|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:tbitm wrote: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. He was given all the air time he wanted, you'd hope that he'd win :) Some of the points he made had nothing to do with climate change such as giving Germany as an example of electricity getting more expensive, the main reason electricity is getting more expensive is that Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants (which produces little to no greenhouse gases) .
|
|
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote: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 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 http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htmSkeptical 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." "skeptical science" has been debunked mate go back through the thread 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? [size=8]Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?[/size] so you're incapable of having a scientific discussion, you have to drag that old chestnut out the new godwin's law of the internet
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
http://www.climateinstitute.org.au/climate-partners.htmlcheck out the corporate partners of the climate institute i'm quite sure they all care deeply about saving the planet and doing whats best for you i'm quite sure self serving corporate ambition has nothing to do with their motivation :roll:
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote: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. 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 There is, if looking at small scale - like the growth rate of plants. Lots of studies do show that plants grow quicker with more CO2, textbooks from the 70s will show you that. Though it's the ability of the whole ecosystem to absorb the CO2 being emitted. We have been increasing CO2 emissions for a long time and have at the same time been reducing the amount of trees/forests to absorb that increase in CO2. On top of that, a lot of the converted deforested land is used for activities with high greenhouse gas emissions such as farming animals (more than 50% of greenhouse gas emissions in NZ come from farmed animals).
|
|
|
|
|
tbitm
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you Veritasium is known for taking tonnes of corporate cash from the giants at audible.com
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
tbitm wrote:ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you Veritasium is known for taking tonnes of corporate cash from the giants at audible.com you mean Amazon
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you What sort of education should one get? Look, ok, lets move past all of this. I highly doubt what I (and the vast majority of science) consider fact has any affect on your view on climate change. How about framing the argument as risk. I'm sure that most adults have some form of insurance, or the state might provide some insurance, even though there is no guarantee that you will ever need that insurance.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you What sort of education should one get? Look, ok, lets move past all of this. I highly doubt what I (and the vast majority of science) consider fact has any affect on your view on climate change. How about framing the argument as risk. I'm sure that most adults have some form of insurance, or the state might provide some insurance, even though there is no guarantee that you will ever need that insurance. actually what affects my view is the actual evidence combined with the various conflicts of interest that support the alarmist position. the latter being highly political and very unscientific. as Moore says, if you keep paying scientists large sums of money to tell you what you want to hear, they'll keep telling you what you want to hear
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you What sort of education should one get? Look, ok, lets move past all of this. I highly doubt what I (and the vast majority of science) consider fact has any affect on your view on climate change. How about framing the argument as risk. I'm sure that most adults have some form of insurance, or the state might provide some insurance, even though there is no guarantee that you will ever need that insurance. actually what affects my view is the actual evidence combined with the various conflicts of interest that support the alarmist position. the latter being highly political and very unscientific. as Moore says, if you keep paying scientists large sums of money to tell you what you want to hear, they'll keep telling you what you want to hear Who is paying these scientists? Aren't industries with greenhouse gas components have more to lose and therefore more likely to obfuscate the argument? And wouldn't you think that most people, scientists, governments and businesses would at least prefer the status quo and not have to make any change to deal with climate change? Dealing with climate change is a big deal, it's not like taking the morning after pill.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:mcjules wrote:tbitm wrote: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. He was given all the air time he wanted, you'd hope that he'd win :) Some of the points he made had nothing to do with climate change such as giving Germany as an example of electricity getting more expensive, the main reason electricity is getting more expensive is that Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants (which produces little to no greenhouse gases) . Germany are going the natural gas route which whilst it is classified as a greenhouse gas is taxed less than coal because when it burns its slightly less of a greenhouse gas. as i've repeated adnauseum in this thread, the natural gas industry and hence the oil/gas industry benefits from the alarmism as it makes coal less competitive even Barack Obama has promoted natural gas as a green fuel source, despite the fact the unmeasured leakage produces more methane in the atmosphere and more greenhouse gas than the production of coal. Germany also went natural gas route due to deals with the Russians and supposedly knee jerk from the other alarmism that surrounded Fukushima, which was way overblown deliberately by the media from all corners as the rising Tsunami floated all oil/gas boats Edited by ricecrackers: 24/10/2014 05:22:13 PM
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:ricecrackers wrote:snappy corporate propaganda good enough for the legion of uneducated parrots
i've got land to sell you What sort of education should one get? Look, ok, lets move past all of this. I highly doubt what I (and the vast majority of science) consider fact has any affect on your view on climate change. How about framing the argument as risk. I'm sure that most adults have some form of insurance, or the state might provide some insurance, even though there is no guarantee that you will ever need that insurance. actually what affects my view is the actual evidence combined with the various conflicts of interest that support the alarmist position. the latter being highly political and very unscientific. as Moore says, if you keep paying scientists large sums of money to tell you what you want to hear, they'll keep telling you what you want to hear Who is paying these scientists? Aren't industries with greenhouse gas components have more to lose and therefore more likely to obfuscate the argument? And wouldn't you think that most people, scientists, governments and businesses would at least prefer the status quo and not have to make any change to deal with climate change? Dealing with climate change is a big deal, it's not like taking the morning after pill. see above response and please no more glib analogies like morning after pills and 9 out 10 doctors and atomic bombs etc etc
