Global warming fraud heads to court!

[MorganK]

There is no proof that CO2 is causing harm. There is no proof of significant positive climate feedbacks. There is plenty of proof of negative climate feedbacks. There is plenty of proof that the amount of money being spent on it is diverting resources from real issues such as health, education and housing.

There is also proof that Greenies are jerks.

If i did a quick google search of why CO2 is causing harm, I could come up with pages and pages of evidence from different credible people with independent studies not just research based on a couple of peoples theories. If i also did a google search of why CO2 is NOT causing harm I get mostly links to conspiracy sites linking it to greedy governments and facts based on arguments like ,"we all breath CO2 does that mean we have to stop breathing." and "those climate gate emails prove it all".

It is very dangerous to base an argument on partial evidence either way but I know where the majority of evidence points to and thats where my opinion will be.

You cant say that unnatural emissions doesn't have a climate change effect on the environment. Most natural environments are sensitive and it doesn't take much to do a lot of damage. Think of this on a world scale and you have millions of unnatural human emissions its only logical that climates change, thus environments may change.

I do agree with you however that greenies are jerks, but they have an opinion too I suppose

[PinHead]

If i did a quick google search of why CO2 is causing harm, I could come up with pages and pages of evidence from different credible people with independent studies not just research based on a couple of peoples theories. If i also did a google search of why CO2 is NOT causing harm I get mostly links to conspiracy sites linking it to greedy governments and facts based on arguments like ,"we all breath CO2 does that mean we have to stop breathing." and "those climate gate emails prove it all".

It is very dangerous to base an argument on partial evidence either way but I know where the majority of evidence points to and thats where my opinion will be.

You cant say that unnatural emissions doesn't have a climate change effect on the environment. Most natural environments are sensitive and it doesn't take much to do a lot of damage. Think of this on a world scale and you have millions of unnatural human emissions its only logical that climates change, thus environments may change.

I do agree with you however that greenies are jerks, but they have an opinion too I suppose

we have all read these reports from these "credible " people. The thing you should be asking yourself is who pays them for their research, which orgainsation doe they work for (eg University) and3who are the major sponsors of the research. Some may not seem so credible when the layers are stripped away.

An example of something similar..the so called Expert Advisory Panel for the implementation of the Green Zone in Moreton Bay had a certain member. Looking at that member's credentials..very well qualified with various Uni degrees and experience. Strip away the outerlayers and some checks done..that person is also on the Board of the AMCS..hardly going to get an unbiased view on that one.

These people on the so called man made global warming made forecasts many years back..not many of these forecasts have come true so far.

Science can me a marvellous thing but it must be based on facts..not assumptions and computer models. When a significant part of the scientific community does not agree with these so called "facts" then they are merely estimates at best and wild guesses at worst.

Should complete economies be disadvantraged based on assumptions? I hope not.

[TimiBoy]

You cant say that unnatural emissions doesn't have a climate change effect on the environment. Most natural environments are sensitive and it doesn't take much to do a lot of damage. Think of this on a world scale and you have millions of unnatural human emissions its only logical that climates change, thus environments may change.

Probably (indeed highly likely) true, but this is the point most people miss:

The amount of change is unknown. Sure, there is a great deal of speculation, but it is UNKNOWN. Alarmist forecasts from 10-15 years ago (when they said the science was settled) have turned out to be ALARMINGLY wrong. And as people have started to follow the money, as Pinhead said, it has become clear that CAGW is by far the biggest Gravy Train Science ever got it's hand on, and Scientists are as gullible, corruptable, and is some cases downright nasty as the rest of us.

Now, given the rate of change appears FAR less than thought by Al Bore and his crazy believers, another series of questions is raised:

If we don't KNOW, should we be diverting untold BILLIONS of dollars towards research into this that would otherwise:
- save thousands of starving people TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- give millions of people safe drinking water TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- educate millions TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- medicate millions TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- eradicate malaria, smallpox and others TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?

There are others on this list. Sure, tell me that we have to stop CO2 (the other emissions are already quite well controlled in responsible Countries), but are you going to tell that poor, hungry Woman in Haiti that the reason that baby she's holding and weeping over died of Cholera was so that your Grandchildren MIGHT have a Globe a degree cooler? Go on, look her in the eyes and say that to her, put yourself there and the rank hypocrisy and sheer unadulterated self righteousness of the CAGW position is revealed.

