Patrick Moore vs The Climate Institute

pure ownage

[youtube]jBWTJrS557E[/youtube]

When can we euthanise Allan Jones?

didnt watch it did you

the corporate fat cat from the climate institute was destroyed with facts and all he could do was drone on with the same lines all you cultists parrot on a regular basis

Edited by ricecrackers: 24/10/2014 01:07:07 PM

The slow blink of contempt was a classic. Why bother appearing on shows like this? I guess he needs to keep his job alive :lol:

question:
did you watch the entire video or not?

I watched for about 12 minutes before i got sick of one of the most rude and arrogant people on the face of this Earth constantly cutting Irwin off before he had finished. He just yells at people with nothing behind what he says and it's flat out embarrassing to listen to.
The debate wasn't bad, but fat fuck had nothing to offer there and made it unwatchable.

you should watch all of it

i suggest that you dont like hearing what doesnt already correspond with your preconceived world view.

the slimy arrogant corporate fat cat from the climate institute was smashed out of the park by Moore

He's 73, so won't be too much longer. There's always another to replace him though.

ignore Jones and listen to the scientist on the panel

I was interested to hear what he had to say, and I must say I was reasonably impressed. However, there was no chacne for rebuttal as Jones kept cutting of the guy from the climate institute before he could respond. Even the anchor was sick of Jones by half way through it.

When I have more time, I'll watch it again though in full.

I've watched the video, and that's not what I saw. I saw the representative of the climate institute showing remarkable patience in the face of Alan Jones' ignorance.

97% say it's happening, 3% say it isn't.

If 97% of health inspectors said a restaurant was likely to poison you... Would you go in and eat based on the recommendation of the 3% who said it was fine.

you're beyond help

get in line with the rest of the parrots

the 97% stat has already been debunked on this forum as fallacy

the anchor was Graham Richardson, former ALP minister. hardly impartial.
the corporate from the Climate institute was given more time to speak than any of the other guests

He was sick of Mr Jones' lack of manners, not his opinion. Jones is a piece of shit human, whether his opinions are right or wrong.

i couldnt give a fuck about Alan Jones

You've just sky rocketed in my opinion :lol:

I'll watch the video when I've finished my essay, but from what I saw, it wasn't quite the landslide victory you're making it out to be.

no, it was out of the park with all bases loaded
the Climate Institute guy was destroyed he resorted to avoiding questions like a politician, laughing awkwardly, changing the topic and dragging out the conspiracy line

Alan Jones is just a retarded "debate" moderator. From the first 7 minutes i watched before I decided i couldn't watch it anymore he just kept going back to "there's been no warming in the last 18 years despite 25% of all carbon emissions coming from the last 18 years, now discuss." The way he sets up the debate is perfect for Moore

The relationship doesn't have to be linear. Why are you choosing "18 year" when thats rather arbitrary, why not 10 or 30? The atmosphere has actually been warming in those 18 years and so have the oceans.

Moore did actually win the debate from the bit i watched, but thats more a credit to his debating ability than the points he made.

because they didnt match what you were taught in school?
do you contend that carbon dioxide is a pollutant?

Moore's summation near the end was excellent and captures in a nutshell how this has become so big

when i posted the video i predicted to myself that majority here would attempt to make it all about Alan Jones and ignore the rest of the content

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
"A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it."

Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
"A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis)."

Doran 2009
"A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures."

ricey dropping precisely picked bait in order to get the reaction he desired, well I never!

-PB

He was given all the air time he wanted, you'd hope that he'd win :)

[youtube]OWXoRSIxyIU[/youtube]

No problem discussing the video but little to no point doing it with crackeroo.

That's a bingo.

snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots

i've got land to sell you

"skeptical science" has been debunked mate
go back through the thread

And the guy going on about optimal CO2 for plant growth, sure but the ability to store CO2 in the earth's ecosystems are being reduced. In NZ we have gone from 85% forest cover to 23%. 20% of the Amazon rain forest has gone in the past 40 years.

And the potential scary thing is not purely CO2 emitted into the atmosphere, but the positive feedback loops that could cause really scary levels of climate change that are started due to relatively small rises in temperature from CO2.

I haven't got time to go through 40 odd pages of posts - I note from the first 6-7 that you say it's not true, you claim it's a set-up site that carries no weight, etc., but I don't see you providing any evidence at all.

Do I assume that the studies they mention - the peer reviewed papers, etc. - have also been thoroughly debunked by your careful scientific method as well?

Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?

actually there's some evidence of negative feedback and this could lead to cooling
"the guy" is a PHD in ecology and co founder of GreenPeace by the way