wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 The letter didn't dispute climate change: The letter said that the earth hasn't warmed significantly, so technically they are disputing recent global warming not climate change. did you read what I posted earlier about cherry picking data...from the letter The U.K. Met Office recently released data showing that there has been no statistically significant global warming for almost 16 years ....the record breaking el Nino taking place 15 years ago, ever since then every denier claim that the climate is cooling or flat lining comes out with data that always starts in 1997-98....if the planet experiences a average temp cooler than the year before or the el nino event they claim the world is cooling, if the temps are similar or slightly above the el nino event then the warming has stopped....that any respectable scientist would sign a document with such childish attempts to deflect reality says a lot about their character...any respectable scientist understand how a simple graph works showing a trend these guys are playing childish games... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Haven't had a chance to read the letter yet, and no time right now, but it's hard to find fault with the summary at the top. Policy actions that aim to reduce CO2 emissions are unlikely to influence future climate. Policies need to focus on preparation for, and adaptation to, all dangerous climatic events, however caused. that they lied or attempted to deceive by fudging the data cancels out any summary they may promote... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Michael I thought you smarter than that, or at least less of a hack. Come on man. There's 129 names on that list, 90+% of them are PhD's, and you're taking exception to the fact that ONE of them is a marketing PhD (one who happens to specialize in analyzing models and forecasts - climate ones in particular). Umm...I'm pretty sure most of these guys HAVE done their own work. If you look at their credentials and their areas of expertise, you'd assume that they know something about the topic.... You cant assume that, on either side.... for any scientific debate. Not all of the opinions held by scientists are the result of science. You need people do this.... And while its possible that a few, or many, or all of the people on your list have gone through this process you absolutely cannot just assume they have. So the big lists of names with letters next to them that both sides keep publishing have no real meaning. What has meaning is real peer reviewed scientific works. And when you have people signing political documents like this one instead of doing work and publishing papers, that in itself is an excellent reason to be critical of what they are telling you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) that they lied or attempted to deceive by fudging the data cancels out any summary they may promote... I don't need their data. I believe that independently. Have done for years. Do you challenge what the summary says? Edit> I appreciate the heads up, though. I won't bother reading it if it's that bad. Edited December 1, 2012 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) besides denierworld always showing a lack of warming temp trend beginning at the el nino event i find somewhat ironic how many times I've heard the claim CC trends can't from deniers that trends need decades to show... an interesting contradiction... here's a link to a graph that indicates a warming trend over the last 100 or so years which they claim is required but if you look at the graph you can see the 1997-98 el nino event denierworld uses as a start point to show a lack of warming or cooling.... http://globalwarming.com/2010/05/statistics-of-the-global-warming-trend/ Edited December 1, 2012 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 I don't need their data. I believe that independently. Have done for years. Do you challenge what the summary says? Edit> I appreciate the heads up, though. I won't bother reading it if it's that bad. of coarse they lied in their assumptions, they're frauds...they can't do basic science correctly so none of what they have to say is of any value... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 of coarse they lied in their assumptions, they're frauds...they can't do basic science correctly so none of what they have to say is of any value... "I don't like your science! Try mine". Omg... Grow Up. These people are all phd's and we'll respected... Google a few of them prior to raging on your science witch-hunt. It's science... Your "god" does not play into this. SCIENCE! You sound like Mit Romney trying to discredit science... We are in the 2000's man! