wyly Posted October 4, 2010 Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 hey scribblet... that's verbatim from WTFIUWT! c'mon... try to keep up - hey, scribblet? we keep seeing a common theme throughout denier arguments, a lack of scientific comprehension...I'm no scientist but even I can read/comprehend a document such as the one by The Royal Society... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 4, 2010 Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 (edited) There ya go, you didn't read, same thing in the papers, there is no consensus, opposing views are stifled and the hysteria goes on. As I said, this is not to say we should keep on polluting, we should clean up our act, but we/man can do nothing to stop earth's changes.you just posted a link to The Royal Society which you now claim to support...The RS claims man is largely responsible for the warming, if that is the case then man can also undo the damage as it is not the earth's natural changes but man's doing... Edited October 5, 2010 by wyly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 4, 2010 Report Share Posted October 4, 2010 amazing how you read into things that aren't there...from a website run by Benny Peiser, a social anthropologist/sports expert, geez maybe I should quote Al Gore as a climatology expert ....the Royal Society has no doubts as to AGW....we keep seeing a common theme throughout denier arguments, a lack of scientific comprehension...I'm no scientist but even I can read/comprehend a document such as the one by The Royal Society... yes, there's almost a refreshing predictability about how deniers like scribblet reach for their go-to's... the Guardian's take on scribblet's referenced Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) sourcewatch on GWPF as you point out...scribblet, as did Simple, presumes to tout the Royal Society guide without actually understanding what it says about consensus and accepted aspects of AGW - too funny! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samcin Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 The RS claims man is larely responsible for the warming, if that is the case then man can also undo the damage as it is not the earth's natural changes but man's doing... A beaver builds a dam and it's considered natural. Man builds a dam and we are interfering with nature. Are we not part of nature and hence should not everything we do be considered natural, be it beneficial or detrimental? If man is influencing climate to a degree that it is changing our environment, the changes cannot be reversed by paying carbon taxes to an elite group of unelected globalists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 we keep seeing a common theme throughout denier arguments, a lack of scientific comprehension...I'm no scientist but even I can read/comprehend a document such as the one by The Royal Society... OK, so where's the "global warm up"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 you just posted a link to The Royal Society which you now claim to support...The RS claims man is larely responsible for the warming, if that is the case then man can also undo the damage as it is not the earth's natural changes but man's doing... That made me scratch my head too. You can always claim "There's no consensus..." but on what ? If you need to cling to a slogan, that's as good as any but there is plainly consensus on human-caused warming at least. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 you just posted a link to The Royal Society which you now claim to support...The RS claims man is larely responsible for the warming, if that is the case then man can also undo the damage as it is not the earth's natural changes but man's doing... I'm not claiming anything, and I've actually never denied that there is climate change going on, but it's obvious that there is no consensus as to how or why. The earth has always cycled, it warmed up after ice ages before without the help of man. It's also obvious that if earth is warming it will be of benefit to many areas, the Inuit are happy campers. We aren't going back to live in caves, we can't live without oil or electricity etc. etc. We have to figure out how to live with change and accomodate. Man has always adapted, we will again, we hope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm sure you'll respect the recent Canadian judicial ruling that the Harper Conservative government tried to politically suppress George Galloway's opinions... and not proclaim me as being "anti-Israel", for my George Galloway related thread posts - hey?I don't think you understand the Court's decision. The holding was that Galloway had not presented a request to enter Canada in a procedurally proper manner. There was a lot of dicta, i.e. superfluous discussion, about "suppression" but the Government won this skirmish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 yes, there's almost a refreshing predictability about how deniers like scribblet reach for their go-to's... the Guardian's take on scribblet's referenced Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) sourcewatch on GWPF as you point out...scribblet, as did Simple, presumes to tout the Royal Society guide without actually understanding what it says about consensus and accepted aspects of AGW - too funny! Is it your pattern to bully ever AGW skeptic? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 If man is influencing climate to a degree that it is changing our environment, the changes cannot be reversed by paying carbon taxes to an elite group of unelected globalists. Ah come on. They work hard for your money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 A beaver builds a dam and it's considered natural. Man builds a dam and we are interfering with nature. Are we not part of nature and hence should not everything we do be considered natural, be it beneficial or detrimental? If man is influencing climate to a degree that it is changing our environment, the changes cannot be reversed by paying carbon taxes to an elite group of unelected globalists. when a beaver builds a dam it is part of a bigger cycle that fits within the ecology, beaver dams destroy and at the same time renew and enrich, it's a cycle that is repeated over and over again it's part of a healthy ecosystem...man building dams is not part of the natural system, when man builds a dam he destroys ecosystems permanently there is no cycle of removal and enrichment there is no renewal, just destruction... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I'm not claiming anything, and I've actually never denied that there is climate change going on, but it's obvious that there is no consensus as to how or why. The earth has always cycled, it warmed up after ice ages before without the help of man. It's also obvious that if earth is warming it will be of benefit to many areas, the Inuit are happy campers.you've linked to a document from the Royal Society that clearly supports AGW, there is a consensus...you fail to understand the document...the Inuit are happy campers? really, do you even own a tv? the Inuit are about the most vocal and united people on the planet in regards to their concern over AGW, the Inuit are not happy with climate change... We aren't going back to live in caves, we can't live without oil or electricity etc. etc. We have to figure out how to live with change and accomodate. Man has always adapted, we will again, we hope.worst case scenario there is no adaptation there is only extinction, 2nd worst scenario a couple million survivors...who are you to decide what conditions future generations should have to adapt to?... