Wells Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) . Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 He is not even a climate scientist. Here was the extent of his research. He spent a day or so which proves nothing! https://skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html "I am not really terribly interested in global warming. Like most physicists I don't think much about it. But in 2008 I was in a panel here about global warming and I had to learn something about it. And I spent a day or so - half a day maybe on Google, and I was horrified by what I learned. And I'm going to try to explain to you why that was the case." Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 The charade is so weak and the veneer so thin that a few hours of sincere investigation is sufficient to show the hypocrisy and political agenda. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) The charade is so weak and the veneer so thin that a few hours of sincere investigation is sufficient to show the hypocrisy and political agenda. You are wrong Brian! Your little cabal in your former job are no climate scientists and never will be. The political agenda is via the corporate shills paying vast amounts of money to continue their agenda with media appearances and shouting down the scientific research. I just finished a month long retreat in the Mojave desert and am not interested in entertaining thinking that is not well informed! Edited January 21, 2017 by ralis 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 You are wrong Brian! Your little cabal in your former job are no climate scientists and never will be. The political agenda is via the corporate shills paying vast amounts of money to continue their agenda with media appearances and shouting down the scientific research. I just finished a month long retreat in the Mojave desert and am not interested in entertaining thinking that is not well informed! Rant on, ralis. Rant on. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 Rant on, ralis. Rant on. I guess your rants are superior to mine? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 I guess your rants are superior to mine?No, I think your rants are superb! 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Wells Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) . Edited March 2, 2017 by Wells Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 https://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100 Factor in the hypocrisy demonstrated by "the leaders," the repeated incidents of fraud by the "climate scientists" and the historical evidence showing that life on Earth thrives during warm periods but struggles during ice ages and you have to wonder... So... What's the real agenda? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 https://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle http://www.climatedepot.com/2017/01/17/danish-statistician-un-climate-treaty-will-cost-100-trillion-to-postpone-global-warming-by-less-than-four-year-by-2100 Factor in the hypocrisy demonstrated by "the leaders," the repeated incidents of fraud by the "climate scientists" and the historical evidence showing that life on Earth thrives during warm periods but struggles during ice ages and you have to wonder... So... What's the real agenda? Just apply some confirmation bias and a couple of quick Google searches and anything is possible. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Astral Monk Posted January 21, 2017 So what about the incongruity of greenhouses being used to increase lushness and yeilds vs they telling us evrything is stunted and struggling? Bc of greenhouse effect? Think these two things might not be related... Do we have a political disagreement here, a scientific one, blantant lies, or honest errors? If global warming is a scare tactic, what IS the agenda? What about solar warming? Changes in other planets? Certainly humans change and impact environments, no question. But we are not anywhere close to planet smashing. I saw some numbers relating to a carbon tax here in Canada. Namely, that given the estimated number of trees we currently have, our trees clean 11x the amount of carbon our society produces. So why are we taxing carbon?? Why not planting double or triple the trees? As we move away from fossil fuel use. ??? 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
MooNiNite Posted January 21, 2017 Climate change is indisputable. Like breathing in and out. Global warming however, is up for debate. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 So what about the incongruity of greenhouses being used to increase lushness and yeilds vs they telling us evrything is stunted and struggling? Bc of greenhouse effect? Think these two things might not be related... Do we have a political disagreement here, a scientific one, blantant lies, or honest errors? If global warming is a scare tactic, what IS the agenda? What about solar warming? Changes in other planets? Certainly humans change and impact environments, no question. But we are not anywhere close to planet smashing. I saw some numbers relating to a carbon tax here in Canada. Namely, that given the estimated number of trees we currently have, our trees clean 11x the amount of carbon our society produces. So why are we taxing carbon?? Why not planting double or triple the trees? As we move away from fossil fuel use. ??? Trees have a limited uptake of carbon and that is a fact. I have studied this extensively and I am in agreement with the climate research in that humans are responsible for global warming (AGW). Complex non linear dynamics in which initial conditions are drivers for change. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Aetherous Posted January 21, 2017 The only thing necessary to disprove global warming/"climate change" is to listen to the predictions of its early proponents. 