collapse

Poll

Do you believe that man's emission of Greenhouse gases such as CO2 and CH4 are (and will) signifcantly affecting the Climate?

Yes
28 (75.7%)
No
7 (18.9%)
Unsure
1 (2.7%)
D
1 (2.7%)

Total Members Voted: 37


Anthony Moan

  • Ahab the Arab
  • Road Captain
  • Country: cv
  • Posts: 2044
  • Liked: 891
Re: Global warming my a.s
« Reply #60 on: February 11, 2012, 16:25 »
cool! so now you understand :)
Vikings took advantage of ice-free seas to colonize Greenland in mini global warming period around 10th and 12th century ad. There was no Prius, CO2, industrie and Al Gore at that time, it is natural 8). Greenland was just ok then. Humans has nothing to do with it, IMHO
  • ReplyReply
  • Reverend Fred Saves!!

    Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #61 on: February 11, 2012, 18:49 »
    Bong, our asses are a source of global warming as well.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #62 on: February 11, 2012, 19:09 »
    Bong, our asses are a source of global warming as well.
    Not just ours, cows pollute as much as cars ;D. I would die to see research "dinosaurs vs cows gasses and their influence on global warming" :P
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #63 on: February 11, 2012, 19:22 »
    Here you are- Full article

    Quote
    The emissions of northern dinosaurs may have led to a warmer planet 70 million years ago, said a scientist attending the 2010 American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in mid-December.....

    ....He figured the output of one hadrosaur equaled that of about 10 cows, and then he extrapolated. Because there are published reports on how much methane wafts from the average cow pie, Fiorillo figured that the Alaska hadrosaurs might have contributed an impressive amount of the greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. In short, “hadrosaurs may have contributed to a warmer Arctic,” he said.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891

    Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #65 on: February 12, 2012, 01:12 »
    Just putting out there that I am a sceptic of this thing called Anthropogenic Global Warming and catastrophic predictions that many of the alarmists make.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 07:42 by Auscyclefan »
    - Australia's greatest sporting moment

    The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #66 on: February 12, 2012, 01:20 »
    Just putting out there that I am a sceptic of this thing called Global Warming.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 01:23 by The Hitch »
    Despite the self-serving data benders and associated propaganda to the contrary, I am led to believe that there are pockets of organised, highly sophisticated dopers, even within 'new age' cycling teams. Personally, I don't accept that the 'dark era' has ended, it has just morphed into a new guise.

    Tuart

    • Pobblebonk
    • Road Captain
    • Country: tl
    • Posts: 2045
    • Liked: 483
    • Awards: Velogames Giro Winner 2014
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #67 on: February 12, 2012, 01:22 »



    ftfy ;)

    edit: and you've now cleaned it up yourself. :D
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 01:26 by Tuarts »
    2014 Velorooms Giro d'Italia Velogames Winner

    Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #68 on: February 12, 2012, 01:23 »
     ::)Say what??????
  • ReplyReply

  • Dim

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • *
    • Country: gb
    • Posts: 8403
    • Liked: 3364
      • Velorooms
    • Awards: Race Preview of 2014Best Post 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #69 on: February 12, 2012, 01:25 »
    lost me :S
  • ReplyReply

  • The Hitch

    • Winner 2012 Tour de France prediction game
    • Road Captain
    • Country: pl
    • Posts: 2473
    • Liked: 841
    • Awards: 2013 Annual Prediction Game2013 CQ Ranking Vuelta Game Post of the Year 2013Race Preview of the Year 2013
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #70 on: February 12, 2012, 01:25 »
    ftfy ;)

    lol those meme generator things are messed up..

    I ended up copying it to paint then uploading it via photobucket.

    Funniest thing is that in the proccess I clicked the "delete spam post" butten, deleting my own post as spam which cost me karma rep, cos I failed to see the remove button above.

