On 19/11/2015 at 05:05, P-man said:

Congrats on showing restraint up until now.

To save time in future, you may as well just post the link you're grabbing this stuff from, or at least acknowledge it: http://www.iloveco2.com/2009/01/top-15-climate-myths.html

My favourite two quotes would have to be either the gob smacking irony of this statement: "It is better to trust scientists than politicians. Do not let fear ruin your day."

Or this: "Foreign countries are lying to us (by means of the IPCC) because they wish to throw a monkey wrench into the inner workings of western economies, which are the strongest in the world. If our economy slows down, the economic standing of other countries improves because we will no longer dominate the markets."

So essentially, the two largest economies in the world are being duped. They are spending billions upon billions of dollars on research and development while making transformative changes in the way they buy, sell and generate energy, all because the foreigners are duping them via the IPCC based on some dodgy readings...in kahootz with Greenpeace.

While we're playing the game of "I'm no scientist but I have access to the internet", the urban heat island effect has been demonstrated repeatedly to have no signficant influence on the surface temperature record. Here's a paper that debunks the influence of the UHI effect on global temperature trends using the case studies of London and Vienna to establish that urban areas show near identical trends as surrounding rural areas: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008JD009916/full

Summarised here: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Does-Urban-Heat-Island-effect-add-to-the-global-warming-trend.html

Criticisms of the records were also addressed in detail through the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project: http://www.skepticalscience.com/WattsandBEST.html

Ideology has no place in discussions such as this. When that is the starting point, it leads to reckless conclusions and outcomes. Same with positions generated out of fear, or arrogance. When there is a 97% scientific consensus based on a vast body of evidence that human caused global warming is occurring, that will always override any stay at home researcher's opinion on the matter. The scientific community must be respected, and they have been talking almost in total unison for some time now.

You have the right as an intelligent person to remain steadfast in your skepticism. But those in positions of power are listening to those whose opinion matters. Yours, mine, and the guy who loves CO2, do not.

You do know how to provide links. Now just for the 95% of peers...

  On 19/11/2015 at 01:21, Dr John Dee said:

Standard tactic of the bleating right wing, of course, to start griping about freedom of speech when anyone with a different view starts exercising it (I'm not offended, by the way. Maybe you should check the meaning of contemptible sometime).

No, your ridiculous effort to try to justify yourself by proclaiming yourself to be Charlie is precisely that the time for that particular proclamation is past. The simple fact that you don't understand this demonstrates more than adequately that you're not Charlie and I doubt whether you ever were.

Damn those wanting freedom of speech and particularity those with different views.

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:15, Wrecker45 said:

You do know how to provide links. Now just for the 95% of peers...

Look it up yourself.

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:24, P-man said:

Look it up yourself.

I would but I'm not sure what to type in to check it. What do the 95% of peers believe in and why wont you just provide a link?

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:28, Wrecker45 said:

I would but I'm not sure what to type in to check it. What do the 95% of peers believe in and why wont you just provide a link?

I typed into google "climate change scientific consensus".

First 2 links:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

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

The IPCC buried two serious studies showing a worldwide MWP and LIA – and used Michael Mann’s obviously fraudulent Hockey Stick instead. The Hockey Stick has become the gold standard of institutionalized fraud in government funded climate science.

More from Professor Muller from Berkeley.

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:05, P-man said:

...When there is a 97% scientific consensus based on a vast body of evidence that human caused global warming is occurring, that will always override any stay at home researcher's opinion on the matter.

Which 97% are you referring to ? Cook's or Zimmerman's ?

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:30, Choke said:

I typed into google "climate change scientific consensus".

First 2 links:

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

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

Choke - Thanks for providing links. Some posters on this site seem incapable of doing so.

The reason I asked p-man to reference the 95% argument he put forward was not to argue about semantics. It is and was about who we choose to believe. P-man only chooses to believe scientists who favour the alarmist global warming view that he does. Anything that doesn't fit his narrative, he rules out because it doesn't fit within his "picking". P-man says 95% agree with something (still not sure think it might be the vibe) to justify his bias.

On the first link it surprises me that NASA, the world's supposed leading (and often pioneering) scientific body would have to link to other lesser renowned bodies to form a consensus (science is not about a vote). Why don't NASA have evidence? The science is settled after all...

I clicked on the top link from NASA (I'm not going to read them all), the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the findings are from 2006, well before the hiatus was recognized and statistically significant.

Let me know if you want me to read the full statement from any of the others and I will comment back. Choose the best one.

The second link is to a study that had been widely debunked.

Thanks again for providing links.

  On 17/11/2015 at 05:56, Wrecker45 said:

95% of their peers? Are we talking sea level rises, polar bear extincting, upper atmosphere warming or just the vibe?

I back up my statements with links. I'm guessing you will just say you can't be bothered arguing with me. Again...

you don't back up your thoughts with anything, but resistance. thats your strength. you pick a topic you like & bat one way the money status quo way.

i supplied you with links of extracts from some of your favoured sites you recommend; but your reply was something like, 'I won't be reading those, dl'. you just wrote them off.

your imo not interested in change, whether for the betterment of mankind, if it involves a cost to budget.

  On 19/11/2015 at 06:46, ProDee said:

Which 97% are you referring to ? Cook's or Zimmerman's ?

