Thread: Global Warming... a hoax?

Dear Ashie,

Not only has this thread been one of the better examples of debate on this forum, it has had the added benefit of allowing us to watch all your nasty little techniques applied without effect, particularly trying to mis-represent the positions of others, avoiding questions, contradicting your previous positions whilst denying you're doing so or resorting to personal attacks when all else has failed.

We have also had the early Christmas present of you repeatedly losing your temper as the discussion entered areas of expertise that were beyond you – to such a degree in fact that; with Spunkymonkey's post, one could hear the sound of your grinding teeth. Finally, right at the end, you gave us a delightful hissy fit to enjoy as you lashed out wildly in the manner of a pantomime commissar. "This is a serious subject" was a classic from the only poster in fifty one pages to get gripped by PTP.

Hoax and Denilaism/denialaism (sic - priceless! On a par with the point where you got so angry you started to write in Pidgin English) are your assessment of my position, probably because your pre-loaded arguments require me to be so. The reality is more subtle, as numerous posts on this thread bear out, but there's no shading in your politics is there?

Anyway, thanks for being so opinionated and ignorant on a technically demanding thread and thus allowing the rest of us to give you and your views the repeated trepanning that your tedious agitprop deserves.

Happy Christmas (or does your Collective prefer Winterval?)

FF

P.S. DENIALISM or DENIALIST - Feel free to cut n' paste if you have to.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

As for greenhouse gases then the fighters with the Global warming claim that During the 150 years of the industrial age, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent.

Yes, that's a classic 'Climate Change ' fanatic trick… OMG!!!! CO2 is up by 31%!!!!!!! We're doomed!

Well, 31% of 0.0384% is a tiny amount in real terms.

They play on the fact that most people don't actually have a clue how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, many people think it's 10% of more, but it's not, it's 0.0384%.

And that figure is meant to prove what? It doesn't indicate anything about the effect of the CO2. If your stuck in a room where 0.0384% of the air is nerve agent, you're probably f*cked, even though it's a tiny amount.

Stop being dense… CO2 is not a fvcking poison, it's a natural gas essential to plant life. The more there is, the more plants will grow, the more they grow, the more CO2 they use op and oxygen they emit…

Oh look! Nature has a technique of balancing things out!

And stop being a troll, no one is saying it's a poison (at least at anything less than 5%). If you can't be bothered to make a relevant point STFU.

In other words, having being called out for posting a bullshite nerve gas analogy, you've just spat your dummy out.

Oh wibble, wibble, woe is me! Grow up princess.

I never got called out on f*ck all, YOU posted an irrelevant fact and got called out by chieftiff and myself. CO2 concentration is relevant because of the significant effect it has on climate. Just as a similar concentration of a lethal agent would have on you. Our analogies were correct, your 'fact' and what you tried to say with it was tosh. Stop digging yourself a bigger hole.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Interesting comments from New Scientist:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...html?full=true

Nothing 'interesting' at all…

A Scientific journal that's been peddling the 'AGW' myth, claims that scientists who were providing fraudulent results to support their fraudulent theories weren't really acting fraudulently?

That's a bit like asking King Herod to comment on childcare.

What? Unlike Booker trying to flog his book?

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by KGB_resident

As for greenhouse gases then the fighters with the Global warming claim that During the 150 years of the industrial age, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has increased by 31 percent.

Yes, that's a classic 'Climate Change ' fanatic trick… OMG!!!! CO2 is up by 31%!!!!!!! We're doomed!

Well, 31% of 0.0384% is a tiny amount in real terms.

They play on the fact that most people don't actually have a clue how much CO2 is in the atmosphere, many people think it's 10% of more, but it's not, it's 0.0384%.

And that figure is meant to prove what? It doesn't indicate anything about the effect of the CO2. If your stuck in a room where 0.0384% of the air is nerve agent, you're probably f*cked, even though it's a tiny amount.

Stop being dense… CO2 is not a fvcking poison, it's a natural gas essential to plant life. The more there is, the more plants will grow, the more they grow, the more CO2 they use op and oxygen they emit…

Oh look! Nature has a technique of balancing things out!

And stop being a troll, no one is saying it's a poison (at least at anything less than 5%). If you can't be bothered to make a relevant point STFU.

In other words, having being called out for posting a bullshite nerve gas analogy, you've just spat your dummy out.

Oh wibble, wibble, woe is me! Grow up princess.

I never got called out on f*ck all, YOU posted an irrelevant fact and got called out by chieftiff and myself. CO2 concentration is relevant because of the significant effect it has on climate. Just as a similar concentration of a lethal agent would have on you. Our analogies were correct, your 'fact' and what you tried to say with it was tosh. Stop digging yourself a bigger hole.

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

This set of pictures was posted by The Times and purports to show the effects of climate change, though I suspect that there may have been droughts and floods at previous points in human history and that ravens may well have died in deserts before Al Gore sounded the alarm. Quite what a large wave in Porthcawl has to do with anything is not explained and nor does the Editor expand on why digging snow in Siberia is a critical indicator.

Very compelling otherwise.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...Name=UKScience

Originally Posted by "FORMER_FYRDMAN

...Snipped by Mikemcc to save space...

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

The analogy was only to show that Oil_Slicks comment was irrelevant. He attempted to ignore the relevance of CO2. I don't know where you get the idea of 'if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent'. It's another strawman. I could equally say that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is only 0.00017% so we don't need to be concerned about it. It's equally wrong since its 25 time more potent as a GHG over a 100 year period.