    Doh ???
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 01:28 by The Hitch »

    bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #71 on: February 12, 2012, 08:19 »
    Just putting out there that I am a sceptic of this thing called Anthropogenic Global Warming and catastrophic predictions that many of the alarmists make.
    Do you believe that atoms are made of photons, neutrons and electrons? It is undisputed science.
    Climate science is the same. I challenge you to find an academic, peer-reviewed journal article in climate science that says climate change is not happening, it's not a cause of our human influence and that there will be significant consequences. There are none.
  • ReplyReply
  • Cycman: Sagan Greipel Brajkovic Breschel CA.Sorensen Porte Wegmann Sutton Zubeldia Fedrigo Lastras Roux Selig Morabito Dumoulin T.Meyer
    CQ game-breakers: Boom Ciolek DeGendt Steegmans Bertagnolli Blythe Masciarelli Stetina Boeckmans Vaugrenard

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #72 on: February 12, 2012, 09:13 »
    "According to the scientist, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the Earth's atmosphere has risen more than 4% in the past decade, but global warming has practically stopped. It confirms the theory of "solar" impact on changes in the Earth's climate, because the amount of solar energy reaching the planet has drastically decreased during the same period, the scientist said.
    Had global temperatures directly responded to concentrations of "greenhouse" gases in the atmosphere, they would have risen by at least 0.1 Celsius in the past ten years, however, it never happened, he said."
    http://en.rian.ru/science/20080122/97519953.html full article, enjoy 8)

    What kind of proof you are looking? If ice core melting was not happening before, Vikings would never colonize Greenland, rather we should looking for them in some pub in Denmark.

    Further, The Inuit thrived in the icy world of Greenland of the Little Ice Age and were the only inhabitants of the island for several centuries, there was no CO2 effect then.

    That ice cap nonsense is natural, and happens long before, and would happens again and again.

    Some interesting photos
    church of Hvalsey Greenland


    A graphical description of changes in temperature in Greenland from AD 500 – 1990 based on analysis of the deep ice core from Greenland and some historical events. The annual temperature changes are shown vertical in ˚C. The numbers are to be read horizontal:
    1. From AD 700 to 750 people belonging to the Late Dorset Culture move into the area around Smith Sound, Ellesmere Island and Greenland north of Thule.
    2. Norse settlement of Iceland starts in the second half of the 9th century.
    3. Norse settlement of Greenland starts just before the year 1000.
    4. Thule Inuit move into northern Greenland in the 12th century.
    5. Late Dorset culture disappears from Greenland in the second half of the 13th century.
    6. The Western Settlement disappears in mid 14th century.
    7. In 1408 is the Marriage in Hvalsey, the last known written document on the Norse in Greenland.
    8. The Eastern Settlement disappears in mid 15th century.
    9. John Cabot is the first European in the post-Iceland era to visit Labrador - Newfoundland in 1497.
    10. “Little Ice Age” from ca 1600 to mid 18th century.
    11. The Norwegian priest, Hans Egede, arrives in Greenland in 1721.
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #73 on: February 12, 2012, 09:14 »
    Bicing- Surely you mean proton. Photon is a quantum of light.
  • ReplyReply

  • Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #74 on: February 12, 2012, 09:37 »
    Do you believe that atoms are made of photons, neutrons and electrons? It is undisputed science.
    Climate science is the same. I challenge you to find an academic, peer-reviewed journal article in climate science that says climate change is not happening, it's not a cause of our human influence and that there will be significant consequences. There are none.

    You need to learn how to read. I never said some of the things that you are accusing me of saying. Putting "undisputed science" and "atoms are made of photons" next to each other is an oxymoron. ;D
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 12, 2012, 09:44 by Auscyclefan »

    Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #75 on: February 12, 2012, 09:45 »
    Bicing- Surely you mean proton. Photon is a quantum of light.
    Proton is a car you Indian ignorant ;D
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #76 on: February 12, 2012, 09:48 »
    that's Malaysian, they're just bicycles with lids.
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #77 on: February 12, 2012, 09:53 »
    that's Malaysian, they're just bicycles with lids.
    Thanks dude 8)
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #78 on: February 12, 2012, 09:58 »
    Pleasure mate.

    Come on ACF, bicing-
  • ReplyReply

  • Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #79 on: February 12, 2012, 10:16 »
    Pleasure mate.