Too right I am passionate about this. CAGW is profoundly wicked. Not just wrong, imo.

Tim

Tim

[PADDLES]

interesting read, but i'd hardly call that website "balanced" or "unbiased".

we get on here and complain about the green "loonies" and their way out theories and here we are thinking that radical conspiracy theorists are on the right track. just who are the real "loonies"?

somewhere in the middle is a good place to be.

and pinhead has nailed it in one, exactly what IS a credible source these days? everyone does things for different reasons, whether it be for a research grant to keep you at uni for the rest of your life or it gets you that warm fuzzy feeling that you are helping all the stoned people sit around blaming the government for the state of the world by subscribing to your theories on a conspiracy theorist style website

[TimiBoy]

interesting read, but i'd hardly call that website "balanced" or "unbiased".

we get on here and complain about the green "loonies" and their way out theories and here we are thinking that radical conspiracy theorists are on the right track. just who are the real "loonies"?

somewhere in the middle is a good place to be.

Agreed. TWAWKI can be pretty flaky at times, but he's on my reading list because quite often he turns up good links.

Cheers,

Tim

[PADDLES]

absolutely right timi, you're doing it the right way and getting your info from both sides of the coin (including the green garbage) and then trying to make an informed opinion somewhere in the middle.

these days there's just so much krap out there it's very hard to figure out fact from fiction, the mining tax debacle was a classic example of this.

[goat boy]

Who needs credible reports and science, fact or fiction, when you have religion?
According to some US political figures we have nothing to worry about from global warming as god stated in the bible he would never flood the earth again after what he did to poor Noah.....
Woohoo!

[PinHead]

Who needs credible reports and science, fact or fiction, when you have religion?
According to some US political figures we have nothing to worry about from global warming as god stated in the bible he would never flood the earth again after what he did to poor Noah.....
Woohoo!

Noah's main difficulties arose cos he only had a mono and not a cat with etecs pushing it.

[Camhawk88]

Science can me a marvellous thing but it must be based on facts..not assumptions and computer models. When a significant part of the scientific community does not agree with these so called "facts" then they are merely estimates at best and wild guesses at worst.

Pinhead, science by it's nature, is not based on facts but rather on disproving a given hypothesis. A process of elimination of possible theories is probably the best way to describe it. Now we have many facts derived from science- the earth is round, gravity is a force, an organism is the sum of it's parent's DNA etc. These findings weren't found out by picking a fact and saying- 'it stands to reason can't you see?" Of course we know now however it was a process of assumptions, proving and disproving hypothoses, and in some cases using modeling and other tools to come to these conclusions.

AND when these facts were proposed and could be tangibly shown, there were and are still many scientists who disagreed and shouted down some of the world's greatest scientists. Just because there is not 100% support in the scientific community over a finding does not mean that it is merely an estimate or a guess.
Classic example- evolution. Darwin was regularly pillored for his gfroundbreaking theory and still is by many who feel there religous beliefs are threatened by it. It was based on observation, data, assumtions and an incredible brain, however it is something we can never absolutely prove (I have all the proof I need)- such is science.
Indeed there are some scientists who throughout the scientific community are renowned for making their career based on going against the flow and opposing findings that the great majority agree with (there is a local one commonly quoted in these chat boards). Sometimes these are the pioneers who make the big discovery, but more often than not, they are grandstanding to make a name for themselves and are usually seen (rightfully so in most cases) as the village idiot.

Now with an issue such as global warming, or any atmospheric condition, it is a massively complex and volatile system with many unknowns. Have a look at weather forecasts, 100 years ago we would not have had much idea of what the weather would do in a couple of days, where now we have a reasonable idea of what will happen in the coming season, month or week. As everyone who fishes knows but, it is an inexact science and they do get it wrong.

To find out what is going on, assumptions must be made based on what we do know of the system and models are an essential tool to experiment what happens under different conditions. Very similar to fisheries management (trying to count the trees in a forest that are invisible and constantly moving), we collect what data we can but because we cant count all the fish we need to use the data we have to create models based on asumptions. We can use the data to have an idea of reproductive rates, fecundity, growth rates mortality rates etc. But at the end of the day we need to make a number of assumtions based on this knowledge and plug them into a model to get an idea of what is down there.

