10 global warming facts versus fears

http://www.paulmacrae.com/?page_id=124

 

Perhaps the fact that the IPCC have seem to got it wrong again

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/...ogy-and-computer-models-are-seriously-flawed/

 

Yep, dragged this straight out of the denialist manual. Despite posting this sh!t and having it debunked time and time again, you continue on your little merry go round doing your best to persuade. Your credibility on this issue have been shot to pieces time and time and time......................................................................

 

Can you refute any of the points?????????




.

 

Obviously not. Most retorts and claims go unsupported...

 

Not with logic.

 

Yep, your reply is straight out of the Labor/Green manual. If you can't refute the message, shoot the messenger.

 

Agreed - it I refer to it as the "rubber band effect" where denialists keep returning to stale debunked crud like a dog returning to it's vomit


Rebuttal of OP

Point 1

This is a BLOG aka someone opinion and in this case UNSUPPORTED opinion at that

Point 2

It is written to sell a book - and there is bias right there

Point 3

Where is the referencing?

Point 4

Who is the author and what is his background? Is he a scientist? Is he a journalist? Is he an amateur? Seems he is a Journalist with no special background in science

As for content - well, when you pare back the bloody straw men I suggest you go to Skeptical Science and look at the REFERENCED rebuttals of each point

 

Bowergirl how do you expect us to take you seriously when you refer us to Al Gores deciples.

Thats skeptical science blog run by a few part time climate enthusiasts which just so happen to be Al Gores deciples.

What a joke??

Get real please!!!

 

I have a rule - you drag up Al Gore I can drag up Lord Monckton

Now THERE is someone so pure quill nutter that he is constantly chased by Squirrels and yet he is the DARLING of the denialist set

Oh! and your link does not work - i if it is the person I am thinking of he actually joined this forum and got his arse handed back to him

Now, back to Skeptical Science which actually has no link to Al Gore being a Queensland site and supported by the UQ

Do you have a problem with their referencing? What part of the information is inaccurate?

 

Dude the Global warming scam is now classified as a religion....hence why the GW cult want death penalty for people who think it is a big load of caca....just like the inquisition...people killed if they didn't believe in some fairytale man in the sky. But here you have it dude...you are fanatics (with your end is nigh crap)
_____

When it comes to climate change, just have a little faith!

In an unusual case in the United Kingdom, it has been ruled that climate change beliefs should be afforded the same legal protections as religious freedoms. The bizarre ruling sets a landmark legal precedent and could have broad implications both in Britain and abroad.

The case began when Tim Nicholson, former head of sustainability at property firm Grainger PLC was laid off in July 2008 for his criticism of management on the basis of climate change beliefs. Mr. Nicholson, who renovated his house to be greener and refuses to fly by air, was upset that Rupert Dickinson, the firm's chief executive, had an employee fly to him in Ireland to deliver his Blackberry.

When Mr. Nicholson began to gripe and express his environmental sentiments, he was later dismissed. He took his former employers to court, contending that the same laws that protect religious freedoms protected his “philosophical belief about climate change and the environment.”

His employers contended that climate change was a scientific, not a religious or philosophical belief, and thus not legally protected. Mr. Nicholson, however, insisted that climate change was a philosophical belief as “philosophy deals with matters that are not capable of scientific proof.” His lawyer, Shah Qureshi, head of employment law at Bindmans LLP, added that to not grant AGW beliefs the same protections as religion would mean “that the more evidence there is to support your views, the less likely it would be for you to enjoy protection against discrimination.”

That theory was put to the test in an unusual court case and in the end Mr. Nicholson prevailed. Justice Michael Burton who delivered the ruling, ironically had used the same logic to hand a victory to climate skeptics over advocates of anthropogenic global warming theory seeking to show school children An Inconvenient Truth by Al Gore. The court, which Justice Burton served on, ruled that the move was a political, not a scientific work, and was unfit for the classroom.

Mr Nicholson lauded the verdict, stating, “I believe man-made climate change is the most important issue of our time and nothing should stand in the way of diverting this catastrophe. This philosophical belief that is based on scientific evidence has now been given the same protection in law as faith-based religious belief. Belief in man-made climate change is not a new religion, it is a philosophical belief that reflects my moral and ethical values and is underlined by the overwhelming scientific evidence."

His employers have vowed to appeal the decision. If it stands, however, it could have major legal affects in Britain and beyond. Affording environmental beliefs the same status as religion opens companies to suits from employees complaining about lack of recycling facilities or offering low-carbon travel. It also prevents employers from dismissing employees from their environmental beliefs, even if they seem radical.

In the U.S., similar protections exist for employment and religion/philosophy. The laws are certainly worded differently, but the British decision could embolden those seeking similar protections in the U.S. At the end of the day, the ruling forces society to be accept and cater to a variety of opinions on climate change and environmentalism, while at the same time making it harder for organizations, particularly government funded ones, to voice views on such topics.

http://www.dailytech.com/Global+War...gal+Status+as+Religion+in+UK/article16721.htm

 

Dude I, and every other person on this board discussing AGW stop reading after the religion accusation because it is the Godwin Law of Internet discussions

In other words if you START your rebuttal with an Ad Hominem it is odds on the rest is not worth reading either

Ever wondered why we do not reply?

Even D and D has learnt not to do this because he was on my ignore list until he stopped

- - - Updated - - -

Dude I, and every other person on this board discussing AGW stop reading after the religion accusation because it is the Godwin Law of Internet discussions

In other words if you START your rebuttal with an Ad Hominem it is odds on the rest is not worth reading either

Ever wondered why we do not reply?

