Yes I'm "stoking the fire"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Shed

Me, I have an open mind, I am always somewhat suspicious of arguments presented by people with closed minds. Most of the people saying global warming is primarily caused by us humans seem to have a very closed mind. What also worries me is that scientists that have the temerity to speak out against this dogma get dumped on from a great height.

---

I must admit, that i became a contrarian after 2 things - one was when I started to hear "the science is settled" and "consensus" - they ring very loud alarm bells for anyone with scientific training. teh second was upon reading Richard lindzens Wall street journal series - particularly on albedo, and water vapor considerations.

Now for something very interesting for BOTH SIDES of the discussion - last year there was a debate held in NY between some of the biggest names in this debate - the household ones been Richard lindzen and Gavin Schmidt (co-owner of realclimate with Mann).

I wondered why i hadnt heard of it again as on realclimate they were a bit apprehensive about participating because it would "imply the science isnt settled" (there's those words again) - here's a pdf of the transcript - really a good read, and I think there is a link to a pod cast on realclimate.org as well.

It is totally equal and unbiased as both views are given equal time, with responses, questions, and also a vote as to who won to keep ACA happy! ;)

www.intelligencesquaredus.org/TranscriptContainer/<wbr>GlobalWarming-edited%20version%20031407.pdf

I like to think I have an open mind regarding 'global warming'. Isn't that convenient? Well it is for me.
BUT.....the physics doesn't add up to what the GW groupies are espousing. Al Gore has re-invented physics for the world as we know it and some computer boffins have put together a progam to back up the new Laws of Physics. It's referred to as GIGO, in computer speak.

It's like a religion. One must not criticise or question the proponents. Just read back through this thread and you'll see what I mean.

Anyway, having said that, I will be expecting some zealot to accost me in the street and beat me until I repent or whatever one must do regarding this subject.:o

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Toyboy

Next thing you know, some group will try to ban dihydrogen-monoxide because of the risk to our health and well-being. I say we keep using this chemical which seems to play some part in the whole GW thing, apparently.:rolleyes:

---

I'll drink to that! (from a bottle of course, never from the tap!:rolleyes:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Woodbe I fail to see anything here I should be sorry for.

Firstly the Polar bear comment is simply not true and I am very surprised any one is still using that one!!

Secondly "ice caps melting?" See comment and read very carefully it says, "strike that one out this year too"
"This Year" recognises what you clearly pointed out before that in previous years there had been a reduction in Artic Ice.

The reasons for which have been PROVEN not to be caused by AGW.

I try very hard to to attack anyone on a personal level here but it seems others are very happy to attack me. Thats cool I'm a big guy and can handle it.

---

Rod, I'm not discussing AGW, I think I've already made that very clear, but you and Pharmaboy continue to spruik your own anti-AGW mantras back at me despite what has been said.

There's an old saying, I'm sure you have heard it. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

I am being pedantic, yes. What I have been doing is pointing out that both sides of this 'debate' choose their words and data very carefully, as you have done with Len, to support their own point of view. It happens on both sides, and as usual, it would be a rare occasion for someone to admit it. I thought you might be up to it, but I was wrong.

Sorry for wasting your time.

woodbe.

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.

I've been following this thread right from the start,
without making comment,

-reading every link posted,........everything!

do I believe a nobel prize winner ?

or Rod the plasterer?

sorry Rod

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Woodbe what you have just written is just plain ridiculous.

---

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.

I guess you are unaware that the British courts threw a very dark cloud over 11 assumpions made by Gore!

Gore has been proven to distort the facts to suit his own agenda. Believe what and who you like I guess.

Your comment simply shoots the messenger therefore makes no sense at all.

Woodbe I will not be drawn into your little game of pedantics any more. The comments speak for themselves.

Speaking of Gore this flames another of his theories, Just check out who the person is making the claim before flamming me LOL! http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/20.../index.html?hp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Underfoot, sigh! really clever comment.

---

rod
do I detect a note of sarcasm?