This is what we call science- so to say it should be based on fact alone and not on assumptions, models etc.- well that is not science and if we had all the facts we wouldnt need science.

Cheers,

[MorganK]

Originally Posted by MorganK
You cant say that unnatural emissions doesn't have a climate change effect on the environment. Most natural environments are sensitive and it doesn't take much to do a lot of damage. Think of this on a world scale and you have millions of unnatural human emissions its only logical that climates change, thus environments may change.
Probably (indeed highly likely) true, but this is the point most people miss:

The amount of change is unknown. Sure, there is a great deal of speculation, but it is UNKNOWN. Alarmist forecasts from 10-15 years ago (when they said the science was settled) have turned out to be ALARMINGLY wrong. And as people have started to follow the money, as Pinhead said, it has become clear that CAGW is by far the biggest Gravy Train Science ever got it's hand on, and Scientists are as gullible, corruptable, and is some cases downright nasty as the rest of us.

Now, given the rate of change appears FAR less than thought by Al Bore and his crazy believers, another series of questions is raised:

If we don't KNOW, should we be diverting untold BILLIONS of dollars towards research into this that would otherwise:
- save thousands of starving people TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- give millions of people safe drinking water TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- educate millions TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- medicate millions TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?
- eradicate malaria, smallpox and others TODAY (FACT, not MIGHT, like in AGW)?

There are others on this list. Sure, tell me that we have to stop CO2 (the other emissions are already quite well controlled in responsible Countries), but are you going to tell that poor, hungry Woman in Haiti that the reason that baby she's holding and weeping over died of Cholera was so that your Grandchildren MIGHT have a Globe a degree cooler? Go on, look her in the eyes and say that to her, put yourself there and the rank hypocrisy and sheer unadulterated self righteousness of the CAGW position is revealed.

Too right I am passionate about this. CAGW is profoundly wicked. Not just wrong, imo.

Where is your evidence to support that the change is unknown. Again its more conspiracy websites and people who use there far "superior" knowledge but don't have any supporting data or if they do, the data is over a small time period or relative unknown.

Now about the scientists being corrupt. Your telling me that thousand upon thousands of well educated people working on University boards and independent research are all just pushing the global climate change issue, the biggest issue mankind has ever realised, because they can get some grant money. What do they do with that money? They use it to fund their further research into the biggest problem ever realised. I don't have a problem with that they could very well be the people to crack this issue.

Now the haitian lady,

That sort of typical emotional push to prove an argument is what the greens would do to prove their case. Yes there are other issues that need solving, some people claim that the Haiti earthquake and other recently frequent disasters is a direct result of global warming. No one can be sure of that, all i know is there has been an increase of natural disasters in recent years thats indisputable.

Oh and smallpox was eradicated in 1980.

[PADDLES]

don't start me on religion goat boy ................. i had the jo ho's trying to convert me last saturday for the first time in years and hopefully they'll drop our address off the list. everything they say is based on trying to expose a fear and then getting you to join their church to help you through your fear, all the whille raping you of a portion of your after tax income to pay for new mountain bikes and white short sleeved shirts.

they started with a fear of:

unemployment - i said i'd just have to retrain and get wifey to work a few more hours, they said i should join their church

global warming and general disaster - i said sh!t happens, i'll have to deal with it when it happens, they said i should join their church

nasty people around the world - i said it's in human nature to want more and conquer it's what makes us all human and the world a great place to be, they said i should join their church

hope for the dead - i said what does it matter i'll be dead and won't care, they said i should join their church

what will happen to you when you die - i said i'll get eaten by the ants, they said i should join their church

when i told them that their church borders on religious fundamentalism, controls their members like a cult and generally destroys families (some of wifey's family unit was actually destroyed by the insane fundamentalism of this church) they distanced themselves completely and told me that in their 30 years of being a jo ho they'd never seen this happen and that there must have been other different underlying factors. and i thought lying was a sin, obviously not in the jo ho church.

i told them that i respect their right to a belief/faith and that they should respect my right to think they were blindly being led like sheep and showed them the gate.

rightyo, getting off the religion soap box now, sorry if i've offended any good people.