    Come on ACF, bicing-


    i go on other forums and blogs to discuss this kind of stuff. only in brief on this sort of forum.
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #80 on: February 12, 2012, 10:50 »
    Stop pussyfooting around and get stuck in ;)
  • ReplyReply

  • Anthony Moan

    • Ahab the Arab
    • Road Captain
    • Country: cv
    • Posts: 2044
    • Liked: 891
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #81 on: February 12, 2012, 10:55 »
    I am not saying that one of the theories are somehow 100% right, just saying I do not beleive in that.
    Happy reading vicing 8)

    Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, it is Jews conspiracy :'(
    "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more
    complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated
    by the media. In fact, there is much more than meets the eye,”

    Geologist Bruno Wiskel of the University of Alberta, Canadians are somehow lack of English knowledge for sure :-*
    Noting that the Earth has been warming for 18,000 years, Wiskel told the
    Canadian newspaper, “If this happened once and we were the cause of it, that would be
    cause for concern. But glaciers have been coming and going for billions of years."

    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
    authored more than 100 scientific articles, communist for sure
    "Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
    climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of
    being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
    very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
    point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena."

    And more tha 700 hundreds dudes who first believe about human influenced change their minds, it is never too late  ;D

    link: http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=c5e16731-3c64-481c-9a36-d702baea2a42
  • ReplyReply

  • Francois the Postman

    • National Champion
    • Country: scotland
    • Posts: 779
    • Liked: 824
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #82 on: February 13, 2012, 07:05 »
    Geophysicist Dr. Claude Allegre, a top geophysicist and French Socialist who has
    authored more than 100 scientific articles, communist for sure.
    "Allegre, who was one of the first scientists to sound global warming fears 20 years ago, now says the cause of
    climate change is "unknown" and accused the “prophets of doom of global warming” of
    being motivated by money, noting that "the ecology of helpless protesting has become a
    very lucrative business for some people!" “Glaciers’ chronicles or historical archives
    point to the fact that climate is a capricious phenomena."
    More than 100 scientific articles, and a leader in the field? Wow. Can you name one peer-reviewed published in the area we are actually discussing: climate science? Can you explain why someone with ZERO publications is on your list of 3, and not, for instance, one single name out of the many many scientists who have actually published in the relevant area, and do not share his opinion at all?

    I would (again) suggest better sources to start from, but somehow I suspect that you simply don't trust the experts in their fields, or the sites worth following, as I fail to understand why you would otherwise drag in non-experts and fringe figures and long debunked objections, and depict them as leaders and unanswered problems? And ignore the many expert voices that have already explained or addressed, time and time again, several of the issues you raised?

    The earth is warming pretty much exactly as expected and predicted by models, and any genuine expert in the field ought to be able to produce the data that shows the predictions by the various models, and how they stack up against our actual measurements. You are happy to echo the claims about recent developments that you like. How do you address graphs like this? Which, btw, is also up to date, not a claim from 2007, as if we didn't know what happened next.





    Quote
    And more tha 700 hundreds dudes who first believe about human influenced change their minds, it is never too late  ;D
    Indeed, a learning opportunity: how many people and institutes have changed their mind in the opposite direction? If you don't know, why did you not ask that question first, before regurgitating "there is a list of 700"? And to be more precise, how many of those 700 are genuine experts in the appropriate field, with up to date understanding? And (in general) how many experts have become more sceptic, and how many have become less sceptic? Isn't that a more relevant question?

    You keep saying that you aren't sure, and what that suggests is that you are willing to learn, and look at arguments fairly. Then why on earth do you then keep listening (only) to people who are less likely to give you accurate answers? And seemingly ignore the people who actually have current understanding of the issues at hand?

    Before you post more of those links, can you check with places like http://www.skepticalscience.com/  to find out what the already established counter-arguments are (usually sourced from peer-reviewed articles) for the well-trodden issues you raise (presented in understandable English). That is something that anyone who wants to learn would do automatically, not? Seek out pros and cons, and make your mind up if it is worth posting here, before plastering link after link of debunked alternative suggestions, add the opinion of "expert" people to the conversation, whose actual expertise is highly questionable. And/or whose not-so-peer-reviewed theories have already received a good picking over, and usually with the rather predictable result that what is left is not matching actual observations, is ignoring important context, or is only half the story.