It's important to look at all of the GHG concentrations because the effects on climate will most likely effect all of the points that you have raised. Reliable crop productiondepends on predicatable seasons. You're also ignoring what I said earlier about my recommendations, I agree with you that the numbnuts in Copenhagen won't do anything useful. But there are sensible measures that will allow us to control emissions without costing fantastic amounts whilst maintaining our lifesytle.

How easy will it be for us to feed ourselves in the UK if we lose the fen-lands? How expensive are additional pumping and flood defenses?

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

Cow farts and cow s***, far more of a 'Global Warming ' issue than tiny amounts of CO2.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle6895907.ece

You obviously didn't read that one very well.

Methane is acknowledged as the second most important greenhouse gas produced by human activity after carbon dioxide and is responsible for about a fifth of warming effects

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

I don't think anybody would dispute the importance of these things, but I would argue that they're potentially harder to solve than MMCC. They do not however have to be mutually exclusive.

CO2 (from whatever source) does have an affect on climate - the only quibble is over relating precise quantities to size and nature of impact. I can assure you that during flood basalt eruptions (such as those that made the Deccan Flats in India) that go on for thousands of years the climate changed considerably due to the CO2 emitted. That parts of the physics is not in doubt.

There isn't any rainforest left in Borneo and people all over the world are starving. You are so keen to stress the other threats of over population and economic development, but you're seemingly blind to how CC would exacerbate all of these things. If we cannot solve them now, do you expect us to do better when the problem is worse? In the end there isn't much that is detrimental to the planet that can't be at least partially blamed on human greed.

Originally Posted by Oil_Slick

Man Made Global Warming?


I'm reminded of this other infamous 'scientific discovery'…

Yes, and just like Climategate, the Piltdown man incident forever killed the idea that we evolved from ape-like creatures. Were we ever sucker for buying into that idea!

Originally Posted by MikeMcc

Originally Posted by "FORMER_FYRDMAN

...Snipped by Mikemcc to save space...

Mike - it doesn't settle the CO2 argument either way but it wasn't a very good analogy - if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent - if they could do that, the argument would be over.

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

The analogy was only to show that Oil_Slicks comment was irrelevant. He attempted to ignore the relevance of CO2. I don't know where you get the idea of 'if only because the MMGW side of the argument is struggling to prove that a small change in CO2 would be as significant as sharing a room with nerve agent'. It's another strawman. I could equally say that the concentration of methane in the atmosphere is only 0.00017% so we don't need to be concerned about it. It's equally wrong since its 25 time more potent as a GHG over a 100 year period.

It's important to look at all of the GHG concentrations because the effects on climate will most likely effect all of the points that you have raised. Reliable crop productiondepends on predicatable seasons. You're also ignoring what I said earlier about my recommendations, I agree with you that the numbnuts in Copenhagen won't do anything useful. But there are sensible measures that will allow us to control emissions without costing fantastic amounts whilst maintaining our lifesytle.

Mike - I don't disagree that doing things in a cleaner and less wasteful way is generally a good idea but I am struggling to see why MMGW, which is still theoretical, should be given primacy, politically and economically, over other issues - population pressure with resulting resource pressure, loss of habitat and bio-diversity - which are having major impacts now. Certainly climate is a factor but these issues are best addressed directly rather than trying to manage them by limiting emissions.

Originally Posted by shape.when.wet

Originally Posted by FORMER_FYRDMAN

On a wider issue though, you are arguing for the precautionary principle and I'm interested to hear why theoretical concerns about MM CO2 emissions should be given a higher priority than demonstrable and potentially catastrophic problems such as population control, access to clean water, bio-diversity, habitat protection, sustainable food provision and economic development?

I don't think anybody would dispute the importance of these things, but I would argue that they're potentially harder to solve than MMCC. They do not however have to be mutually exclusive.

CO2 (from whatever source) does have an affect on climate - the only quibble is over relating precise quantities to size and nature of impact. I can assure you that during flood basalt eruptions (such as those that made the Deccan Flats in India) that go on for thousands of years the climate changed considerably due to the CO2 emitted. That parts of the physics is not in doubt.

There isn't any rainforest left in Borneo and people all over the world are starving. You are so keen to stress the other threats of over population and economic development, but you're seemingly blind to how CC would exacerbate all of these things. If we cannot solve them now, do you expect us to do better when the problem is worse? In the end there isn't much that is detrimental to the planet that can't be at least partially blamed on human greed.

I'm not blind as to how climate change might exacerbate other issues, my point is that they will bring us to catastrophe long before MMGW does.

I think you are exactly right when you say that they are too difficult to address, that certainly seems to be the political consensus. This is why I don't take MMGW advocates seriously. They're very happy to redistribute wealth, tell everyone what to do and prance about in Copenhagen, but they are silent when it comes to addressing key issues inherent to their own argument.

When I hear Greenpeace propose effective measures to prevent the world's population increasing by a third by the mid 2030's and when I see our leaders make development assistance dependent on achieving legally binding population caps, I will believe that they are serious. Until they do that, they haven't a hope in hell of reducing emissions to the extent they claim is necessary and they don't deserve support for tinkering round the edges and dodging the big stuff.

P.S. Unqualified support for a switch to nuclear power would be persuasive too.

I'm all for nuclear. :D

But telling the human race not to breed (esp when more bodies=more bodies to put to work in poor countries to feed more body's mouths) is like telling a bear to kindly refrain from shitting in the woods.