Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Dishevelled Den]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief 

I didn't say it was a conspiracy BJ.

[Nickbat]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

If you would care to read the PDF at this link you will find that there are over 1,000 dissenting scientists, a figure which you may want to compare with the 52 that participated in the IPCC Summary.

http://69.16.184.196/g9z6c6z5/cds/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=480a3e0f5fa9002f9b4e61049a31f611&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&dopvhost=hw.libsyn.com&doppl=f07a229fbd7a2b08bd2a2b08f83a93b5&dopsig=8cdfac851815e587edbfa6b557cf8b20

 

[Banjax]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

If you would care to read the PDF at this link you will find that there are over 1,000 dissenting scientists, a figure which you may want to compare with the 52 that participated in the IPCC Summary.

http://69.16.184.196/g9z6c6z5/cds/p/b/f/6/bf663fd2376ffeca/2010_Senate_Minority_Report.pdf?sid=480a3e0f5fa9002f9b4e61049a31f611&l_sid=27695&l_eid=&l_mid=2336201&dopvhost=hw.libsyn.com&doppl=f07a229fbd7a2b08bd2a2b08f83a93b5&dopsig=8cdfac851815e587edbfa6b557cf8b20

 

su-ure - i'll read it Nickbat.......just like everyone else does.....honest 

[Banjax]

wow Nickbat - seriously out with the 99% - i was actually being generous as no national or international scientific body agrees with you - but i thought saying 100% was cruel and i wanted to give you a bit of wriggle room - nevermind.

100% it is then 

you're wrong, I know everyones dancing around the issue trying not to start another tiresome debate - but you are wrong on this - very wrong - you just havent realised it yet - fair play to you - it used to be amusing, but its getting tiresome 

How do you know you are right BJ?

Insofar as the 'tiresome' aspect of Nick's reluctance to accept what you say as being gospel, is it not justified to continue debating and questioning an issue the ramifications of which (if various proposals are adopted) will fundamentally alter our present way of life.

I think Lizzie is right enough to say we will all know in due course but is it sensible to surrender to scientific ‘fact’ when science seldom stands still in the understanding of whatever subject matter is being tested?

I think we should be additionally suspicious when this whole matter has struck the interest of those who see an opportunity to make money and political gain out of it.

Science has been wrong many times in the past and while it’s right to examine the undoubted changes to our environment both topographical and atmospheric, let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

sorry Zulu - the whole "its a big conspiracy involving every government on the planet" schtick doesnt wash with me - its science not belief 

I didn't say it was a conspiracy BJ.

i think the problem arises when you give valuable, lengthy and exhaustive scientific research the same weight as unqualified spurious gibbering 

I'm as sceptical as the next man, and the value of scepticism cannot be underestimated or quashed, but on this one, the debates over.

[Nickbat]

i think the problem arises when you give valuable, lengthy and exhaustive scientific research the same weight as unqualified spurious gibbering 

I'm as sceptical as the next man, and the value of scepticism cannot be underestimated or quashed, but on this one, the debates over.

 


“Any reasonable scientific analysis must conclude the basic theory wrong!!”

-- NASA Scientist Dr. Leonard Weinstein who worked 35 years at the NASA Langley Research Center and finished his career there as a Senior Research Scientist. Weinstein is presently a Senior Research Fellow at the National Institute of Aerospace.

“The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.”

-- Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University.

Two unqualified men spouting gibberish, eh? I must write and advise them of your valued opinion.

 

[Banjax]

"any idiot can pull unattributable quotes by people no ones heard of off a website" Banjax the Wise, Hobbiton, The Shire

[Nickbat]

"any idiot can pull unattributable quotes by people no ones heard of off a website" Banjax the Wise, Hobbiton, The Shire

Calling me an idiot now? How quaint, BJ. 

