Global warming?

[swbarnett]

And neither is the reverse - not accepting what the evidence is telling us ...

Agreed. My only contention is that the lay public don't know what the evidence says and has no hope of knowing in the current climate.

unfortunately, neither of us is going to be around to see who is right ..

That actually may be a good thing. There are some possible scenarios that I would prefer not to live through.

Hang on .. nek minute your explaining the impacts of Climate Change ... but you don't accept the science ... something is not right here ..

I know, ironic isn't it. I've been known to shoot down my own arguments at times because I value logic and reasoned debate over hysteria and sticking blindly to one's point of view. I always try to keep an open mind.

Climate change deniers who use freezing conditions in northern regions as evidence are just trying to prove a point. I object to any party in a debate using arguments based on a poor understanding of the opposing view.

I have seen the evidence and can agree that the jet stream has shifted. Climate change may be happening (it's certainly warmer in NZ than it was 40 years ago) but we the public can't be certain. My main point really is that the public at large doesn't really have a shits show of really knowing for sure either way because the debate has gotten far too political.

[Banditbandit]

I know, ironic isn't it. I've been known to shoot down my own arguments at times because I value logic and reasoned debate over hysteria and sticking blindly to one's point of view. I always try to keep an open mind.

I thought about this last night ... its completely ironic .. because I'm the one who attacks the base of science - because philosophy removes any possibility of coherency between what we might say about the world and how the world actually is ..

But I'm the one who was defending global warming ...

I have seen the evidence and can agree that the jet stream has shifted. Climate change may be happening (it's certainly warmer in NZ than it was 40 years ago) but we the public can't be certain. My main point really is that the public at large doesn't really have a shits show of really knowing for sure either way because the debate has gotten far too political.

I agree .. that's why I argue we should stop polluting our planet. IF climate change is driven by human agency then that will go a long way to mitigate it ...

[swbarnett]

that's why I argue we should stop polluting our planet.

I totally that we should stop polluting our planet. What I'd like to see is calls for this to be based on better science than what is coming out of the GW debate. There are plenty of things happening to our environment that are far better understood.

IF climate change is driven by human agency then that will go a long way to mitigate it ...

Indeed. At least this way the GW debate won't get in the way.

[mashman]

Climate change is a natural cycle. The "side-effects" of our resource usage is another problem entirely. That it might bring a mini ice age/heat wave forwards or retard that change by 100 years (hypothetical figure) doesn't really matter.

Heard something last night.... if either hemisphere starts to head towards an obvious ice age, that hemisphere will likely suffer severe power outages and resource loss enough to render that area uninhabitable and tank the entire global economy. We're not ready for it, not by a long way.

Too many people in positions of responsibility getting side tracked with when it's going to happen before committing any resources to addressing the issue ... as an aside: if you believe that a financial system can manage any of the above issues, let alone address them, then you're out of your cotton pickin mind.

[flyingcrocodile46]

On that note and hot off the press.

Listen to head of EPA's lack of answers to a senators questions a couple of days ago when trying to establish validity or existence of evidence to back up climate change claims.



“This is a stunning development, that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency — who should know more than anybody else in the world, who is imposing hundreds of billions of dollars in cost to prevent this climate temperature increase — doesn’t know whether their projections have been right or wrong,”

LMAO@ when in response to the challenge that over 90% of the climate models were wrong she says she doesn't know how the "evidence" stacks up against the climate models but that sometimes it's faster and some times it's slower (this is 'evidence' she is talking about) but that on the whole "it" makes no difference to the validity and robustness of climate science.

That's it folks, when push comes to shove and the hard questions are asked. The answer is that evidence has fuck all to do with "c-Lie-mate science".

[mashman]

On that note and hot off the press.

Listen to head of EPA's lack of answers to a senators questions a couple of days ago when trying to establish validity or existence of evidence to back up climate change claims.

I thought her answers were good enough to be honest. She doesn't look like the golfing type, and I assume she's pretty busy dealing with areas that are being fooked over in one way or another. Then again, she reckons more budget is the solution.

[yokel]

I thought her answers were good enough to be honest. She doesn't look like the golfing type, and I assume she's pretty busy dealing with areas that are being fooked over in one way or another. Then again, she reckons more budget is the solution.

No, she had absolutely no answers at all other than her "factual evidence" global scamming rhetoric.

she is a lying shit for brains.
http://youtu.be/24DP1uG-MEM?t=4m14s "i'm happy to submit" no you're not you lying cunt.

[mashman]

No, she had absolutely no answers at all other than her "factual evidence" global scamming rhetoric.

she is a lying shit for brains.
http://youtu.be/24DP1uG-MEM?t=4m14s "i'm happy to submit" no you're not you lying cunt.

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

[oldrider]

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

C'mon mashie - a little bit of hanging goes a long long way!

[mashman]

C'mon mashie - a little bit of hanging goes a long long way!

heh... I've learned that it's rather counter-productive and counter-intuitive to hang anyone. The irony is not lost on me (sometimes I forget though )

[SPman]

It's real, it's happening regardless of what anyone might think contrary wise, so let's all rearrange the chairs on the Titanic and deny the ship is sinking! The planet doesn't give a fuck if humans live or die - if we stop all pollution now we're still looking at a minimum 2-3C average rise (inertia is a bitch). The US military reckons GW is a major security threat to the US - they call it AGW - not climate change.

I'm not a climate change scientist, but I have a couple of acquaintances who are, and they are really worried about where the climate is going (not the weather) and the fact that lots of people are still being sucked in by pseudo science cranks and think it's all a scam! It's not!

But.......what will happen, will happen............to late to do anything when the shit really hits the fan!

[yokel]

It's real, it's happening regardless of what anyone might think contrary wise, so let's all rearrange the chairs on the Titanic and deny the ship is sinking! The planet doesn't give a fuck if humans live or die - if we stop all pollution now we're still looking at a minimum 2-3C average rise (inertia is a bitch). The US military reckons GW is a major security threat to the US - they call it AGW - not climate change.

I'm not a climate change scientist, but I have a couple of acquaintances who are, and they are really worried about where the climate is going (not the weather) and the fact that lots of people are still being sucked in by pseudo science cranks and think it's all a scam! It's not!

But.......what will happen, will happen............to late to do anything when the shit really hits the fan!

your acquaintances should worry about something else.
like in the other vid, CO2 is plant food.
150 gigatons of CO2 comes from bacteria and animals vs 6 gigstons are man made, then theres CO2 from dying vegetation and the oceans.

at the end of the day the climate is controlled by the sun, it out of our hands.
we should be more worry about our physical environment but because people are so caught up in this global warming nonsense the actual real environment gets raped and pillaged.

[puddytat]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...isis-needs-you

[carbonhed]

Are there lots of climate change models? Do all of those climate models give the same "answers"? She may well have a preferred scenario, but she's got a career to think about... and $4 billion of extra funding to squeeze from thin air in order to protect the world from a naturally occurring phenomenon. She gave answers, just not the answers anyone wanted to hear. I may well be very wrong, but I ain't gonna hang her on that performance.

Yes there's dozens and dozens of models and settings. Here's a graph of their outputs against real world measurements in the tropical mid troposphere.

[mashman]

You wont stop climate change as long as there is Capitalism.

The rest is just semantics & schism.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...isis-needs-you

Can't argue with that.

Yes there's dozens and dozens of models and settings. Here's a graph of their outputs against real world measurements in the tropical mid troposphere.

Does that mean it's going to be raining next week?