    There are a lot of questions left to be answered. There are also peer-reviewed sceptics who ask good questions, or propose interesting new angles. But it helps if people asked the right questions first, to the right people, rather than take any parrot in their camp that appears to have gravitas and throw it "out there".

    If you can't get hold of seriously boring nitty gritty peer-reviewed magazines, this is an alternative point of view that addresses several of the issues (and people) you have raised, within a few post, with actual counter-argumentation:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

    It is indeed never too late to start a genuine examination of your own talking point lists.

    BTW, the comments are usually worth reading as much a the article above it. If the article glossed over something, or missed a beat, it usually gets brought up by the people who scrutinize the articles to academic standards, there.
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 07:07 by Francois the Postman »

    bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #83 on: February 13, 2012, 07:25 »
    More than 100 scientific articles, and a leader in the field? Wow. Can you name one peer-reviewed published in the area we are actually discussing: climate science? Can you explain why someone with ZERO publications is on your list of 3, and not, for instance, one single name out of the many many scientists who have actually published in the relevant area, and do not share his opinion at all?

    I would (again) suggest better sources to start from, but somehow I suspect that you simply don't trust the experts in their fields, or the sites worth following, as I fail to understand why you would otherwise drag in non-experts and fringe figures and long debunked objections, and depict them as leaders and unanswered problems? And ignore the many expert voices that have already explained or addressed, time and time again, several of the issues you raised?

    The earth is warming pretty much exactly as expected and predicted by models, and any genuine expert in the field ought to be able to produce the data that shows the predictions by the various models, and how they stack up against our actual measurements. You are happy to echo the claims about recent developments that you like. How do you address graphs like this? Which, btw, is also up to date, not a claim from 2007, as if we didn't know what happened next.




    Indeed, a learning opportunity: how many people and institutes have changed their mind in the opposite direction? If you don't know, why did you not ask that question first, before regurgitating "there is a list of 700"? And to be more precise, how many of those 700 are genuine experts in the appropriate field, with up to date understanding? And (in general) how many experts have become more sceptic, and how many have become less sceptic? Isn't that a more relevant question?

    You keep saying that you aren't sure, and what that suggests is that you are willing to learn, and look at arguments fairly. Then why on earth do you then keep listening (only) to people who are less likely to give you accurate answers? And seemingly ignore the people who actually have current understanding of the issues at hand?

    Before you post more of those links, can you check with places like http://www.skepticalscience.com/  to find out what the already established counter-arguments are (usually sourced from peer-reviewed articles) for the well-trodden issues you raise (presented in understandable English). That is something that anyone who wants to learn would do automatically, not? Seek out pros and cons, and make your mind up if it is worth posting here, before plastering link after link of debunked alternative suggestions, add the opinion of "expert" people to the conversation, whose actual expertise is highly questionable. And/or whose not-so-peer-reviewed theories have already received a good picking over, and usually with the rather predictable result that what is left is not matching actual observations, is ignoring important context, or is only half the story.

    There are a lot of questions left to be answered. There are also peer-reviewed sceptics who ask good questions, or propose interesting new angles. But it helps if people asked the right questions first, to the right people, rather than take any parrot in their camp that appears to have gravitas and throw it "out there".

    If you can't get hold of seriously boring nitty gritty peer-reviewed magazines, this is an alternative point of view that addresses several of the issues (and people) you have raised, within a few post, with actual counter-argumentation:

    http://www.skepticalscience.com/examining-the-latest-climate-denialist-plea-for-inaction.html

    It is indeed never too late to start a genuine examination of your own talking point lists.

    BTW, the comments are usually worth reading as much a the article above it. If the article glossed over something, or missed a beat, it usually gets brought up by the people who scrutinize the articles to academic standards, there.

