Visit our Popular Forums

bobsadler · 27-02-2013, 16:16

From UK Met Office reported data. Not difficult too comprehend.

downunder · 27-02-2013, 16:22

Reefmagnet,

You need to understand that you have just presented some inconvenient facts.

Don't you realise the rain here in Mackay as I type is climate change or global warming.

Gelfling · 27-02-2013, 16:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tar34

Because you're borderline hysterical and project a certainty of calamity which is a little off putting. We hear your dire warning of doom. Now, please describe for us how, if you had the power, the various constraints you would impose on our "western" lifestyle and freedom to consume. Place that in the context of what another poster described as the under consuming per capita in the poorer nations and his complaint of overpopulation in those regions. Be specific as how you would ensure compliance given the looming catastrophe.

Haha.....I see what you did there. Suggesting fascism as the only alternative to fix the problem of mindless rogue drones that have been programmed with the directive to consume or die.

Reefmagnet · 27-02-2013, 16:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by downunder

Reefmagnet,

You need to understand that you have just presented some inconvenient facts.

Don't you realise the rain here in Mackay as I type is climate change or global warming.

Yeah the climate changed from sunny a week ago to rain. And I hear we're above average for the month too. I don't recall being above average last year. Definitely something going on mate!

downunder · 27-02-2013, 16:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Yeah the climate changed from sunny a week ago to rain. And I hear we're above average for the month too. I don't recall being above average last year. Definitely something going on mate!

I hear you.

cwyckham · 27-02-2013, 16:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tar34

I have conceded the point you coward.

That is way, way out of line.

First, your argument makes no sense at all. You're suggesting that man made global climate change doesn't exist because the solution to it is difficult? How does that make sense? It's a bit like: "I'm being attacked and violated by a gorilla, but I don't know how to make the gorilla stop, so I'll decided that I'm not being violated."

Second, everybody already knows the answer: Reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. The fact that that is unpopular and politically difficult doesn't mean that there's a problem with the science.

Gelfling · 27-02-2013, 16:35

On the plus side......I was out weeding the vegetable garden getting ready to plant the spring vegies......and the perennials are already blooming!

"April showers bring May flowers" ...... that is the last time I listen to the 97%.....bunch of liars!

Lake-Effect · 27-02-2013, 16:46

So, yes, I caught the train with 2 min to spare. As obsessed as I am with this thread, I' wasn't gonna miss dinner either. (Zealots gotta eat too)

Our story so far: Tar34 had granted me a hypothetical concession re the truth of climate scientists' conclusions re global warming. Taking that as given:

IF the public debate is essentially won and we no longer have the snowstorm of corporation-funded BS and unsubstantiated denier claims to continuously wade through;

and

IF the scientific conclusions continue to stand up to genuine scientific skepticism;

Then - my take on the best case scenario:

people can actually start thinking about the future, instead of denying the present
attention shifts to generating better projections of what changes could actually happen and when, and planning for it
it becomes easier to enact sane policy re total energy mix. Buh-bye oil subsidies.
conservation gets higher billing going forward - housing and appliance standards, urban planning, mass transit, etc
alternative, renewable energy strategies finally get the attention and investment they deserve, with big oil off the teat. These are the growth industries of the future, and we need the better technology ASAP
finally gain enough energy independence to stop propping up unsavory regimes (oops, is that too political?)
The affluent countries need to lead on the development and implementation of better energy technology so that it can be available ASAP to developing countries, making it possible for them to acheive their growth goals with less reliance on dirty energy
In terms of consumption, the affluent countries need to create demand for more sustainable and less toxic imports, and favour countries with better energy policies

... and we go forward from there. No mass starvations, no clutching your AR-15 and munching MREs while shooting looters, no surrendering your plastic boat to the anti-toxin squad.

Vague, isn't it? Sorry, the thing I'm currently obsessed with is getting past the denier BS. Haven't gone beyond that. JFK started something that put a man on the moon. Dare to dream.

Lake-Effect · 27-02-2013, 16:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by tar34

I have conceded the point you coward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwyckham

That is way, way out of line.

Thanks, but I didn't really take it as such; I heard another frustrated debater, which is something I can, er, relate to here.

Lake-Effect · 27-02-2013, 16:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobsadler

From UK Met Office reported data. Not difficult too comprehend.

Be sure to come back next year, when after a record hot year Bob re-applies his straight-edge and concedes that yes, there was global warming, after all.

LakeSuperior · 27-02-2013, 16:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobsadler

From UK Met Office reported data. Not difficult too comprehend.

Doesn't look like much change in average world temperature over the last 15 years! On a casual glance it seems to indicate that the climatic models are overpredicting!!

Gelfling · 27-02-2013, 16:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by cwyckham

That is way, way out of line.

First, your argument makes no sense at all. You're suggesting that man made global climate change doesn't exist because the solution to it is difficult? How does that make sense? It's a bit like: "I'm being attacked and violated by a gorilla, but I don't know how to make the gorilla stop, so I'll decided that I'm not being violated."

Second, everybody already knows the answer: Reduce our emissions of greenhouse gases. The fact that that is unpopular and politically difficult doesn't mean that there's a problem with the science.

Search his posts on any thread and see if you can find one that isn't `trolling`. I gave up long ago trying to give credit to the words he offers that seek no credibility. Others will do the same.....then he will change his screen name and try again. Then I will say........I foretold you so.

cwyckham · 27-02-2013, 17:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

...
Vague, isn't it? Sorry, the thing I'm currently obsessed with is getting past the denier BS. Haven't gone beyond that. JFK started something that put a man on the moon. Dare to dream.

You forget the surprising number of people who don't believe we ever went to the moon. It was all a hoax, you see.

Part of the issue is that there are a number of groups who have spent a lot of time trying to show that a particular scientific conclusion is wrong. They have different agendas, but the sum total is a lack of confidence in the scientific process and establishment by the public. This serves the purpose of these groups, but becomes very dangerous when we need to make difficult decisions based on real evidence.

Examples:

Smoking isn't really bad for you.
Homeopathy / Q rays / TCM / magnets will cure what western medicine says can't be cured (yet)
The world was created in six days ten thousand years ago
And now, we can puke as much CO2 as we want into the atmosphere and nothing bad will happen.

They all build on eachother until we have a general public who thinks that Joe Blogger is smarter than those idiot scientists, and becaust Joe Blogger's thoughts are more convenient, he must be right.