I seem to recall that it was you that suggested that I read all the links before I made up my mind, ( most of which were posted you)

I did just that,

and have made up my mind,

despite the comments in your previous posts
you seem to have a problem with this?

The one thing about the internet is that comments stay for some time.

Not as long a time as some scientists use to forecast, like 300000 years instead of like 5 years.:wink:

The earths climate fluctuates so much within a decade, century through a 1000 years.

Gore makes a packet out of his sheep through lectures and inspirational rubbish.

You have to love some of those wonderful computer models. What a joke.

The media will never attain advertising revenue out of stating the obvious.

Keep it up Rod. Never stop questioning.:)

Not at all quite the contrary, I am glad you read the links, I guess you don't believe they are accurate. The thing is, no matter what evidence is provided, scientific or other, it will never sway the mind of some people. Thats ok and is expected. It makes no difference if you change your view or not.

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

I really really dont have an issue with anyone that chooses to believe AGW is real and etc. etc. If they are well read on both sides of the subject and make the choice that's fine. It simply means they believe one set of evidence over another and have made their own choice.

Most people don't even realise there is a contrary view to AGW. Now there is the difference. They are the people that in the end will sway public opinion one way or the other as more is know about the climate and is made public knowledge.

Autogenous, I will. :)

Need broad shoulders though, getting flamed here LOL

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

What part?

That I expect people to communicate rather than spruik? That we communicate with honour? That we respect other's opinions, and not ride over them in order to score another point for the religion?

woodbe.

---

Respectfully, i'd suggest that to call others posts "spruiking" is not to communicate with honour nor to respect their opinions - at least thats how its been received here.

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.

Look through the thread and see how my posts have been met with anti-AGW rhetoric, even when I have repeatedly said and demonstrated I am not debating AGW.

If it's not spruiking, I don't know what it is.

woodbe.

Woodbe what is the point in being so indignant, and point scoring over this. It is unnecessary and not what the thread is all about. Let it go!

Lets just debate the content of the original links I provided. Which no one seems to want to do, wonder why?

Keep it nice kiddies.

Thanks Ian I want to keep it that way. Will take note. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

Judging by the emails I have recieved lately it has changed the view of some and they are the ones that count.

---

:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by woodbe

I respectfully disagree..

I have not engaged in the AGW debate in this thread. I have responded to one post which in my opinion the response is patently wrong, based on facts that have been agreed in this thread, and I have not offered any AGW opinion.

In response, pharmaboy and rod have not been able to help themselves but respond to let me know how wrong my AGW reasoning is. Repeatedly.

---

seriously - whats the thread about?

I responded to you about arctic ice, and tried (unsuccessfully) to explain how both people were right depending on how you look at it - in keepping with the actual topic of the thread I also wrote a paragraph more generally on AGW - apologies for the crimes against humanity.

Posts on forums are rarely intended for the respondeent only, but more generally for the many who read for their own information or amusement.

You cansafely take the fiirst paragraph after a quote to eb directed at you, but after that your in the rough and tumble of forum discussion.

For the others that read, i hope they get a little of something out of it.

Rod, you're right, I have been indignant.

Allow me to explain, and please don't read any AGW debate into this.

What gets to me about forum debates of 'hot' topics is that people become adept at finding supporting information on google and various other sites. It's easy to do research in this way, because for whatever side of a debate you have adopted, there are literally thousands of parallel debates that have done their own google extractions of suitable material. If you're on a couple of forums you would see a few topics keep popping up that feed the 'research stream'

The outcomes of these debates are never arbitrated at the level that an organised debate would be, so the 'hot' topics quickly descend down into degenerative behaviours (see link) and the winner is usually the person or group of people with the best searching skills and/or the loudest voice. The biggest difference I see between Golding's island and the forum debates is that unlike the hapless Piggy, participants can leave the debate at will, and often do. That leaves behind the stayers, who are practised and expert in their ability to quote the truth at each other usually with many links, and dare each other to refute the claims of their impeccable sources.

