32,000 scientists dissent from global-warming “consensus”

[Bernie Gunther]

Nope. I'm saying that their science doesn't stand up to scrutiny and that's why I don't take their arguments seriously, that there is a big difference between what the three actual qualified climate scientists who make contrarian statements say when they're writing for peer-reviewed journals and when they're writing for outfits that also promoted the war on Iraq and racist studies of negro brain size, and by the way they are also apparently right wing loons, I wonder if this has any bearing on their evident dishonesty.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Nope. I'm saying that their science doesn't stand up to scrutiny and that's why I don't take their arguments seriously, that there is a big difference between what the three actual qualified climate scientists who make contrarian statements say when they're writing for peer-reviewed journals and when they're writing for outfits that also promoted the war on Iraq and racist studies of negro brain size, and by the way they are also apparently right wing loons, I wonder if this has any bearing on their evident dishonesty.

Luckily, they aren't the only three nonbelievers.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

p.s. Bernie, do you have an answer to my question, ie, if we don't reduce CO2 emissions, what is in store for us, and when?

 

[Refused as fuck]

There are four, but one of them is a dope fiend.

 

[Signal 11]

Here's what you're saying.

"Seems like most of those global warming nonbelievers are right wing creationist nuts, so we don't have to pay attention to anything that they say."

That's not what Bernie was saying.

However, I was and am saying I won't pay attention to Spencer because he's a right wing creationist nut. I will not take the word of someone like that over the experts. If he is able to convince the experts of any of his criticisms then fair enough, but until then I'm not going to take anything he says seriously.

Having now seen how dishonest he was with the data, I think my attitude was correct. I'm not an expert and most likely would not have caught that. That's precisely why these people are so keen to present their arguments directly to the public rather than to scientists.

 

[Signal 11]

if we don't reduce CO2 emissions, what is in store for us, and when?

Probably what the IPCC says will happen.

There are four, but one of them is a dope fiend.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Probably what the IPCC says will happen.

D

Do you know what that is?

 

[Signal 11]

^ Yes.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ Yes.

Care to enlighten the rest of us, so that the argument we're having, will take on some actual meaning?

 

[Signal 11]

^ No. See section 3 of the summary report I linked to if you're interested. I'm not going to paste it in here.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ No. See section 3 of the summary report I linked to if you're interested. I'm not going to paste it in here.

Why, too much work?

I'm just interested to see what it is that's driving you in these arguments.

 

[Signal 11]

^ Read it then.

 

[bigfish]

I really wonder Jonnie, why you keep trying that ad-hominem argument, this must be about the ninth time, when you know that I'm going to show that it quite clearly doesn't apply.

He's a loony. Don't worry about it.

If you don't accept bigfish's conspiracy theories, that makes you a racist MI5/6 stooge (apparently) Didn't you know that?

You're a 1 man pork pie factory, "Dr" Gunther.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ Read it then.

I'm wondering what's important to you. What is it that's gotten you all fired up about this warming debate? It must be something.

Same goes for the rest of you. What is it you're so fired up about? What do you think is coming down the pike?

 

[bigfish]

... There is an interesting overlap though, particularly in the US, between professional global warming scepticism, fundamentalism and the far-right.

There is also an interesting overlap between the internet peddlers of the "manmade global warming" or "manmade global climate change" fraud and far-right eco-fascists such as Douglas Tomkins the land grabbing multimillionaire founder and funder of the Sourcewatch Gestapo type register of proscribed people and organizations.

 

[bigfish]

I'm wondering what's important to you. What is it that's gotten you all fired up about this warming debate? It must be something.

Cash, probably.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Heh, you're funny. Can you do other tricks?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I don't think they're being bribed, but something must have made them this passionate about the subject. They must believe that global warming is going to lead to something pretty bad.

I'm wondering what that is, and if I should be worried?

I don't believe they're just full of hot air, as it were.

 

[bigfish]

I don't think they're being bribed, but something must have made them this passionate about the subject. They must believe that global warming is going to lead to something pretty bad.

I'm wondering what that is, and if I should be worried?

A warmer planet + more atmospheric CO2 = a more lush and bountiful planet - so I guess it must be that.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Maybe I can help.

Sea level to rise - London, New York to be submerged.

Massive crop failure.


Am I going in the right direction?

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You know, I think of the number of people who have come onto this thread and laughed at anyone who follows a different line about global warming.

But now they won't come and explain why they're so worried about CO2 and global warming. Is it because they don't really know, and have simply bought anything said on the telly about 'climate disaster'?

New announcer: "Because of climate change, the world is fucked!"

U75er, putting down joint and leaning forward: "Did you just hear that, the world is fucked! Where is my placard??!!"

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Thing is, you contrarians have what, three (can you find a fourth?) actual climate scientists who will sign up for this bullshit when they're writing for the American Enterprise Institute (who also promoted the invasion of Iraq as a brilliant idea), but won't actually say any of this stuff in peer reviewed papers.

Then they have a bunch of sad old whores like Fred Singer who have been lying about science since the tobacco industry was trying to confuse the public about whether it's products caused cancer, and some even sadder cases like David Bellamy who got destroyed on TV by a fucking journalist for not knowing the science, who are willing to show up for PR events and say the right stuff for their corporate sponsors.

Unfortunately for them, the actual test of this stuff is what the science says and there they simply fail.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Thing is, you contrarians have what, three (can you find a fourth?) actual climate scientists who will sign up for this bullshit when they're writing for the American Enterprise Institute (who also promoted the invasion of Iraq as a brilliant idea), but won't actually say any of this stuff in peer reviewed papers.

Then they have a bunch of sad old whores like Fred Singer who have been lying about science since the tobacco industry was trying to confuse the public about whether it's products caused cancer, and some even sadder cases like David Bellamy who got destroyed on TV by a fucking journalist for not knowing the science, who are willing to show up for PR events and say the right stuff for their corporate sponsors.

Unfortunately for them, the actual test of this stuff is what the science says and there they simply fail.

What calamities does global warming portend for the future?

If there aren't any, then the whole thing is moot, isn't it?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

Don't worry JC. It'll mostly affect poor brown people. You'll be fine in Canada.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Don't worry JC. It'll mostly affect poor brown people. You'll be fine in Canada.

I'm brown. Will it affect me?

You're just hinting at the problems.

Come on, you seem to know what they are: don't be shy.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Another way of putting it. Have the guts to put your position down on paper, stand by it, and defend it.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Come on. The door is wide open for you.

Do you have the balls to step through?

 

[bigfish]

Don't worry JC. It'll mostly affect poor brown people. You'll be fine in Canada.

But you want "poor brown people" to forego modernity - to exist in backwardness and squalor scratching the land for food - simply because your dogma informs you that CO2 is the evil bringer of manmade global warming, when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[tangentlama]

What calamities does global warming portend for the future?

If there aren't any, then the whole thing is moot, isn't it?

You keep referring to 'global warming', and to be frank, it makes you look as though you haven't bothered to read any of the data that many here have posted in reply to yours and bigfishes corporate-sponspred propaganda.

For example, global-warming is but one aspect of climate change.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Our govt brought in a carbon tax, and they're running these justificatory ads.

It starts: "We've seen the effects of global warming already - firestorms in our forests...."

Forest fires have become 'firestorms'.

Is this one of the effects you're endorsing?