    +1
  • ReplyReply

  • Ram

    • Grand Tour Winner
    • Country: 00
    • Posts: 7865
    • Liked: 953
    • Awards: Best Opening Post 2012Member you would most like to meet in real life 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #84 on: February 13, 2012, 07:29 »
    Now that's just lazy mate.:)
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #85 on: February 13, 2012, 07:52 »
    Welcome to lesson one of "The Life of Skeptics", where I teach you about the behaviour of these fascinating animals, which are commonly thought of as pests.

    This is a characteristic element of the skeptic's argument:
    Making a statement seen as contradictory to everyone except itself.

    Let's observe the creature in action. The creature first announces it is skeptical of climate change:

    February 12, 2012, 01:12
    Just putting out there that I am a sceptic of this thing called Anthropogenic Global Warming and catastrophic predictions that many of the alarmists make.

    Forum poster bicing responded saying that Anthropogenic Global Warming and its catastrophic predictions are absolutely scientifically sound, and that disputing them would be like disputing basic science. Forum poster bicing acknowledges its spelling mistake.

    February 12, 2012, 09:37
    You need to learn how to read. I never said some of the things that you are accusing me of saying. Putting "undisputed science" and "atoms are made of photons" next to each other is an oxymoron. ;D

    If this above quote were to be true, forum poster bicing misunderstood that this creature said he is a sceptic of Anthropogenic Global Warming and catastrophic predictions. However how can this be possible, when skeptic clearly said it? It is because skeptic pests have significnatly compromised brain capacities which limits their ability for coherent thought and logic.

    Moving more generally from this example of auscyclefan, this is why the skeptick species reference "reputable scientists" that have never been published in scientific journals. This is why sketpics bring in statistics on one subject and compare them to another, when that is bad science. One can occasionally find comparisons of the bad climate science of skeptics with new age "scientists".

    I hope you've enjoyed the first episode.

    (Dedicated to Ramjamtrike)
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 07:53 by bicing »

    Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #86 on: February 13, 2012, 08:08 »
    Welcome to lesson one of "The Life of Skeptics", where I teach you about the behaviour of these fascinating animals, which are commonly thought of as pests.

    This is a characteristic element of the skeptic's argument:
    Making a statement seen as contradictory to everyone except itself.

    Let's observe the creature in action. The creature first announces it is skeptical of climate change:

    February 12, 2012, 01:12
    Forum poster bicing responded saying that Anthropogenic Global Warming and its catastrophic predictions are absolutely scientifically sound, and that disputing them would be like disputing basic science. Forum poster bicing acknowledges its spelling mistake.



    February 12, 2012, 09:37
    If this above quote were to be true, forum poster bicing misunderstood that this creature said he is a sceptic of Anthropogenic Global Warming and catastrophic predictions. However how can this be possible, when skeptic clearly said it? It is because skeptic pests have significnatly compromised brain capacities which limits their ability for coherent thought and logic.

    Moving more generally from this example of auscyclefan, this is why the skeptick species reference "reputable scientists" that have never been published in scientific journals. This is why sketpics bring in statistics on one subject and compare them to another, when that is bad science. One can occasionally find comparisons of the bad climate science of skeptics with new age "scientists".

    I hope you've enjoyed the first episode.

    (Dedicated to Ramjamtrike)
    So if it is commonly thought to be true that skeptics are pests then they must be. This logic also summarises many of the arguments by the alarmists like yourself and Francois. If it is common it must be true. Secondly, could put put in the full post that I had a go at you for. That would be much presented. We would hate for you to cherry pick many arguments. Another alarmist trait. That fact that it is "undisputed" (according to you) means you have closed your mind off to other arguments. Clearly you like to support shonky science from your buddies at the IPCC.

    Also, from what you have said on cycloo you think I have been told to believe it yet firstly I used to be on your side on this debate and secondly most of my peers disagree with me on this issue anyway so your point that I just don't think for myself is null and void.