Even D and D has learnt not to do this because he was on my ignore list until he stopped

 

So you agree that Al Gore, poster child for the Climate change religion, is a nutter? LOL... So we actually do agree on something.

 

Not necessarily I think he is irrelevant - which is why I bring up the poster child for denialists - Lord Monckton

Now THERE is a someone who after even the most cursory review makes you want to take a stance opposite of where ever he is

 

I think they are all full of s#it ! Both sides.

Neither side tell the full truth, because that would not totally suit their argument.

Political or religious, the problem with this argument is that both sides refuse to tell the whole truth, and until this happens we will forever go in circles and solve nothing, wasting trillions of dollars on research and fact finding missions, only to end up where we started, at the bottom of the toilet.

Neither side gives an inch, so it is an argument. What we need is a rational debate, where concessions to the whole truth are made from both sides.

Until then it will be the same old crap over and over and over and over......... FOREVER !!!!

 

Is that your way of not facing up to the fact that Pope Gore is a scamster, BBster?

- - - Updated - - -

Is that your way of not facing up to the fact that Pope Gore is a scamster, BBster?

 

So...I guess O2 is a human fertilizer if CO2 is a plant fertilizer huh?

So if I increase the O2 given to my children they will grow faster?
And person pumping CO2 into his greenhouse is an idiot and wasting his money. Plants only grow so fast...so big....and produce so much per plant.

 

Righteo then.

 

Heh heh Aussie, the GW Cult's messiah......

 

He looks like he`s really going for gold!
Old Al has the formula for turning carbon into diamonds.
Check the money tree on the manlte.

He`s not the messiah, he`s just a naughty boy!

 

Show me that Al Gore is WORSE than Lord Monckton - or are the denialists so enamoured of their English Lord that they will follow him no matter what

As I have said Gore is irrelevant - he made ONE documentary and that is it - he is not a scientist and I would much much much rather listen to scientists

BTW I am serious and proving Gore is a "scam artist" go for it - try and convince me

She says waiting for the inevitable links to astroturf blogs

 

Actually he is just that, enough evidence has been put out there about it and he is obviously the same sort of nutter. He lays claim, as you do, that man is causing global warming (oops sorry climate change) backed by science. Fact is no credible scientist is stating such a thing. He along with yourself have contrived that from some consensus of scientists who also do not state what you claim.

As one has already stated, if this was really happening the way you believe, then why is this not supported by actual observations of the premise? And let us face the truth, that is exactly why scientists are not stating categorically what you claim they are.

Following scientist indeed, truth is you are attempting to attribute something to their work, they themselves do not. Just like your pope Gore.

If you actually did follow the science of this you would realise the truth about this scam based upon the work of others all be it biased or not. Once you do realise the truth, then we can actually get down to cleaning up the act of human influence on the global effect. But until then, debates will continue to go back and forth until the cows come home, and nothing will be changed. Politicians will continue to contrive ways to get finances from you, people such as Gore will scam the system to fill their pockets and you will be sitting their paying homage to them, like they are profits of the saviour. No real change will occur.

 

Lots of words no proof

not even reading past the first sentence - do some research back up your claims and show me and I will read it

Not interested in anonymous internet opinions

 

Ok, first line is your full of BS, you do not follow scientists because you lay claim to what they do not say. It is not an opinion it is fact.

 

Hey bowergirl

You being a nurse i would have expected you to be more inquisitive about such a theory that manmade CO2 is destroying the Earth.

The only piece of evidence the pigs over at the IPCC have is in there parametric comupter generated models, or computer circulation models (CCM).

These models tell us that there is a supposed hot spot in the tropopause (10 to 12 klm above sealevel) at the equator from the extra accumulation of manmade CO2 cause apparently the Earth's sinks cannot digest what man throws up, although its seems to digest what nature throws up.

This one piece of eveidence is there supposed jewel in the crown and why they are asking us to pay a carbon price.

The only problem with this jewel is it only exists in the CCM's, empirical data cannot detect this hot spot through weather balloons or satelitte readings.

If we cannot actually see and feel something but it shows up on a computer model what does that tell you about the science?

Obviously its flawed there is no other explanation.

About the sinks of the earth not being able to digest this extra amount of CO2 man throws up, we used to have 7000ppm of CO2 in our atmosphere once upon a time where did that go, how come it was digested then and it cannot be now?

The other thing that should have starting alarm bells ringing is the fact that CO2 will be traded on the market as carbon credits derivatives, now if we only have a few years to turn things around is this really the best approach?

Blythe masters is responsible for Credit Default Swaps (CDS) which ruined the worlds econmy and gave us the 2008 GFC.

She is now writing up the laws on carbon credits and derivates.

Look at some of the stuff Mario has posted about bankers already being prosecuted for shaby dealings with carbon credits.

If you are serious about cleaning up CO2 you should be able to tell that a carbon price will do no such thing.

You want proof look at the EU's carbon mechanism, it has failed to lower Co2 emissions.

Science is not by consensus science is by cold hard facts.

If the sceince was settled why all the secrecy and revisions and 180 degree turn with all the IPCC's AR papers.

You cant adjust a science to suit your explanation.

Its either there or it isn't.

If it was there all that needs to be done is for it to be hung out like dogs balls.

BTW consenus isonly between scientists that are on the global warming religions paypacket.

Have you noticed how many more scientists not on the gravy train have spoken out against the religion and produced papers to back it up.