|
|
|
|
|
Bullion
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.8K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Bullion wrote:mcjules wrote:tbitm wrote: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. He was given all the air time he wanted, you'd hope that he'd win :) Some of the points he made had nothing to do with climate change such as giving Germany as an example of electricity getting more expensive, the main reason electricity is getting more expensive is that Germany is phasing out nuclear power plants (which produces little to no greenhouse gases) . Germany are going the natural gas route which whilst it is classified as a greenhouse gas is taxed less than coal because when it burns its slightly less of a greenhouse gas. as i've repeated adnauseum in this thread, the natural gas industry and hence the oil/gas industry benefits from the alarmism as it makes coal less competitive even Barack Obama has promoted natural gas as a green fuel source, despite the fact the unmeasured leakage produces more methane in the atmosphere and more greenhouse gas than the production of coal. Germany also went natural gas route due to deals with the Russians and supposedly knee jerk from the other alarmism that surrounded Fukushima, which was way overblown deliberately by the media from all corners as the rising Tsunami floated all oil/gas boats Edited by ricecrackers: 24/10/2014 05:22:13 PM Totally agree about natural gas, good article: http://m.motherjones.com/environment/2014/09/methane-fracking-obama-climate-change-bill-mckibbenQuote:the sudden rise in cheap shale gas. Even as the price of solar panels has dropped, inexpensive fracked gas reduces the incentives to convert to sun and wind. And once you've built the pipelines and gas-fired power plants, the sunk investment makes it that much harder to switch: Suddenly you have a bunch of gas barons who will fight as hard as the coal barons Obama is now trying to subdue.
As it turns out, economists have studied the dynamics of this transition, and each time reached the same conclusion. Because gas undercuts wind and sun just as much as it undercuts coal, there's no net climate benefit in switching to it. For instance, the venerable International Energy Agency in 2011 concluded that a large-scale shift to gas would "muscle out" low-carbon fuels and still result in raising the globe's temperatures 3.5 degrees Celsius—75 percent above the two-degree level that the world's governments have identified as the disaster line. The head of the United Nations' environment program, Achem Steiner, said earlier this year that the development of shale gas would be "a liability" in fighting global warming if "it turns into a 20-to-30-year delay" for low-and zero-carbon models.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote: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?
[size=8]Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?[/size] so you're incapable of having a scientific discussion, you have to drag that old chestnut out the new godwin's law of the internet I'm incapable of having a scientific discussion? You claimed that the 97% figure has been rebutted, then you claimed that the website I quoted has been debunked - I asked for proof rather than your word, and you avoided the question. I asked if the studies and peer reviewed papers had been debunked, and again you avoided the question... And jumped straight onto my 9/11 question... Without answering it... Nice diversion.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote: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?
[size=8]Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?[/size] so you're incapable of having a scientific discussion, you have to drag that old chestnut out the new godwin's law of the internet I'm incapable of having a scientific discussion? You claimed that the 97% figure has been rebutted, then you claimed that the website I quoted has been debunked - I asked for proof rather than your word, and you avoided the question. I asked if the studies and peer reviewed papers had been debunked, and again you avoided the question... And jumped straight onto my 9/11 question... Without answering it... Nice diversion. the answers you're looking for are in this thread if you cant be bothered going back and reading it (ie doing some research on a topic you know very little about) then thats not my problem, its yours why would you bring up a completely irrelevant topic? and you accuse me of diversion i dont even need to accuse you of hypocrisy, the evidence is clear for all to see right there above Edited by ricecrackers: 25/10/2014 08:30:36 PM
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
I wonder how the percentages of scientists who deny AGW match up with the percentages of historians that deny the holocaust.
|
|
|
|
|
Slobodan Drauposevic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Ricey, you literally have no idea. It's simply embarrassing at this point.
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote: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?
[size=8]Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?[/size] so you're incapable of having a scientific discussion, you have to drag that old chestnut out the new godwin's law of the internet I'm incapable of having a scientific discussion? You claimed that the 97% figure has been rebutted, then you claimed that the website I quoted has been debunked - I asked for proof rather than your word, and you avoided the question. I asked if the studies and peer reviewed papers had been debunked, and again you avoided the question... And jumped straight onto my 9/11 question... Without answering it... Nice diversion. the answers you're looking for are in this thread if you cant be bothered going back and reading it (ie doing some research on a topic you know very little about) then thats not my problem, its yours why would you bring up a completely irrelevant topic? and you accuse me of diversion i dont even need to accuse you of hypocrisy, the evidence is clear for all to see right there above Edited by ricecrackers: 25/10/2014 08:30:36 PM I've read through a hell of a lot of this thread now and the 'answers' I'm looking for appear to consist of you denying the peer reviewed papers are valid because people will write anything if they are being paid to write it... I assume their peers will review and confirm the conclusions on the same basis. This sound bit of reasoning neatly shuts down all scientific research... Other than the stuff you believe in... Of course. ;) Oh, that other bit of damning evidence - the article written by a man who's been known to get his facts wrong before. Just enter his name into google and you get a neat dismissal of a book review he wrote in which he jumped to all kinds of incorrect conclusions.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote: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?
