, sighs and me being clueless.

I would suggest perhaps, more thorough Reading and Comprehension of this thread would go a long way toward making you more clueful. And in your line of work doing that sort of thing would be extremely important.

Or you could come up with an explanation for a quote I posted earlier....

"The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans."

It is just a quote from an article and could be erroneous... so please, clue the rest of us in. Smilies, sighs and insults will not further your arguments much although they do seem to be a pattern.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 years is not a sample size that is statistically significant.

Your condescending remarks about people's reading comprehension not withsatnding, perhaps yopu should read the ling I posted in regards to "global cooling".

I think a lot of the anti-climate change crowd simply doesn’t want to believe because environmentalists annoy them.

They say, “I’m not going to let some pansy, pencil-necked wimp tell me how to live!” They don’t want people – elitist snobs! – telling them to separate their plastics, or to stop using certain words because they’re not PC, or drive cleaner cars, etc. Whether the pencil-necked wimps are correct doesn't matter.

Maybe I’m totally off, I don’t know. I just think a lot of this anti-science, anti-intellectualism is simply a matter of not wanting to be bothered.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

8 years is not a sample size that is statistically significant. 

perhaps yopu should read the ling I posted in regards to "global cooling".

I think a lot of the anti-climate change crowd simply doesn’t want to believe because environmentalists annoy them.

They say, “I’m not going to let some pansy, pencil-necked wimp tell me how to live!” They don’t want people – elitist snobs! – telling them to separate their plastics, or to stop using certain words because they’re not PC, or drive cleaner cars, etc. Whether the pencil-necked wimps are correct doesn't matter.

Maybe I’m totally off, I don’t know. I just think a lot of this anti-science, anti-intellectualism is simply a matter of not wanting to be bothered.

"The inconvenient truth is that the earth's temperatures have flat-lined since 2001, despite growing concentrations of C02. Peer-reviewed research has debunked doomsday scenarios about the polar ice caps, hurricanes, malaria, extinctions, rising oceans."

Is looking for clarification or more details or arguments for or against the statement in the quote above 'anti-science, anti-intellectualism'?

I'm sure someone somewhere will let me know if that quote is accurate. There certainly have not been any scientific or intellectual responses from most of the responders supportive of the man-made global warming theory.

Maybe the so-called anti-climate change crowd are annoyed because legitimate questions are not answered by anything but insults as seen on this thread. Clueless they say or just snarky remarks like that from Loon the Moon.

I did read your links and it shows the divide historically between scientists. It seems that way on so many subjects. 8 years is apparently not statistically significant according to you. How many years are statistically significant?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest woxof

Seeing as the man-made climate change crowd won't respond to a legitimate question, I will post my own link for everyone to think about. Is this some more "anti-intellectual, anti-science' stuff?..... I am now holding my breath waiting for an intellectual reply.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/beware-the-c...ya.html?page=-1

Beware the climate of conformity

* Paul Sheehan

* April 13, 2009

What I am about to write questions much of what I have written in this space, in numerous columns, over the past five years. Perhaps what I have written can withstand this questioning. Perhaps not. The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let's see.

The subject of this column is not small. It is a book entitled Heaven And Earth, which will be published tomorrow. It has been written by one of Australia's foremost Earth scientists, Professor Ian Plimer. He is a confronting sort of individual, polite but gruff, courteous but combative. He can write extremely well, and Heaven And Earth is a brilliantly argued book by someone not intimidated by hostile majorities or intellectual fashions.

The book's 500 pages and 230,000 words and 2311 footnotes are the product of 40 years' research and a depth and breadth of scholarship. As Plimer writes: "An understanding of climate requires an amalgamation of astronomy, solar physics, geology, geochronology, geochemistry, sedimentology, tectonics, palaeontology, palaeoecology, glaciology, climatology, meteorology, oceanography, ecology, archaeology and history."