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 "I don't like your science! Try mine". Omg... Grow Up. These people are all phd's and we'll respected... Google a few of them prior to raging on your science witch-hunt. It's science... Your "god" does not play into this. SCIENCE! You sound like Mit Romney trying to discredit science... We are in the 2000's man! OMG! get an education..., it doesn't take much to baffle you apparently...8th grade science should do it....tim ball well respected ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 You can deny science all you want.... The world is not flat, the wheel is not an evil contraption. I thought we had moved past these primeval theories. It's science. it may not fall in line with your religions beliefs but you are entitled to your beliefs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 yadda yadda yadda you're all talk.... refute my link nope, not a chance... actually understand the science nope, not a clue...I offer some basic science and you offer baseless rhetoric....you're an ideologue and nothing more ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's not people who believe climatologists who are denying the science.... Nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 yadda yadda yadda you're all talk.... refute my link nope, not a chance... actually understand the science nope, not a clue...I offer some basic science and you offer baseless rhetoric....you're an ideologue and nothing more ... Ahhhhhhhhh 594 Page report.... Yes whyly.... I'm delving into that....Nicely done..... Your a clever one.... My engineers ring(s) must refute my understanding... Silly me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 It's not people who believe climatologists who are denying the science.... Nice try. Ummmmm..... What? s that a double-negative? Grammar please? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) This is news...but don't bother looking for this letter in the Toronto Star or watching on the CBC. Wonder why . Edited December 1, 2012 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Ummmmm..... What? s that a double-negative? Grammar please? Or learn to read.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) It's not negative enough.... Fear and doubt pulls at the heart strings... It's doesn't have that "jack appeal".... It's far too real-time and realistic. Down to earth. possibly too simple. Edited December 1, 2012 by Fletch 27 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Or learn to read.... I'm rubber, your glue... Grow up Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 I'm rubber, your glue... Grow up Seriously.... Learn to read. Double negative? Lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Hey squid, it's always a pleasure to banter with you. you seem years older than the following...nn Instead of just being "beavis" to his "buthead"... Why don't you back your boys statement up? Are you just a cheerleader? I would love some facts,, nay.... I say even opinion at this stage..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) The letter did not dispute climate change. It stated that the UN should be working to mitigate the inevitable rather than spending vast fortunes on almost entirely hopeless efforts at reversal. Yes this is a good point! It is certain that there will be climate change,and there are many unkowns. The best action is to be prepared. WWWTT Edited December 1, 2012 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) besides denierworld always showing a lack of warming temp trend beginning at the el nino event i find somewhat ironic how many times I've heard the claim CC trends can't from deniers that trends need decades to show... an interesting contradiction... here's a link to a graph that indicates a warming trend over the last 100 or so years which they claim is required but if you look at the graph you can see the 1997-98 el nino event denierworld uses as a start point to show a lack of warming or cooling.... http://globalwarming...-warming-trend/ Ah when in doubt,go straight back to calling anyone whom disagrees an "denier" And for the record,I find this label offensive,therefore will report anyone who uses it! WWWTT Edited December 1, 2012 by WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) You cant assume that, on either side.... for any scientific debate. Not all of the opinions held by scientists are the result of science.I would love to see a debate based on scientific merits. The trouble is the climate science community is filled with alarmist ideologues and group-think that it is impossible to have such a discussion.Climate science has no credibility as a scientific field until the climate science community cleans up their act and demonstrates a willingness to speak out against the misrepresentation of science in the name of promoting the IPCC political agenda. Edited December 1, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) There are some dubious names on that list. How many publications on climate science in this bunch me wonders. They are scientists and I'm certain they have the ability to read and comprehend scientific studies and are familiar with the scientific method. I don't believe you are a scientist Michael and neither are those here that steadfastly hold to the AGW/CC theory. I would put far more "faith" in the scientific interpretation of AGW from the people on this list than the proponents of the sky is falling rhetoric that think they have a handle on things. Edited December 1, 2012 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 (edited) Hey squid, it's always a pleasure to banter with you. you seem years older than the following...nn Instead of just being "beavis" to his "buthead"... Why don't you back your boys statement up? Are you just a cheerleader? I would love some facts,, nay.... I say even opinion at this stage..... I don't feed trolls. You don't deal with facts. You make bold statements like "mulcair flip flops" and don't back it up with a single shred of evidence. You're a caricature.... No different than Merlin (Mr C) or Shady. Edited December 1, 2012 by The_Squid Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fletch 27 Posted December 1, 2012 Report Share Posted December 1, 2012 Oh no! Seems you didn't find my links! m sorry this forum is do difficult Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.