Thread: Globval warming reality check

Originally Posted by iangb

I'm not saying that anyone is 'always right' or 'always wrong', I'm saying that you should judge predictions by looking at the evidence supporting them. Hansens earlier predictions were based on poor evidence; they were later shown to be false. The IPCC repor is based on very strong evidence, and is still being vindicated by more and more evidence that the earth is warming - see the medly of recent threads on the topic. As such, it makes more sense to trust the IPCCs predictions.

You mean the lies they get caught in or maybe the manipulation of temp by where they put recording stations. IPCC is not reliable or credible. They are more about politics than they are science.

Originally Posted by ptif219

You mean the lies they get caught in or maybe the manipulation of temp by where they put recording stations. IPCC is not reliable or credible. They are more about politics than they are science.

'lies they got caught in' is a non seq. The temperature stations that were rated as 'good' by the skeptics give a practically identical dataset to the original one. The IPCC has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of scientists, and the main body of it has never been discredited. The job of the IPCC was to show the science to politicians, so I'd call it a 50/50 split.

I've responded to all of these before, in different threads. Jumping about on a topic will get you nowhere, especially if you just return to already-covered ground.

Originally Posted by iangb

'lies they got caught in' is a non seq. The temperature stations that were rated as 'good' by the skeptics give a practically identical dataset to the original one. The IPCC has the overwhelming support of the vast majority of scientists, and the main body of it has never been discredited. The job of the IPCC was to show the science to politicians, so I'd call it a 50/50 split.

I've responded to all of these before, in different threads. Jumping about on a topic will get you nowhere, especially if you just return to already-covered ground.

Nice spin but the IPCC is run by the UN that is not credible and is a political body not a science institute. This is nothing more than politics and and a way to tax the world.

Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation | Watts Up With That?

Peter Foster: IPCC meltdown - FP Comment

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

Originally Posted by ptif219

Nice spin but the IPCC is run by the UN that is not credible and is a political body not a science institute. This is nothing more than politics and and a way to tax the world.

Lord Monckton reports on Pachauri’s eye opening Copenhagen presentation | Watts Up With That?

Peter Foster: IPCC meltdown - FP Comment

IPCC Insider Admits Climate Consensus Claim Was a Lie | The Beacon

Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?

Originally Posted by iangb

Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?

The lies and corruption that show they are not credible but just pushing an agenda and facts do not matter

Originally Posted by ptif219

The lies and corruption that show they are not credible but just pushing an agenda and facts do not matter

That wasn't my question.

Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?

You've shown countless times that you are ready to attack the messenger. Let's actually talk science.

Originally Posted by iangb

That wasn't my question.

Which part of the IPCC do you deny? That the earth is getting warmer, or that we are the cause?

You've shown countless times that you are ready to attack the messenger. Let's actually talk science.

That it is caused by man and that man can do anything to stop it. It is about the money

UN economists propose fast-track green taxes for $100 billion climate fund | Troy Media Corporation

A leading group of economists meeting in Bonn recently to advise UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a raft of new green taxes to raise the US$100 billion a year committed by the 110 participant nations who signed December’s Copenhagen Accord. The call won’t come as music to the ears of taxpayers globally – and particularly Canadian taxpayers.

Originally Posted by ptif219

That it is caused by man and that man can do anything to stop it. It is about the money

UN economists propose fast-track green taxes for $100 billion climate fund | Troy Media Corporation

A leading group of economists meeting in Bonn recently to advise UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has called for a raft of new green taxes to raise the US$100 billion a year committed by the 110 participant nations who signed December’s Copenhagen Accord. The call won’t come as music to the ears of taxpayers globally – and particularly Canadian taxpayers.

You do realise that all that tax money will be spent, yes? The government is not profiting from this; the only ones who will gain monetarily will be the 'green start-ups' who provide the next wave of innovations.

But enough of messenger-shooting/defending. You've said you don't think that global warming is caused by man, and as such you don't think that man can stop global warming. Seeing as your second premise rests heavily on the first one, let's look at that. If we just focus on one greenhouse gas - CO2, which of the following do you deny?

1. Man has released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in recent times.
2. CO2 has a warming effect
3. (from 1. and 2.) The CO2 which man has released into the atmosphere has had a warming effect.
4. (from 3) This warming effect is described as AGW.

Originally Posted by iangb

You do realise that all that tax money will be spent, yes? The government is not profiting from this; the only ones who will gain monetarily will be the 'green start-ups' who provide the next wave of innovations.

But enough of messenger-shooting/defending. You've said you don't think that global warming is caused by man, and as such you don't think that man can stop global warming. Seeing as your second premise rests heavily on the first one, let's look at that. If we just focus on one greenhouse gas - CO2, which of the following do you deny?

1. Man has released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in recent times.
2. CO2 has a warming effect
3. (from 1. and 2.) The CO2 which man has released into the atmosphere has had a warming effect.
4. (from 3) This warming effect is described as AGW.

So how much of the warming is caused by man? How much will the temp decrease by going green?

I have no problem cutting back on pollution but these scare tactics of global warming show it is a hoax. The manipulation and lies of the GW community make this whole thing not credible and unbelievable.

Originally Posted by ptif219

So how much of the warming is caused by man? How much will the temp decrease by going green?

I have no problem cutting back on pollution but these scare tactics of global warming show it is a hoax. The manipulation and lies of the GW community make this whole thing not credible and unbelievable.

That wasn't my question, either; you're back to shooting the messenger. Which of the following do you deny?

1. Man has released large amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere in recent times.
2. CO2 has a warming effect
3. (from 1. and 2.) The CO2 which man has released into the atmosphere has had a warming effect.
4. (from 3) This warming effect is described as AGW.