tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post2005474834574547668..comments2024-03-30T00:09:27.602+13:00Comments on Not PC: Warmists whacked in Oxford Union debatePeter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-40457365930898985942010-05-30T12:02:37.148+12:002010-05-30T12:02:37.148+12:00Sam
With all due respect -
And yet for all the ...Sam<br /><br />With all due respect - <br /><br /><i>And yet for all the sanctimonious posturing, the warmists continue to ignore the documented warmer periods in earlier centuries.</i><br /><br />...is simply untrue. <br /><br />What is true is that we cannot connect those periods directly to CO2. <br /><br />Which means that one of the other climate forcings was causative then. <br /><br />Which means absolutely nothing when attempting to determine the climate forcings at work today. <br /><br />bjchipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-75026237419039329752010-05-30T10:42:42.241+12:002010-05-30T10:42:42.241+12:00And yet for all the sanctimonious posturing, the w...And yet for all the sanctimonious posturing, the warmists continue to ignore the documented warmer periods in earlier centuries.Sam Pnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-14842573780379513652010-05-29T16:56:43.567+12:002010-05-29T16:56:43.567+12:00You may not choose to exploit the earth -be that a...<i>You may not choose to exploit the earth -be that as it may. I for one will not be living in a cave. I will, and am protecting my environment for my children to inherit. That is my responsibility. Forcing others to do your bidding seems to be yours, bj.</i><br /><br />Since I and mine have never advocated living in a cave, your first exaggeration is noteworthy. <br /><br />If you are protecting your environment for your children to inherit, you must be taking notice and trying hard to keep your carbon footprint small and more power to you... but this is the "tragedy of the commons" writ large and I have yet to see ANY treatment/solution from a libertarian perspective, of the tragedy of the commons. <br /><br />Particularly when it comes to the quality of the atmosphere of the planet. <br /><br />When you come up with some alternative you have a right to ask for that alternative to be used in place of a carbon tax or something similar. You will find (and I think you will be surprised at this) that I dislike and distrust big government. <br /><br />It is all too often a tool of exploitation... in the bad sense of the word. <br /><br />That however, has nothing whatsoever to do with the science, and must be faced in spite of our misgivings. <br /><br />Find us another way. I see none. <br /><br />bjchipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-11563830656709953492010-05-29T16:43:54.145+12:002010-05-29T16:43:54.145+12:00Julian
You are still treating science like it was...Julian<br /><br />You are still treating science like it was a debate. <br /><br />The wishful-thinking side has to do one of two things. Find a refutation of the core tenets underpinning AGW or find an alternative theory that fits the facts and predicts results better. <br /><br />It isn't. <br />They haven't. <br /><br />bjchipAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-28245744100070360282010-05-29T14:25:45.266+12:002010-05-29T14:25:45.266+12:00Julian, you could only be correct if there is noth...Julian, you could only be correct if there is nothing to be explained. Otherwise, it is not enough simply to say the mainstream explanation is false, you DO have to put up another explanation that better fits the facts. As for "qualified climate scientists", Monckton certainly isn't one, but rather a charlatan who's made up his story. That he may be a convinsing debater doesn't make his bullsh!t any more true.Go figurenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-29002311275679148672010-05-29T11:08:34.977+12:002010-05-29T11:08:34.977+12:00"I am an island", Shane declares. "..."I am an island", Shane declares. "The forces of nature don't apply to me unless I say so!"Go figurenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-85222016774633404952010-05-29T10:20:41.718+12:002010-05-29T10:20:41.718+12:00@bjchip
You wrote "There are no "refuta...@bjchip<br /><br />You wrote "There are no "refutations" nor even any real competitors to Global Warming theory in explaining what is happening. If you want to debate it, go argue with the rising tide."<br /><br />Your whole argument is undermined with this statement of yours.<br /><br />The onus of proof lies with he who asserts the positive. It is therefore the job of those who assert that global warming is happening and that it is caused by man, to provide proof. In the views of many qualified climate scientists, this has not been done. It is not the job of those who disagree with the warmists' theories to provide an alternative theory. And why should they if, in their view, there is no scientific evidence that the world is warming in that manner that is claimed, and that man has caused it. <br /><br />JulianJuliannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-33240707502986228092010-05-29T09:26:12.850+12:002010-05-29T09:26:12.850+12:00I would consider that Monckton's accurate repo...I would consider that Monckton's accurate reporting of the highly politicized IPCC is poor choice if attempting to establish trust with anyone.