pfft, like unis these days are going to teach anything other than alarmism indoctrination

I grew up in rainforest, one that is very sensitive to climate change.

Even in the last 20 years I can see how it has changed.

-PB

Everybody who claims climate change is real has provided a multitude of evidence.
You claim climate change is false and have provided no evidence other than your own word.

I wonder if there's any danger of ricecrackers actually understanding what he's posting about.

The best bit about all of that is that when presented with evidence, like that science site posted just before explaining the so-called '15 year hiatus', he writes it off as a propaganda site paid for by AGW alarmists.

It'd be interesting to know what evidence, in his mind constitutes 'evidence' or simply 'propaganda'.

The mindset for these blokes usually works like this;

Evidence for AGW = propaganda
Evidence against = gold standard canon.

As usual with this mob it's 'choose your own adventure stuff' or 'cherry picking' as they say.

For real group think and denialist garbage head over to andrew bolt's blog. It's a cornucopia of ignorance over there.

Science degree. Big deal. I'm one flavour of engineer and I'd never profess to know anything about electrical, fluid mechanics or chemical engineering.



Edited by MUNRUBENMUZ: 8/7/2015 01:44:50 PM

afrodopeGT has no idea :roll:

I'd love to see him produce some evidence that supports his claim that it's propaganda.

Who is this afrodopeGT you keep posting about? I've never seen him make a single post.

I haven't add anything to this debate as I haven't reviewed any evidence. But I do have a question.

When evidence is referred to from the skeptics, people refer to oil and gas agendas - mining + government connections to keep the money flowing into these big businesses.

Is there similar gains for companies/individuals pushing the pro climate change agenda?

of course if you had actual scientific evidence to support your claims you wouldnt need to resort to these character assassination tactics

just shows how desperate the alarmists are becoming in the face of all their models failing

this sort of thing has parallels to the witchburnings as well as the kind of persecution Galileo faced when he refused to believe the earth is flat

main beneficiaries financially from the pro alarmist agenda include...

1. the finance industry
2. the oil and gas industry
3. solar panel manufacturers
4. wind farm operators (which dont work when the wind is either too strong or too weak therefore NG cogen plants are on site and thus ultimately become another example of 2.)
5. various fad alternative energy opportunists, eg electric car makers

the finance industry kicked it off and the oil and gas industry got in later when they realised how they could make money out of it. thats the tipping point at which it became an unstoppable force.

destroy or greatly reduce the coal industry and replace with natural gas generated electricity.
...despite the fact that combustion of natural gas creates more so called greenhouse gases.
natural gas itself a worse greenhouse gas, but its under the ground so doesnt contribute to the so called global warming there (if you believe that theory)

Well of course this is what I've asked old mate before and all he can do is link a member or the CSIRO with a bank. I mean it's tin foil hat stuff of the highest order.

Need to apply Occam's razor here. What is more likely? Who benefits most from maintaining the status quo?

If you have half a brain you'll work out the correct answer pretty quickly.

You may as well deny evolution as there are outliers who believe the earth is only 6000 years old and as we know from old mates sig 'consensus is politics not science'.

They're just flat earthers. Nothing more.

i've already answered this question multiple times, and pointed you toward my original answer but you refuse to read it

you are the flat earther here and you dont even realise it
the flat earthers were in the dopey majority who believed the all knowing catholic church were the gatekeepers of science, just like you believe it to be the IPCC

Sources please.

natural gas = primarily methane, ie CH4 guess what, it contains a carbon atom

the combustion of methane produces CO2 and water

why do i need sources when year 9 science should be able to tell you that?

this just proves to me once again that you dont have a clue about anything and blindly believe an authority

More ignorance. The fact the earth was round was well known to any educated person thousands of years ago. Flat earth theory was invented to disparage the those against evolution. Do yourself a favour and have a read of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

Sources please.

you're not telling me anything i dont already know
flat earth was invented the same way man made climate change was invented

do you see? you people are the same
you people were in the majority because you blindly believed the catholic church who were the government of the time and the gatekeepers of science

do you see the parallels at all?

I'll post mine from some propagandist websites like the EPA in the US. Typical government bastards.

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-and-you/affect/natural-gas.html

or

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/energy/emissions-natural-gas.htm

Another paid for by Al Gore website.

either you're completely and totally stupid or you're trolling now
pick your poison

we are done here

Sources please. You've got a science degree (from a packet of Kellogs?) so you should know how this sort of thing works.

whats your point?

The FACT you can't link a source to your proposition shows how shaky your position is.

I mean if you are correct in your statement it would simply be a matter of googling for 10 seconds and posting something up.

You lie and cherry pick and when called upon to show proof you resort to name calling when the simple thing to do would be to put me in my place by providing a source to your statement.

"Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof". Carl Sagan.

you dont even know what you're talking about
seriously, you dont have any idea

your links merely provide further confirmation of my stated facts and yet you somehow think they're in dispute

that is because you lack the ability to understand the information presented

Umm burning of natural gas doesn't create more CO2 emissions than coal as you asserted previously.

what have i lied about? that combustion of CH4 (natural gas) produces CO2 + water
are you telling me i lied about that?

just say it...go ahead

where did i say that?????????????????????????????????

Then just shut me up by providing a source to your ridiculous statement.

Boy for a science graduate you have a pretty poor grasp of punctuation not to mention the scientific process. As you'd know, in doing your degree, paying close attention to detail is important.



Edited by munrubenmuz: 24/3/2014 10:49:42 AM

oh dear, you're going to be in for a shock then

find my original quote :-"