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 That made me scratch my head too. You can always claim "There's no consensus..." but on what ? If you need to cling to a slogan, that's as good as any but there is plainly consensus on human-caused warming at least.I don't think he read the actual document only the skeptic blog site's take on it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 There is wide consensus on the fact that man-made warming is happening, and that's in the document. There's no way to predict the future, we know that. There's only educated guesses, and this paper solidly indicates that warming is likely caused my humans. ...this paper solidly indicates that warming is likely caused my humans. Solid proof of a maybe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 I don't think you understand the Court's decision. The holding was that Galloway had not presented a request to enter Canada in a procedurally proper manner. There was a lot of dicta, i.e. superfluous discussion, about "suppression" but the Government won this skirmish. oh really... so if nothings changed, including all the previous Conservative statements and rationale for not allowing Galloway into the country (months back), where the Harper Conservative government accused Galloway of supporting terrorism and the Canada Border Services Agency said he wouldn't be allowed into Canada... if nothings changed... how is it Galloway was, in recent days, allowed to enter Canada? Justice Richard Mosley's ruling called the initial Harper Conservative move to ban Galloway's entry, "a flawed and overreaching interpretation of the standards under Canadian law for labeling someone as engaging in terrorism or being a member of a terrorist organization."..... I guess this is your described, 'dicta, i.e. superfluous discussion' - hey? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 Is it your pattern to bully every AGW skeptic? not at all - challenges are simply responded to... I'm also never surprised when deniers play the victimization card - well done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pliny Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) when a beaver builds a dam it is part of a bigger cycle that fits within the ecology, beaver dams destroy and at the same time renew and enrich, it's a cycle that is repeated over and over again it's part of a healthy ecosystem...man building dams is not part of the natural system, when man builds a dam he destroys ecosystems permanently there is no cycle of removal and enrichment there is no renewal, just destruction... You must despise FDR. You have to translate beaver years to man years. The average life span of a beaver is about 16 years, they can live to about 20. Our average lifespan is what - 75 years. Our dams won't last forever either. They will last longer than a generation though which is seventy-five years. A beaver dam will last only one generation so you get to see the whole cycle of renewal and enrichment, several times over in your life. If you were a beaver you would only see the destruction as well and never see the renewal and enrichment part of the cycle. If you condemned beavers on the basis of their cycle of twelve to 20 years that's the same as blaming humans for their cycle of 1 or 2 centurys. Perhaps we should build dams on the beaver cycle and tear them down every 15 years? Would that satisfy you? Edited October 5, 2010 by Pliny Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lukin Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 The global warming scare is nothing but a hoax. The science isn't even close to being settled. Billions have gone to scientists to find what governments wanted them to find, any scientist who disagreed with what they were SUPPOSED to find had their funding cut off. The scaremongers are a desperate group. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1317160/Science-writer-Fred-Pearce-calls-head-Patchy-UNs-climate-change-boss.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hardner Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 ...this paper solidly indicates that warming is likely caused my humans. Solid proof of a maybe? Yes. Solid proof of a maybe. There can never be anything stronger though. If you're waiting for 100% then you will wait forever. If one scientist out of hundreds or thousands doubts it's happening, then you don't even have 100% consensus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 Yes. Solid proof of a maybe. There can never be anything stronger though. If you're waiting for 100% then you will wait forever. If one scientist out of hundreds or thousands doubts it's happening, then you don't even have 100% consensus.Your are debating an irrelevant point. Even if we knew with 100% certainty that the recent warming was caused by CO2 it does not automatically follow that policies to reduce CO2 emission the most sensible response. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 how is it Galloway was, in recent days, allowed to enter Canada? There are lot of anti-Semites and racist around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 (edited) when a beaver builds a dam it is part of a bigger cycle that fits within the ecology, beaver dams destroy and at the same time renew and enrich "Renew and enrich" what? Not even 1 kW of renewable energy is created at beaver dam. Edited October 5, 2010 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 There are lot of anti-Semites and racist around. whaaa! Are you saying that by reversing their stance and now allowing Galloway to enter Canada, Harper Conservatives have succumbed to, as you state, "anti-Semites and racists"? Say it ain't so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 whaaa! Are you saying that by reversing their stance and now allowing Galloway to enter Canada, Harper Conservatives have succumbed to, as you state, "anti-Semites and racists"? Say it ain't so! That's exactly what happen. Just like with "Treaties" that give some Chief $300,000 a year, three cars, and a casino. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted October 5, 2010 Report Share Posted October 5, 2010 There are lot of anti-Semites and racist around.whaaa! Are you saying that by reversing their stance and now allowing Galloway to enter Canada, Harper Conservatives have succumbed to, as you state, "anti-Semites and racists"? Say it ain't so!That's exactly what happen. oh my... what about the judicial ruling... are you also saying the judiciary has also succumbed to, as you state, "anti-Semites and racists"? 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.