[size=8]Dare I ask..? Are you also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist?[/size] so you're incapable of having a scientific discussion, you have to drag that old chestnut out the new godwin's law of the internet I'm incapable of having a scientific discussion? You claimed that the 97% figure has been rebutted, then you claimed that the website I quoted has been debunked - I asked for proof rather than your word, and you avoided the question. I asked if the studies and peer reviewed papers had been debunked, and again you avoided the question... And jumped straight onto my 9/11 question... Without answering it... Nice diversion. the answers you're looking for are in this thread if you cant be bothered going back and reading it (ie doing some research on a topic you know very little about) then thats not my problem, its yours why would you bring up a completely irrelevant topic? and you accuse me of diversion i dont even need to accuse you of hypocrisy, the evidence is clear for all to see right there above Edited by ricecrackers: 25/10/2014 08:30:36 PM I've read through a hell of a lot of this thread now and the 'answers' I'm looking for appear to consist of you denying the peer reviewed papers are valid because people will write anything if they are being paid to write it... I assume their peers will review and confirm the conclusions on the same basis. This sound bit of reasoning neatly shuts down all scientific research... Other than the stuff you believe in... Of course. ;) Oh, that other bit of damning evidence - the article written by a man who's been known to get his facts wrong before. Just enter his name into google and you get a neat dismissal of a book review he wrote in which he jumped to all kinds of incorrect conclusions. er no the 97% myth is what you need to understand the method in which that figure was calculated is completely bogus and the administrator from that skeptical science site has been discredited. this has been outline in this thread if you can find it among afro's third degree burns and rants i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded you should stick to what you know
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius. ...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius. ...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks Being called a genius is an attack? An attack on what exactly? I thought that is what you always craved? Recognition of your incredible intellect? -PB
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
...another example of making it personal
when you cannot argue the message shoot the messenger
the knuckleheads in this thread have no interest in actual science and facts.
they'd rather parrot propaganda cliches like the programmed drones they are and get into personal slanging matches
i'll give you what you want if that is your wish
Edited by ricecrackers: 27/10/2014 02:26:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Ricey's trolling 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:Ricey's trolling of course all of this science stuff goes way over your head hence the only way you know how to respond is make accusations of "trolling" its the way you've been trained Edited by ricecrackers: 27/10/2014 02:35:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:mcjules wrote:Ricey's trolling of course all of this science stuff goes way over your head hence the only way you know how to respond is make accusations of "trolling" its the way you've been trained Edited by ricecrackers: 27/10/2014 02:35:52 PM 
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
and posting stupid memes, again its the way you've been trained
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius. ...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks No answer then, Mr Ricecrackers? I'll assume that means that you can't accurately assess my abilities from a single photograph.
|
|
|
|
ricecrackers
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 3.5K,
Visits: 0
|
Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius. ...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks No answer then, Mr Ricecrackers? I'll assume that means that you can't accurately assess my abilities from a single photograph. so now you want to make this all about you? no response to my mathematical debunking of your 97% myth and the discredited "John Cook"? no, that would be too hard for you wouldnt it perhaps you need to parrot some more cliches you were trained with
|
|
|
|
|
Benjamin
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 23K,
Visits: 0
|
ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:Benjamin wrote:ricecrackers wrote:i can tell by your photograph you're not particularly scientifically minded
you should stick to what you know And what would that be? Shine a light on me based on one photograph, genius. ...you see now we're in your comfort zone of personal attacks No answer then, Mr Ricecrackers? I'll assume that means that you can't accurately assess my abilities from a single photograph. so now you want to make this all about you? no response to my mathematical debunking of your 97% myth and the discredited "John Cook"? no, that would be too hard for you wouldnt it perhaps you need to parrot some more cliches you were trained with In other words - you don't want to back up your own statement that you 'can tell' what i'm like from one picture? I remind you that you brought up your ability to judge me from a single picture - that's not me dodging anything, it's you throwing around comments you can't back up. ;) As for Mr Cook - if he's been discredited, fine, what about the thousands of peer reviewed papers? Are you sticking with the scientists will write anything if you pay them line? Does that mean you're going to go with the classic "my scientists are honest and correct, all the others are liars and incorrect" stance? Edited by Benjamin: 27/10/2014 03:27:55 PM
|
|
|
|