Re: More evidence doesn't change minds

On 13 July, 20:49, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 13 July, 20:33, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:





On 13 July, 20:17, Dawlish <pjg...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Jul 13, 3:48 pm, Natsman <correz...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On 13 July, 15:52, Alastair <a...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

This article in the latest issue of "Planet Earth" explains what I had
already found out.  There is no point in arguing with global warming
sceptics because they just ignore the facts.http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=472

Cheers, Alastair.

On the contrary, it's the facts which drive the sceptics (or
"deniers").  If the facts were not there, there'd be no argument - the
IPCC and Mr. Gore would have the stage to themselves.  It is THEY that
conveniently (or mischievously) ignore the facts, for reasons best
known to themselves, and then quietly backpedal.  How dare we question
them?  Are we heretics?  Probably. Will we be burned at the stake?  I
hope not, but it is we who in the long run, will be proved correct as
the world ruminates from it's smoke filled hovel during the coming
cooling the wisdom of ceasing electricity generation from the
plentiful fuels we are no longer allowed to extract.

CK

Oh dear. The study said........"The public can be grouped into four
main categories - Engaging, Uninterested, Doubting and Denying -
according to the importance assigned to climate change and their
belief in the role attributed to humans. "

For people like you there probably needs to be a 5th category.
Fortunately for us all, it is a very small category, with very few
people in it. I'll leave it up to others to name it!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Dawlish, it appears that you, like others of your ilk, can only
resort to personal insult towards anyone who has the temerity to take
a different stance from that of your own.  Give it a rest, it's
childish and it's not clever, but it does rather indicate how
intolerant you are of the opinion of others.

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And whilst I'm at it, there's an interesting discussion going on in
the Daily Telegraph, which holds views from both camps, and I don't
appear to be alone...
... not by a long chalk, in either my opinions on AGW, or the fact
that the warmists can't abide contesting views on the subject.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/58048...

CK- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

The credibility of evidence NEEDS to be questioned, thats why there's
an adversarial justice system in most civilised countries. Any Tom,
Dick or Harry can put forward "evidence" but it needs to be tested in
order to ascertain its veracity. If everyone blindly accepted
everything they were told, despite there being glaring pointers to the
opposite case, we'd descend into chaos.

I say again, my opinions are based on personal experience, but also
largely on the facts presented to me. The "warmists" have presented a
case which has been proved to be flawed by many observers, whilst
those same observers have put forward there own ideas, backed up with
a more believable set of scenarios, but with enough grace to admit
that no-one REALLY knows and that they are aware that further
investigation is required. The warmists have lied, and been caught
out, hence the later modifications to the IPCCs original report, (for
example, expunging of the fictional "Hockey Stick" graph), they have
ignored historical events like the Mediaeval Warming AND the Little
Ice Age, not to mention countless other criteria which are far more
responsible for the changing climate than humanity, they ignored the
Vostok Ice cores (which rather suggest that carbon dioxide increase
was driven by temperature, and not the other way round), and they
ignored submarine volcanicity. They lied. You call THAT evidence?
How can any sensible observer do anything BUT suspect a conspiracy.

And you can hardly compare this to moon landings, any more than you
can the flat earth brigade. There is no comparison. How many times
in history has the end of the world been predicted, including the
warmists alarmist scenario of runaway temperatures and rising sea
levels? It hasn't happened yet, and when it does it's far more likely
to be as a result of geological or astronomical catastrophe than
anything we puny humans can throw at it. And anyway, warming is good,
not bad.

I have an open mind, but so far you have failed to prove to me that
your theories are correct, and that mine are in error. You just
resort to name calling, and pigeon-holing. On balance, I've seen
little scientific evidence form you which can't be disputed by those
who believe AGW is a myth, and a lot of hot air and deceit from the
IPCC whch doesn't bear weight. We shall see.

CK
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: More evidence doesnt change minds
    ... IPCC and Mr. Gore would have the stage to themselves. ... The credibility of evidence NEEDS to be questioned, ... ignored historical events like the Mediaeval Warming AND the Little ... (those scientists who contributed to the last IPCC ...
    (uk.sci.weather)
  • Re: Atmospheric CO2 -- a different view
    ... I only asked if there was supporting evidence that would be acceptable to most people. ... Some scientists reject current global warming theory ... Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the ... Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why ...
    (rec.boats.cruising)
  • Re: Now theres something interesting...
    ... 2007 IPCC reports, where he was a contributing author to Chapter 12, ... Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes, ... Even authors for the UN's IPCC report. ... pause in warming and maybe, given the present quiet Sun perhaps a serious ...
    (soc.culture.scottish)
  • Re: Warming - Cooling - Climate will change
    ... is caused by humans or not. ... NASA, not only is NASA the official US agency ... which quote the IPCC btw. ... Human activities have turned a cooling period into a warming one ...
    (sci.geo.geology)
  • More juicy bits
    ... Land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming — and skeptics might claim that this proves that urban warming is real and important. ... We used the density data as the temperature proxy, as recommended to me by Antii Ojala. ... I tried hard to balance the needs of the science and the IPCC, which were not always the same. ... As all our all show that the first few centuries of the millennium were cooler than the 20th century, we will come in for some flak from the skeptics saying we’re wrong because everyone knows it was warmer in the Medieval period. ...
    (uk.politics.misc)