The most important point to remember about Plimer is that he is Australia's most eminent geologist. As such, he thinks about time very differently from most of us. He takes the long, long view. He looks at climate over geological, archaeological, historical and modern time. He writes: "Past climate changes, sea-level changes and catastrophes are written in stone."

Much of what we have read about climate change, he argues, is rubbish, especially the computer modelling on which much current scientific opinion is based, which he describes as "primitive". Errors and distortions in computer modelling will be exposed in time. (As if on cue, the United Nations' peak scientific body on climate change was obliged to make an embarrassing admission last week that some of its computers models were wrong.)

Plimer does not dispute the dramatic flux of climate change - and this column is not about Australia's water debate - but he fundamentally disputes most of the assumptions and projections being made about the current causes, mostly led by atmospheric scientists, who have a different perspective on time. "It is little wonder that catastrophist views of the future of the planet fall on fertile pastures. The history of time shows us that depopulation, social disruption, extinctions, disease and catastrophic droughts take place in cold times … and life blossoms and economies boom in warm times. Planet Earth is dynamic. It always changes and evolves. It is currently in an ice age."

If we look at the last 6 million years, the Earth was warmer than it is now for 3 million years. The ice caps of the Arctic, Antarctica and Greenland are geologically unusual. Polar ice has only been present for less than 20 per cent of geological time. What follows is an intense compression of the book's 500 pages and all their provocative arguments and conclusions:

Is dangerous warming occurring? No.

Is the temperature range observed in the 20th century outside the range of normal variability? No.

The Earth's climate is driven by the receipt and redistribution of solar energy. Despite this crucial relationship, the sun tends to be brushed aside as the most important driver of climate. Calculations on supercomputers are primitive compared with the complex dynamism of the Earth's climate and ignore the crucial relationship between climate and solar energy.

"To reduce modern climate change to one variable, CO2, or a small proportion of one variable - human-induced CO2 - is not science. To try to predict the future based on just one variable (CO2) in extraordinarily complex natural systems is folly. Yet when astronomers have the temerity to show that climate is driven by solar activities rather than CO2 emissions, they are dismissed as dinosaurs undertaking the methods of old-fashioned science."

Over time, the history of CO2 content in the atmosphere has been far higher than at present for most of time. Atmospheric CO2 follows temperature rise. It does not create a temperature rise. CO2 is not a pollutant. Global warming and a high CO2 content bring prosperity and longer life.

The hypothesis that human activity can create global warming is extraordinary because it is contrary to validated knowledge from solar physics, astronomy, history, archaeology and geology. "But evidence no longer matters. And any contrary work published in peer-reviewed journals is just ignored. We are told that the science on human-induced global warming is settled. Yet the claim by some scientists that the threat of human-induced global warming is 90 per cent certain (or even 99 per cent) is a figure of speech. It has no mathematical or evidential basis."

Observations in nature differ markedly from the results generated by nearly two dozen computer-generated climate models. These climate models exaggerate the effects of human CO2 emissions into the atmosphere because few of the natural variables are considered. Natural systems are far more complex than computer models.

The setting up by the UN of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 1988 gave an opportunity to make global warming the main theme of environmental groups. "The IPCC process is related to environmental activism, politics and opportunism. It is unrelated to science. Current zeal around human-induced climate change is comparable to the certainty professed by Creationists or religious fundamentalists."

Ian Plimer is not some isolated gadfly. He is a prize-winning scientist and professor. The back cover of Heaven And Earth carries a glowing endorsement from the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, who now holds the rotating presidency of the European Union. Numerous rigorous scientists have joined Plimer in dissenting from the prevailing orthodoxy.

Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

Woxof...challenging the establishment, hoping to find the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's an interesting read on our current financial crisis. Rather long but well worth reading and it does have a tie-in with global warming - should be a real hit with any fellow conspiracy theorists. The Great American Bubble Machine

Very entertaining writing style, here's the first paragraph:

"The first thing you need to know about Goldman Sachs is that it's everywhere. The world's most powerful investment bank is a great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity, relentlessly jamming its blood funnel into anything that smells like money. In fact, the history of the recent financial crisis, which doubles as a history of the rapid decline and fall of the suddenly swindled-dry American empire, reads like a Who's Who of Goldman Sachs graduates."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just think a lot of this anti-science, anti-intellectualism is simply a matter of not wanting to be bothered.