The threads rarely die out, they usually die by the moderators axe like 's beautifully mesmerising example, or they reach the forum's post limit and a new thread is started to continue the 'fun'

So I have been playing the beast, and I've rushed through camp and taken the weapons. I'm not aligned with the debate, distracting, and hoping to put a spotlight on the futility of these debates and some of the tactics necessary to 'win' such a contest. I don't claim success but hopefully I made some people think and reflect on it.

I'll stop now if you apologise to Len for stamping over his opinion (just joking) :D :D :D

woodbe

In other words you are a moderator in training woodbe?

Hardly. Too many words. :)

Thanks Woodbe.

I am not trying to win an argument or debate I am simply bringing awareness that there is not conclusive evidence supporting the claims made on AGW.

However in doing so I am quite prepared to rebutt any claims to the contrary that I disagree with.

I don't mind in the slightest when someone makes a claim like the polar bears thing, as this has been reliably debunked and shows a lack of understanding of the person making the claim. That is if you choose to believe the facts on Polar Bear numbers and not someone's theory on their numbers based on a what if scenario.

The issue about AGW that really gets under my skin it that people claim the science is in and is final. Where any sensible person would understand that every scientific theory that is unproven remains a theory that is to be further investigated by science until the theory is proven. The fact that this work is going on demonstrates this. However those that are pushing the AGW agenda the hardest refuse to acknowlege this. If they are so certain they are right why would they not welcome any attempt to disprove it? If you are right any attempt to dissprove it would only solidfy your position, while suppression only weakens it and creates justifiable suspicion.

The models used by the ipcc to form their opinions have been proven wrong they have not and cannot accurately predict Climate Change.

Given the doubt that has been created, the most sensible thing to do, before committing trillions of $, is to look at all the science in an objective manner without the blinkers on. Then let the facts speak for themselves.

The 2nd thing that annoys me is all the wild claims that borders on hysteria that assume global temperature WILL rise, and the Media's glee to jump on and give these claims full exposure, when empirical evidence is to the contrary. Yet the wild claims keep comming and with the media support the general public come to view these claims as fact, as that is how it is presented to them.

Yet still you will have those that refuse to see beyond what they read in the paper.

If a 13 year old German school boy can find errors in NASA modeling to the tune of 2 zeros, then perhaps their climate modelling isn't all that crash (excuse the pun) hot either?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gra

has anyone considered global warming might be caused by the continuous waffling on about global warming?????




:stirthepot::U:U

---

Gra for PM!:D

And the debate goes on, "Ice Age" anyone?

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...-11949,00.html

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au...6-7583,00.html

There was a program on SBS about the Gulf Stream the other day. It didn't seem alarmist, but the language was more accepting of GW as a fact rather than a load of bollocks, but that is not what was interesting.

They were basically repeating what I think is generally accepted - the Gulf Stream is like a circulatory system that feeds warm water from the tropics up into the north Atlantic, warming Europe and keeping the winters mild.

Anyway, the thrust of the program was that the warm water sinks up north due to it's high saline content and this process is the engine of the current, pushing water down and back to the tropics, completing the loop. The melting icecap is dumping pure water into the Atlantic, reducing the saline content and potentially stalling the Gulf Stream. Timeframes in the 100s year range were talked about.

Hope you guys are right about the icecap not melting..

Mt Cook glacier melting away: scientists

Posted 3 hours 0 minutes ago
Scientists in New Zealand say most of their country's largest glacier could melt away within the next 20 years.
The Tasman Glacier near Mount Cook is retreating by almost 200 metres a year.
Researchers who have been re-surveying the area say that rate is accelerating and could at least double in the years to come.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2...section=justin



We were at Fox Glacier (also NZ) last year, and they told us that it and Franz Josef were the only Glaciers on the planet that were growing at the current time. I didn't think to ask about the Tasman Glacier




woodbe.

Thats what glaciers do Woodbe, grow. receed, grow, receed. Nothing at all surpising there.

