I have changed my mind

John Cooper · 14-12-2007, 09:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve fowler

Well im glad you have come round to the idea that this global warming stuff is normal and you do have to think about it in some case's the planet's weather patterns have been changing the whole time the earth has been around and then all of a sudden its our fault that the weather is going wrong in present day times!.

Actually the paper is made up and I was joking.
A lot of climate change deniers in the US have used this paper as proof the climate is not changing, even though it is rubbish. I think this tells something about their desire to disbelieve.

I am not 100% convinced about climate change, however people who are not experts and belief that it is impossible seem crazy to me. I guess they are the descendants of people who said travelling at 30 miles an hour would kill you.
Saying anything is impossible and/or is created a global conspiracy to me seems very strange.

John Carter · 14-12-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Cooper

Actually the paper is made up and I was joking.
A lot of climate change deniers in the US have used this paper as proof the climate is not changing, even though it is rubbish. I think this tells something about their desire to disbelieve.

If your side of the argument is resorting to such tactics then we can be pretty sure that the whole thing is political BS.

John Cooper · 14-12-2007, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

If your side of the argument is resorting to such tactics then we can be pretty sure that the whole thing is political BS.

Rush Limburgh used this paper as evidence that global warming does not exist or if it does exist is man made. What is wrong with exposing someone's scientific ignorance ? Hopefully this will have made him think about the evidence.

It also shows that he has a belief and looks for evidence to support it.
When you should look at the evidence and then make up your mind.

The problem with the theory that it is a political lies - why do people with different political views believe it ?

Besoeker · 14-12-2007, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roland

should rephrase that.

Been looking into all these different opinions on the subject of global warming. Not being a scientist i like most people can only examine the opinions of various people who are scientists.

I have noticed is their is no real over ridding consensus amongst scientists their are still many different arguments and opinions.

I have noticed if scientist want to speak out against global warming they will not get government funding or will lose their funding.

I have noticed that the climate system and the things that affect it is vast with thousands of different inter reactions which cause many changes in weather systems and cycles.

But what i don't know is the technical stuff. So in layman's terms what dose "What figure 2 shows is that benthic eubacteria mass (gm/m^3) is decreasing although it is presented to make it look like it is increasing" mean? whats the significants etc..?

The article purports to show that the changes in atmospheric CO2 correlate with the changing population patterns among benthic eubacteria.
From the article, atmospheric CO2 has increased from 280ppmv to 379ppmv over the last 140 years. Figure 2 shows that benthic eubacteria mass has decreased by a factor of ten thousand million.

That alone shows the article for the hoax that it is.

Besoeker · 14-12-2007, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Carter

If your side of the argument is resorting to such tactics then we can be pretty sure that the whole thing is political BS.

If the other side can fall for such a simple hoax, it doesn't reflect well on their ability to objectively analyse data.

Clippo · 14-12-2007, 01:07 PM

Roland,:- you say:

Quote:

Been looking into all these different opinions on the subject of global warming.

I suggest you’ve been looking in the wrong places if you make statements like :-

Quote:

I have noticed is their is no real over ridding consensus amongst scientists their are still many different arguments and opinions.

I have noticed if scientist want to speak out against global warming they will not get government funding or will lose their funding.

&

Quote:

I have noticed that the climate system and the things that affect it is vast with thousands of different inter reactions which cause many changes in weather systems and cycles.

I don’t think anybody sensible would disagree with the latter. Did you not think that those scientists in meteorology, oceanography, Glaciology, Chemistry, Physics ……….. haven’t noticed that also?

But I could also read an implication into that statement that you think that a) it can never be understood, b) that there aren’t dedicated honest scientists out there who have specialist skills to study these interactions.

I would never wish to prevent anyone stating their thoughts on a subject but a useful strategy I’ve tried to adhere to is to have firm evidence to support it.
In the GW / AGW debate, there IS an overwhelming consensus that GW is happening and that it is mostly caused by emissions of CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels. Furthermore, models of the behaviour of the atmosphere and the Oceans are improving rapidly despite the feeble attempts of sceptical scientists to suggest differently.

I think you should go back to the drawing board so to speak and perhaps as a very basic starter, go to Wikipedia and enter Global Warming or Climate Change.

John Cooper · 14-12-2007, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Besoeker

If the other side can fall for such a simple hoax, it doesn't reflect well on their ability to objectively analyse data.

They need to analyse data - they KNOW THAT IT IS A CONSPIRACY. AND ANYONE WHO DOES NOT AGREE IS A FASCIST !!!

Personally I do not think that all the theory behind global warming is true - however that does not mean that none is.

mkpdavies · 14-12-2007, 07:17 PM

No one fell for it. No one! Not one person actually commented on any of the content of the post, except Besoeker. The rest commented on a claimed move away from a position. The fact it was a scam is hardly suprising. We should have guessed.

Besoeker · 14-12-2007, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

We should have guessed.

Had you looked at the data (as John Cooper requested in post#1) and understood what it meant, then no guess would have been required.

Roland · 14-12-2007, 08:28 PM

So if push comes to shove where do you all stand

My opinion is that man made global warming is a scam.

I obviously don't know how to genuinely analise scientific data, what i do know from the education of life that which is true is transparently true and on the whole in times of true danger as a race we pull together rather than seek to profit.

I also know who i trust in the world of media and those who i don't and i would trust martin durkin and his 'great global warming swindle' and people like Michael
Critton who prides him self on telling the truth to the best of his abilities, far more than i'd trust Algore and his 'inconvenient truth' or the IPCC who get to live the life at the tax payers exspense as long as we all still believe global warning is
down to CO2 .

14-12-2007, 07:17 PM	#28 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 30,604	No one fell for it. No one! Not one person actually commented on any of the content of the post, except Besoeker. The rest commented on a claimed move away from a position. The fact it was a scam is hardly suprising. We should have guessed. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-12-2007, 08:28 PM	#30 (permalink)
Roland Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 857	So if push comes to shove where do you all stand My opinion is that man made global warming is a scam. I obviously don't know how to genuinely analise scientific data, what i do know from the education of life that which is true is transparently true and on the whole in times of true danger as a race we pull together rather than seek to profit. I also know who i trust in the world of media and those who i don't and i would trust martin durkin and his 'great global warming swindle' and people like Michael Critton who prides him self on telling the truth to the best of his abilities, far more than i'd trust Algore and his 'inconvenient truth' or the IPCC who get to live the life at the tax payers exspense as long as we all still believe global warning is down to CO2 .