See Choc, this is the thing. I am assuming you're in the believers crowd, am I right? So this statement of yours, the one where you blindly assume that the climate change, poo-flinging monkeys, screaming the Armageddon chant, are the ones using 'science', while the other 'climate holocaust deniers' like myself are the ones saying that your side is ignoring science and intellectualism.

Believe it or not, but there's enough respectable, intellectual, neutral, and honest scientists who just can't allow themselves to agree with these 'social activists' with a political agenda, that should make any reasonable person question either side. wink.gif

Personally, I think it's a steaming pile of BS, but even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. There are far bigger and more pressing environmental issues we MUST address before we even need to be even slightly concerned about a naturally occurring and important component of our atmosphere, that might have a significant effect about a century from now.

The world has been spewing CO2 naturally since before life even existed on this planet in the form of volcanoes; and since there has ever been a tree to burn, there have also been forest fires. The Earth has the ability to absorb CO2 when it becomes unbalanced, and it's called the Ocean, and Vegetation.

I'm sure I'm talking to yet another brick wall, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

See Choc, this is the thing. I am assuming you're in the believers crowd, am I right? So this statement of yours, the one where you blindly assume that the climate change, poo-flinging monkeys, screaming the Armageddon chant, are the ones using 'science', while the other 'climate holocaust deniers' like myself are the ones saying that your side is ignoring science and intellectualism.

Believe it or not, but there's enough respectable, intellectual, neutral, and honest scientists who just can't allow themselves to agree with these 'social activists' with a political agenda, that should make any reasonable person question either side. wink.gif

Personally, I think it's a steaming pile of BS, but even if I'm wrong, it doesn't matter. There are far bigger and more pressing environmental issues we MUST address before we even need to be even slightly concerned about a naturally occurring and important component of our atmosphere, that might have a significant effect about a century from now.

The world has been spewing CO2 naturally since before life even existed on this planet in the form of volcanoes; and since there has ever been a tree to burn, there have also been forest fires. The Earth has the ability to absorb CO2 when it becomes unbalanced, and it's called the Ocean, and Vegetation.

I'm sure I'm talking to yet another brick wall, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

Maybe so CC but you're not the only one sitting on this side of the fence! wink.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.... I'm sure I'm talking to yet another brick wall, so I'm not sure why I'm bothering.

Frustrating isn't it, when those presented with your opinion refuse to agree? Just brick walls, for surely there is no lack of rigor whatsoever in your postings, no disinclination on your own part to recognize any possibility that there may be any frailties whatsoever in your own arguments? So tiresome to engage in a little back and forth when the "truth", so obvious, has been articulated so clearly?biggrin.gif

I can't speak for Choc', but he might be frustrated at the gaping incoherence of most of the stuff posted here on climate issues. You guys concede that warming is occurring, then re-hash data purporting to show that it is not. Which is it? Pontificating about the natural occurrence of CO² doesn't illuminate the discussion, but rather a superficial grasp of the issues.

The copy about Prof. Plimer's credentials and book, far from pronouncing anything with authority, is bracketed by the following:

The greater question is, am I - and you - capable of questioning our own orthodoxies and intellectual habits? Let's see.

.... Heaven And Earth is an evidence-based attack on conformity and orthodoxy, including my own, and a reminder to respect informed dissent and beware of ideology subverting evidence.

Respecting informed dissent is wise advice, but in this wheat-and-chaff world, ideology is subverting evidence on your 'side' of the issue as well, and we'd all do well to consider the writer's "greater question". In this little corner, it's you guys that are in the self-reassuring majority.

Cheers, IFG beer_mug.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...