Note the "could" melt away. When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

I will starts listening when they start saying "will" melt away and here ist he reason why!

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

I could get hit by a bus today, but will I?

---

We can only hope :D

Richard

Rod, you've got to remember that this 'GW' stuff is for all intents and purposes a religion, and you know that any criticism of the myth will only bring about heated responses.

Unlike most other subjects which can be debated and discussed sanely, GW seems to bring out certain passion in some people. If it is on TV or written in a newspaper, it becomes gospel or worse still, if some clown (Al Gore's name springs to mind), gets a brownie point so he doesn't look too stupid to his fellow countrymen, it just has to be fact.:doh:

I see it as the non-religious version of 'the world is ending'.:o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

---

Well, it's language. Language of moderation, actually. They're not saying 'will' because they do not have the benefit of precognition or a time machine.

No-one can know any of this stuff 100% for sure, Rod. That's why they use those words. They are saying they have measured the rate of melting, and they have calculated where they think it might be heading.

I'm having trouble seeing the problem. Can you suggest how this information might have been delivered that you would be happy with?

woodbe.

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

Had a listen to a climatologist on ABC National the other day and what was interesting was he was saying forget discussing whether or not climate change is going to happen but to prepare for it to happen.

Because historically it is going to happen. Has happened before, will happen again and again and again.

He said whether it is man made is a side show to overpopulation and overtaxing the planet which is what needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

No one is being held accountable for the scarey scenarios they put forward.

They can say anything they like with words like "would" "could" "might". If you want to believe them thats cool.

But don't expect everyone else to believe them.

---

You misunderstand me again.

I never said I believed them, or expected anyone to believe them. I merely explained the use of the language of moderation. Did you 'get' that?

Again, how would you report this information?

woodbe.

We are lucky just to still be here to debate this global warming considering the Y2K bug was going to wipe us all out :p

If anyone is really interested in a balanced site on this, check here http://www.skepticalscience.com/
Check the thermomiter on the left side to link to most commonly asked q

Astrid

Balanced Astrid :no:
"This website is an attempt to examine all the scientific arguments that reject AGW. "
All he is looking at is arguements that reject AGW, and finding fault with them , but not the other side of the coin :no:

I said I could get hit by a bus but will I?

Daddles says

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daddles

We can only hope :D

Richard

---

Not very nice I would not wish that on you regardless of your AGW opinion.

Anyway it does seem like like skeptic view is gaining ground as there has been no warming for 10 years now and it looks more like we will get another 10 years of cooling due to the deep ocean temps dropping for the past 5 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml

Very hard to maintain an argument of warming against the scientific and empirical evidence against it.

Rudd is going to look stupid in a few years time trying to push the Kyoto agreement. What a waste of money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dazzler

Had a listen to a climatologist on ABC National the other day and what was interesting was he was saying forget discussing whether or not climate change is going to happen but to prepare for it to happen.

Because historically it is going to happen. Has happened before, will happen again and again and again.

He said whether it is man made is a side show to overpopulation and overtaxing the planet which is what needs to be addressed as a matter of priority.

---

Yep agree that climate change will always be happening and that money should be spent preparing for the changes not trying to mitigate them.

Nature will take care of over population when it is required!!!

What are we going to do? Kill off a few? who will be first? come on!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rod@plasterbrok

there has been no warming for 10 years now and it looks more like we will get another 10 years of cooling due to the deep ocean temps dropping for the past 5 years. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/mai...climate130.xml

---

From Rod's quoted Telegraph Article:
Global warming may 'stop', scientists predict

I burst out laughing when I read that. Rod, you're hilarious! :)

Look at what you said a few posts back:

Quote:

---

When are these guys going to come up with some definite scenarios like "WILL" melt away. They just don't know so the throw in the "could" melt away just to scare people.

I will starts listening when they start saying "will" melt away and here ist he reason why!

---

Looks like the Gander gets special treatment in this discussion. :D

Excellent. Thanks for the laugh, you've really cheered me up today. :2tsup:

woodbe.