<br /><br />You may not choose to exploit the earth -be that as it may. I for one will not be living in a cave. I will, and am protecting my environment for my children to inherit. That is my responsibility. Forcing others to do your bidding seems to be yours, bj.Shane Pleasancehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06144367923437327037noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-73091963614805321832010-05-29T01:39:57.107+12:002010-05-29T01:39:57.107+12:00Monckton is a persuasive speaker whose scientific ...Monckton is a persuasive speaker whose scientific sounding gibberish has been debunked quite thoroughly every time it has been subjected to actual scientific scrutiny. Mistaking him for someone who actually cares what the truth is, is a telling error. <br /><br /><br />Since he accurately reports what the IPCC said, he has your trust.. which he then very thoroughly abuses. All economic activity? What is the source of THAT number is what one should ask, because that calculation comes not from the IPCC, but from his own very shaky grasp of climate science. <br /><br />http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/07/moncktons_triple_counting.php<br /><br />http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfA1LpiYk2o&feature=player_embedded<br /><br />http://rabett.blogspot.com/2010/04/monckton-jumps-shark-gets-eaten.html<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/05/moncktons-deliberate-manipulation/<br /><br />http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/07/once-more-unto-the-bray/<br /><br />Enough of that. The final winner of this "debate" will be Mother Nature. <br /><br />There are no "refutations" nor even any real competitors to Global Warming theory in explaining what is happening. If you want to debate it, go argue with the rising tide. <br /><br /><i>Furthermore, warmists often forget, or have never considered, that under all but their most catastrophic scenarios, the future generations who they say will benefit tomorrow from banning or shackling private action today will (unless the warmists are successful in shackling producers completely) be several orders of magnitude richer than we are today.</i><br /><br />You have swallowed the fishhook of economic discounting very deeply here.<br /><br /> I point out that with the backslope of peak oil and the effects of resource depletion of every description coupled with the addition of another billion or so people, the massive debts we are already saddling our children with and the clear failure of economists to understand the first thing about thermodynamics... leave scant reason for your optimism. I suggest that the reality is significantly more grim than you appear to believe EVEN WITHOUT WARMING. Add the climate catastrophe that you cannot show to even be unlikely and human civilization is at risk. <br /><br />http://tqe.quaker.org/2007/TQE155-EN-WorldEnergy-1.html<br /><br />What you may be missing, is that climate change doesn't make capitalism or libertarianism wrong. It has nothing to do with it. The science doesn't care about politics and neither do the scientists. <br /><br /><br />On the other hand, I DO care... <br /><br />Advocating theft from future generations is apparently what you are about ("exploit the earth or die"), and I have little sympathy with people who steal from their own children and even less with those who steal from mine. <br /><br />bjchip<br /><br />PS. The science includes solar. Changes in temperature are attributed as accurately as possible with respect to what the sun has been doing, but it has NOT been doing anything that noteworthy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-35180296313237825522010-05-28T23:59:24.242+12:002010-05-28T23:59:24.242+12:00The the sun's output has not been ignored at a...The the sun's output has not been ignored at all, but is dealt with in hundreds of papers. The cycles of solar radiation variation are well understoon and have been shown to explain only a vary small part of the warming trend. That we're currently at a minimum in those cycles while warming increases rather makes the point too.Go figurenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-16031559639825025632010-05-26T14:33:25.251+12:002010-05-26T14:33:25.251+12:00PC
Thanks for the post. One important point alwa...PC<br /><br />Thanks for the post. One important point always ignored by the global warming (climate change) crowd is the single biggest factor effecting the temperature on Earth is the output of the Sun. The Sun’s output has varied over time and is likely to vary in the future. At present we only have very crude models for predicting how the Sun’s output will change in the future. If we cannot predict how the most important variable in the Earth’s future temperatures will change, then we really have no ability to predict the future temperatures on Earth. Making any statements about the future temperature here on Earth under these circumstances is at best nonsense (garbage in – garbage out).Dale B. Hallinghttp://www.hallingblog.comnoreply@blogger.com