    Oh and this is only the beginning.  8)
  • ReplyReply

  • Tuart

    • Pobblebonk
    • Road Captain
    • Country: tl
    • Posts: 2045
    • Liked: 483
    • Awards: Velogames Giro Winner 2014
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #87 on: February 13, 2012, 08:21 »
    Francois' posts are alarmist? Oh boy this should be good. I await your rebuttal of anything in his posts eagerly. :D
  • ReplyReply

  • bicing

    • I'm a bot.
    • Domestique
    • Country: ht
    • Posts: 679
    • Liked: 148
    • Radioshack Nissan Trek owner
    • Awards: Funniest member 2012Best post 2012Best thread 2012
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #88 on: February 13, 2012, 08:27 »
    So if it is commonly thought to be true that skeptics are pests then they must be. This logic also summarises many of the arguments by the alarmists like yourself and Francois. If it is common it must be true. Secondly, could put put in the full post that I had a go at you for. That would be much presented. We would hate for you to cherry pick many arguments. Another alarmist trait. That fact that it is "undisputed" (according to you) means you have closed your mind off to other arguments. Clearly you like to support shonky science from your buddies at the IPCC.

    Also, from what you have said on cycloo you think I have been told to believe it yet firstly I used to be on your side on this debate and secondly most of my peers disagree with me on this issue anyway so your point that I just don't think for myself is null and void.

    Oh and this is only the beginning.  8)

    I really like your "oh and this is only the beginning." I'll give you an [applaud] for that.

    If it is commonly accepted scientifically, then it's the closest we have to the truth and something we should accept.
    My mind is not closed, I will happily read any scientific arguments that you can provide. However, I'm not interested in reading bad science - that is, articles and publications that do no pass a peer-reviewed process. FYI the peer review process makes it incredibly difficult to say anything that isn't at the forefront of scientific thought.
    The IPCC is, and still remains a high quality science institution. The few mistakes they made were minor, and very specific to locations or species. Climate scientists themselves acknowledge that being able to make very high confidence predictions on specific locations is tricky. They are very prudent in their work. That's why, for them to be able to say they are highly confident in something, it's a big deal. They are very highly confident, and have been so for 20-30 years that human activity is the predominant cause of the CO2 in atmosphere. They are very highly confident that it will change the climate significantly and make the environment more difficult for species, supplies and human life.

    Happy to hear that you do in fact think for yourself, I regret what I wrote in cycloo and am sorry that I judged you like that. It's unfair. I'd be interested to see how your persepctive moved from science to fiction. Could you please explain?
  • ReplyReply
  • « Last Edit: February 13, 2012, 08:28 by bicing »

    Auscyclefan

    • Future PM of Australia
    • Domestique
    • Country: au
    • Posts: 583
    • Liked: 36
    • Feel my wrath
    Re: Global warming my a.s
    « Reply #89 on: February 13, 2012, 08:29 »
    Francois' posts are alarmist? Oh boy this should be good. I await your rebuttal of anything in his posts eagerly. :D

    When I have a bit more time I certainly will but not tonight as I am preoccupied with things I should be doing. What I meant by "alarmist" is that the science he is supporting is supported by the IPCC's models which are widely known as unreliable and many of their claims are known as alarmists.
  • ReplyReply

  •  

    Recent Posts

    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 22:22]


    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by Armchair Cyclist
    [December 11, 2017, 21:52]


    Re: Team Sponsorship 17/18 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 14:10]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by jimmythecuckoo
    [December 11, 2017, 14:08]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by LukasCPH
    [December 11, 2017, 14:00]


    Re: Men's Kits 2018 by just some guy
    [December 11, 2017, 13:13]

    Recent Topics

    topic Team Sponsorship 17/18
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    LukasCPH
    December 11, 2017, 22:22
    topic Men's Kits 2018
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    jimmythecuckoo
    December 11, 2017, 14:08
    topic Chris Froome
    [The Dark Side]
    hiero
    December 11, 2017, 12:07
    topic Lappartient
    [Men's Road Cycling]
    hiero
    December 11, 2017, 11:37
    topic Collective CQ Team 2018
    [Games]
    LukasCPH
    December 11, 2017, 07:57


    Top
    Back to top