[Banjax]

"any idiot can pull unattributable quotes by people no ones heard of off a website" Banjax the Wise, Hobbiton, The Shire

Calling me an idiot now? How quaint, BJ. 

you're not an idiot - i'm an idiot for wasting your time and mine on pointless debate - tell you what - give me the one irrefutable fact in your arsenal that says to you "take away everything else and this alone would prove it" see if that works..of all the info what the biggie, the smoking gun...if you had just one fact to use what one would you use?

no trick, just curious 

[Dishevelled Den]

i think the problem arises when you give valuable, lengthy and exhaustive scientific research the same weight as unqualified spurious gibbering 

I'm as sceptical as the next man, and the value of scepticism cannot be underestimated or quashed, but on this one, the debates over.

Yes that's fair enough BJ but although many former and existing skeptics can make convincing converts, I'll wait a while on that aria from the fat lady.

In the meantime I will continue the effort to make my own impact on the environment as gentle as possible.

[Banjax]

damn Z, i wish i was as cool, calm, reasonable and rational as your good self 

well said and fair play 

[cem_devecioglu]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..

If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

in principle correct, in reality and practice,  waste of time..

reality :we are consuming lots of hydrocarbon that produces CO2..   

counter argument  :no we dont   its negligible.. :-?

its like smoking in a room and saying , negligible

[cem_devecioglu]

lets be honest, there is no easy , cheap, abundant energy source like fossil fuels.. and most govts and countries trying  to delay the envitable expensive precautions they must take (of which they still dont know).. and rejecting the truth simply..

and for scientists , before believing them I do believe my very eyes that everyday industry and households, hundreds of millions of cars are flowing on roads  emitting CO2 which the nature cant absorb !!(as seen in my previous post)

so whats the point in debating that ? :-?

[Banjax]

lets be honest, there is no easy , cheap, abundant energy source like fossil fuels.. and most govts and countries trying  to delay the envitable expensive precautions they must take (of which they still dont know).. and rejecting the truth simply..

and for scientists , before believing them I do believe my very eyes that everyday industry and households, hundreds of millions of cars are flowing on roads  emitting CO2 which the nature cant absorb !!(as seen in my previous post)

so whats the point in debating that ? :-?

well said the wise man from the East 

[aaronjb]

"which puts the net figures at 29 GtCO2 emissions for anthropogenic and a net 17 GtCO2 (450-439+338-332) absorbtion from natural sources"



these are serious numbers.. and its accumulating while we debate.. I think its completely ridiculous to debate whats obvious..

Concerning science it is never wrong to debate what is 'obvious' ..

If people throughout the ages had taken that stance we would still believe the sun went around the earth and that the earth was flat and they'd never have bothered looking to see whether it was true or not since it was 'obvious' it couldn't be any other way.

in principle correct, in reality and practice,  waste of time..

reality :we are consuming lots of hydrocarbon that produces CO2..   

counter argument  :no we dont   its negligible.. :-?

its like smoking in a room and saying , negligible

Yes, we're producing lots of CO2, I'm sure - I'm not debating that fact.

What I am saying is that there seem to be two schools of thought on this (of which you seem to fall into the former):

1) We 'know' for 'sure' that all this CO2 is going to 'kill' the planet because we 'know' for 'sure' that the planet can't 'cope' with all this CO2.
2) We don't know for sure whether or not the planets ecosystem can adapt and survive or whether we are having an irreversible effect on the planet.

There is a point debating that. Like I say, if you stop debating science .. well, we would all still believe the earth was flat and the sun rotated around it.

*shrug* Personally, I don't much care for either argument surrounding 'global warming' or 'climate change' or whatever you want to call it; I'm just a tiny little man who hasn't studied for years, earned degrees and digested thousands of pages worth of scientific journal, so I do not consider myself well placed to argue either side.

But being blinkered toward either side of the climate change argument is just.. silly and, well, blinkered.

[cem_devecioglu]

lets be honest, there is no easy , cheap, abundant energy source like fossil fuels.. and most govts and countries trying  to delay the envitable expensive precautions they must take (of which they still dont know).. and rejecting the truth simply..

and for scientists , before believing them I do believe my very eyes that everyday industry and households, hundreds of millions of cars are flowing on roads  emitting CO2 which the nature cant absorb !!(as seen in my previous post)

so whats the point in debating that ? :-?

well said the wise man from the East 

thanks Banjax