[Steeler]

I have often wondered if peoples opinion on climate change is based on what they truly believe or is it based upon the fact that change may impinge on our way of life and the fact we may have to make changes to the way we do things.

[Camhawk88]

I have often wondered if peoples opinion on climate change is based on what they truly believe or is it based upon the fact that change may impinge on our way of life and the fact we may have to make changes to the way we do things.

BINGO

Try passing more taxes on fuel. We all use it, we all think we pay to much for it and we would all rather get it for next to nothing and bugger the future- when we run out it wont be MY problem.

[goat boy]

you can google whatever you want, and get whatever answer you want, don't like what that link has to say? go the next one until you find one that makes you feel comfortable based on what you already believe.
Hey I can google this
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1225895826849
now the national health and med research centre wouldn't lie to me would they? they're 'findings' wouldn't lean towards the direction their funding came from would it? it wouldn't be the result of researchers own base beliefs would it? all of the above? none of the above? I'm confused

[TimiBoy]

Where is your evidence to support that the change is unknown. Again its more conspiracy websites and people who use there far "superior" knowledge but don't have any supporting data or if they do, the data is over a small time period or relative unknown.

Ah, but that's not the way Science plays, now, is it? The Hypothesis of CAGW is what is being debated. I didn't come up with it, I don't have to prove it. The Folks that say it's proven do exactly this: they have no supporting data (or they have fudged, incomplete, or data that proceeds from unproven assumptions, such as - despite Alarmist's best endeavours - positive feedbacks) with which to PROVE the Hypothesis. They say "It's warmer and CO2 has gone up! That's PROOF." No, it isn't. Have you read the parody about Piracy? It correlates well with CO2 rise... Cause and Effct have not been proven. We still have Alarmists bickering over whether sea level will go up by 1 foot or 20. 2 degrees or 5. Show me your Equatorial hotspot, eh? Conclusions derived from models keep falling over. Now we actually have the Pottsdam Institute claiming that Global Warming will cause very cold European Winters, after a few years ago saying they'd barbeque...

Now about the scientists being corrupt. Your telling me that thousand upon thousands of well educated people working on University boards and independent research are all just pushing the global climate change issue, the biggest issue mankind has ever realised, because they can get some grant money. What do they do with that money? They use it to fund their further research into the biggest problem ever realised. I don't have a problem with that they could very well be the people to crack this issue.

To stay in a job, to keep the grant money coming, yep, I'm happy with that. There are thousands upon thousands of Scientists who don't adhere to the CAGW Hypothesis, too. Several of them have just been testifying to Congress in the USA - oh but wait, we're told they are cranks in the pay of Big Oil. Sure getting tired of that old chestnut.

Now the haitian lady,

That sort of typical emotional push to prove an argument is what the greens would do to prove their case. Yes there are other issues that need solving, some people claim that the Haiti earthquake and other recently frequent disasters is a direct result of global warming. No one can be sure of that, all i know is there has been an increase of natural disasters in recent years thats indisputable.

Aha, so I get emotional but that's not allowed, while Greens are running all around using the same tactic but it's OK from them? I see.

Actually any increase in natural disasters is very much in dispute. The CSIRO recently recanted on it's conclusions about the drought, stating now that it had nothing to do with Global Warming. The frequency of Hurricanes is way down, and there have been stronger, larger storms in the distant past than (for example) Katrina. There have been hotter Summers, colder Winters, and everything in between, many, many years before now. Sea level is actually going up more slowly than it was a few years ago (Bangladesh will be happy about that - about 3mm per year and definitely NOT accelerating).

Current temperature increases are not out of the ordinary either in rate or in quantum, and there is no disaster frequency outside of normal parameters. Certainly people are living in places that have greater exposure to serious weather than used to be the case, and that will continue as the population grows. We also see storms via satellite that we never were able to count before.

Oh and smallpox was eradicated in 1980.

Quite correct. I thought I had recently read that there was a scare about it, but I've gone and checked, and I was wrong.

Point is, CAGW has not been proven, and as time goes by, and it's model based predictions, it's alarmist ranting, and it's obvious political potential become more and more obvious to the Common People to be not happening, thankfully the harder it will get to push. There will always be die hards who have this desire to "save the world" in their hearts, but well, the misguided are not my problem, thankfully.

Cheers,

Tim