They both arrived at the same figure I believe so you can take your pick. That 97% figure I believe has been consistently found across the relevant studies conducted.

Before you provide the "gotcha", I am aware of Monckton's criticism of Cook's survey of the 12,000 abstracts. His own criticism is what should have been peer reviewed. He focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search. Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). In order to estimate the consensus, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming. When performing this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers.

I believe it is fundamentally important to respect the scientific bodies in this country. The CSIRO's latest Climate Report concluded that while further research is needed to quantify confidence levels, there is ample, well-supported evidence to provide a basis for action through mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and for adaptation to reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. Claims of hoaxes and conspiracies, to me, are just white noise.

It feels bizarre to be debating this in 2015 so I'm gonna bow out. Cheers.

  On 19/11/2015 at 05:22, Wrecker45 said:

Damn those wanting freedom of speech and particularity those with different views.

Are you really that stupid?

No need to answer, it's rhetorical. What amazes me is that someone so demonstrably incapable of reading an ordinary English sentence should be spreading garbage all over this and other threads based on some presumption that he knows how to read more technical material.

  On 19/11/2015 at 15:11, P-man said:

They both arrived at the same figure I believe so you can take your pick. That 97% figure I believe has been consistently found across the relevant studies conducted.

Before you provide the "gotcha", I am aware of Monckton's criticism of Cook's survey of the 12,000 abstracts. His own criticism is what should have been peer reviewed. He focuses exclusively on the papers that quantified human-caused global warming, and takes these as a percentage of all 12,000 abstracts captured in the literature search. Approximately two-thirds of abstracts did not take a position on the causes of global warming, for various reasons (e.g. the causes were simply not relevant to or a key component of their specific research paper). In order to estimate the consensus, it's necessary to focus on the abstracts that actually stated a position on human-caused global warming. When performing this calculation, the consensus position that humans are the main cause of global warming is endorsed in 87% of abstracts and 96% of full papers.

I believe it is fundamentally important to respect the scientific bodies in this country. The CSIRO's latest Climate Report concluded that while further research is needed to quantify confidence levels, there is ample, well-supported evidence to provide a basis for action through mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions and for adaptation to reduce our vulnerability to climate change impacts. Claims of hoaxes and conspiracies, to me, are just white noise.

It feels bizarre to be debating this in 2015 so I'm gonna bow out. Cheers.

I'm not sure why you quote "97%" when you know that figure is discredited.

Quote:

"Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,”

Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded (former head of the university’s Centre for Climatic Research).

Patrick Moore on Global Warming – Founder of Greenpeace

There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.

'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis) “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”. But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.

'When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today. 'There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.

'Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.

'The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970. 'This was followed by an increase of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time. The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to “human influence.”'

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history“, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

Ah yes, Marxist theory wonderfully espoused by the UN.

  On 20/11/2015 at 00:30, ProDee said:

Christiana Figueres, the Executive Secretary of UNFCCC, warns that the fight against climate change is a process and that the necessary transformation of the world economy will not be decided at one conference or in one agreement.

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model, for the first time in human history“, Ms Figueres stated at a press conference in Brussels:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the industrial revolution. That will not happen overnight and it will not happen at a single conference on climate change, be it COP 15, 21, 40 – you choose the number. It just does not occur like that. It is a process, because of the depth of the transformation.”

Ah yes, Marxist theory wonderfully espoused by the UN.

Your point being (other than to demonstrate that you know nothing about Marxist theory)?

  On 20/11/2015 at 20:47, Dr John Dee said:

Your point being (other than to demonstrate that you know nothing about Marxist theory)?

It's one step in a commitment to social engineering on a global scale.

Fire decreased by 90% in the years prior, so it didn't suit the narrative.

  On 19/11/2015 at 20:13, Dr John Dee said:

Are you really that stupid?

No need to answer, it's rhetorical. What amazes me is that someone so demonstrably incapable of reading an ordinary English sentence should be spreading garbage all over this and other threads based on some presumption that he knows how to read more technical material.

If believing in freedom of speech is stupid then guilty as charged.

  On 21/11/2015 at 00:43, Wrecker45 said:

If believing in freedom of speech is stupid then guilty as charged.

Stop distorting what I've said and stop trying to avoid taking responsibility for what you've said (so much for freedom of speech). You're behaving like a ten year old or Tony Abbott for that matter (I know I am but what are you? ) No surprises really.

I exercise my right to take no further notice of your ridiculous prevarications.

  On 20/11/2015 at 21:32, ProDee said:

It's one step in a commitment to social engineering on a global scale.

Nothing to do with Karl Marx. So, just a bit of name-dropping to make it look like you know what you're talking about. I hope your jottings on climate change have a bit more authority.

  On 21/11/2015 at 01:42, Dr John Dee said:

Nothing to do with Karl Marx. So, just a bit of name-dropping to make it look like you know what you're talking about. I hope your jottings on climate change have a bit more authority.

Do the research and let me know.

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years.

  On 21/11/2015 at 03:57, ProDee said:

Sea levels have been rising for 20,000 years.

Probably best to provide the link to the appropriate page so that people can get a more complete/balanced view:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise

June 24 2008