4 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Trees have a limited uptake of carbon and that is a fact. I have studied this extensively and I am in agreement with the climate research in that humans are responsible for global warming (AGW). Complex non linear dynamics in which initial conditions are drivers for change.Your zeal is impressive, ralis, but I'd be more impressed by a display of scientific curiosity. Oh, and consistency. You entered this thread to dismiss a physicist because he isn't a "climate scientist" and you opined, as you have many times before, that no one who is not an ordained member of the Priesthood of the Church of Anthropomorphic Global Warming should be ignored and labeled as cabalists and shills but now you are abandoning the appeal to authority to claim we should simply take your word because you have "studied this extensively"? Pardon me if I snicker. FWIW, I started studying this with considerable interest in the late 1990s and I am of the opinion that the cabal (to use your word) has the objective of accumulation of wealth and power. Edited January 21, 2017 by Brian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Your zeal is impressive, ralis, but I'd be more impressed by a display of scientific curiosity. Oh, and consistency. You entered this thread to dismiss a physicist because he isn't a "climate scientist" and you opined, as you have many times before, that no one who is not an ordained member of the Priesthood of the Church of Anthropomorphic Global Warming should be ignored and labeled as cabalists and shills but now you are abandoning the appeal to authority to claim we should simply take your word because you have "studied this extensively"? Pardon me if I snicker. FWIW, I started studying this with considerable interest in the late 1990s and I am of the opinion that the cabal (to use your word) has the objective of accumulation of wealth and power. According to your narrative I am to take your word for it. I have much scientific curiosity and given your story line here the obvious conclusion is to be in complete with you. I don't agree with your conclusions at all! Edited January 21, 2017 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted January 21, 2017 According to your narrative I am to take your word for it.Heavens no! I have repeatedly encouraged readers to do their own research into the very curious behavior surrounding this whole initiative, dating back to before it became "a thing." You, on the other hand, jump up and down and decry anyone suggesting lifting the rug and looking under this multi-trillion-dollar "settled science" hair-on-fire crisis. The truth is out there, you know. 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ralis Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Heavens no! I have repeatedly encouraged readers to do their own research into the very curious behavior surrounding this whole initiative, dating back to before it became "a thing." You, on the other hand, jump up and down and decry anyone suggesting lifting the rug and looking under this multi-trillion-dollar "settled science" hair-on-fire crisis. The truth is out there, you know. 'The truth'? Your truth? I have done much research and written extensively about it on this forum. I just don't agree with you. Moreover, you post nothing of note, but personal opinion that you are right. I never claimed settled science and that in no way portends that the research is somehow flawed to the point of being disposed of. Edited January 21, 2017 by ralis Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KuroShiro Posted February 1, 2017 Global Warming can indeed be considered an hoax in the sense that we should be concerned about pollution in all its forms, not Global Warming. If we're focused on a possible consequence we'll not address the true cause. Some scientists say that "Global Warming" may accelerate the next ice age... If we really look at the sky, the oceans, the rivers, the fields, the countryside, the flora and fauna, us, mother's milk, we'll tear up and that's no hoax. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dust Posted February 1, 2017 (edited) I am continually baffled at how many members here are essentially variations on Xenophilius Lovegood -- they will only believe something as long as there is no evidence of it, and the crazier the belief the more vehemently they'll defend it. Climate change is not a discussion. Stop being so silly. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Edited February 1, 2017 by dust Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taoist Texts Posted February 2, 2017 Climate change is not a discussion. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) Climate change is not a discussion. http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ The AGW crowd would be more credible if their scientists weren't repeatedly caught manipulating data and their leaders didn't conspicuously live in contrast with the goals they espouse. A PhD statistician I know says, "I'll start to take them seriously when they start acting like they believe what they say.". (I may not have the quote right but it is close...) Edited February 2, 2017 by Brian Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Taoist Texts Posted February 2, 2017 (edited) (I may not have the quote right but it is close...) i love quoting The emissions they seek to regulate are not dirty, sooty carbon, but carbon dioxide, that harmless gas that we exhale with every breadth. This complex is led and supported by "Watermelons," those whose rhetoric is green, but whose tactics and political ambitions he traces back to the national socialists and communists of earlier eras. Their goal is to control the economy and impose their vision of human society through the coercive power of government. http://www.forbes.com/sites/charleskadlec/2011/07/25/the-goal-is-power-the-global-warming-conspiracy/2/#1fa4a88f7ffd Edited February 2, 2017 by Taoist Texts 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Brian Posted February 7, 2017 (edited) This just in -- How world leaders were duped into investing billions over manipulated global warming data Edited February 7, 2017 by Brian 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nungali Posted February 7, 2017 Phew ! Been soooooooooo hot here lately ! http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-31/hottest-summer-ever-and-it-is-only-january/8225840 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
