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

[Johnny Canuck3]

No it wasn't.

.

Given that I asked the question, and you don't have access to my inner state, I'd have to say you're mistaken.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

:


Yes.

Someday, you'll have to demonstrate that for us.

 

[Signal 11]

^ You said you didn't understand my post. When I asked you which part you didn't understand you just gave a false account of what was in the post and a question implying a false accusation.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ You said you didn't understand my post. When I asked you which part you didn't understand you just gave a false account of what was in the post and a question implying a false accusation.

That's not what I said. I said that as you became increasingly emotional, you were becoming increasingly incoherent.

Thus, resulting in your turning to nonverbal communication devices like rolleyes smilies.

 

[Signal 11]

I said that as you became increasingly emotional

Which was false.

you were becoming increasingly incoherent.

Which was false.

Thus, resulting in your turning to nonverbal communication devices like rolleyes smilies.

That is false too. The smilies were in addition to the text, which you snipped from the quote.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Which was false.


Which was false.


That is false too. The smilies were in addition to the text, which you snipped from the quote.

Yes, of course, dear.

But back on topic, do you agree that we should go with what the british public wants, as revealed by polls?

 

[Signal 11]

^ As I've said, I don't think that is on topic for this thread. This thread is about the scientific consensus on climate change.

 

[tangentlama]

I agree with you, Signal. It's not a topic for this thread.

 

[tangentlama]

^ You said you didn't understand my post. When I asked you which part you didn't understand you just gave a false account of what was in the post and a question implying a false accusation.

It's part of a technique described by Donna Ferentes in his exposition on the CT'ers and published by editor: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7765663&postcount=818

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ As I've said, I don't think that is on topic for this thread. This thread is about the scientific consensus on climate change.

I realize the topic is going in a direction you don't want it to go in: yet another attempt at stifling discussion.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

^ As I've said, I don't think that is on topic for this thread. This thread is about the scientific consensus on climate change.

Btw, it was free spirit who introduced the public opinion polls into the thread, so if you want to fling shit for going off topic, free spirit is your target.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

It's part of a technique described by Donna Ferentes in his exposition on the CT'ers and published by editor: http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=7765663&postcount=818

Is the technique of being a lickspittle described in there?

 

[tangentlama]

You're a troll, Canuck.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

You're a troll, Canuck.

Is that something akin to a demon?

 

[yield]

You're a troll, Canuck.

No Johnny Canuck isn't a troll. He picks fights, hates losing and can be disingenuous at times. Smart chap though.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

hates losing

How much do you like losing?

 

[Signal 11]

yet another attempt at stifling discussion.

I've answered that here and here.

Btw, it was free spirit who introduced the public opinion polls into the thread

Liar. bigfish first brought up that topic with his appeal to popularity in this post. As a fallacious argument by definition, I didn't consider it worthy of a response, however, free spirit provided the opinion poll in response to it, showing that it was wrong as well.

so if you want to fling shit for going off topic

Loaded language. I simply stated that the discussion of responses to climate change should go in another thread.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Loaded language. I simply stated that the discussion of responses to climate change should go in another thread.

Why? Is your thinking so linear that you can't tolerate any deviation of any sort? This thread is now hundreds of posts; how much more discussion can there be concerning the credentials of the petition signers?

The discussion has moved on: judging by the number of views, many people remain interested.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

What discussion of the credentials of the petition signers is needed?

A couple of actual climate scientist demonstrably on Exxon's payroll and a bunch of creationists, people who thought invading Iraq was a good idea and other right wing nutcases like Teller. Why would anyone take that bunch of wankers seriously?

 

[Bernie Gunther]

I mean, I do understand why you think that snake handlers with unusual numbers of chromosomes and lickspittles working for Exxon are your people JC, but I really don't see why the rest of us should feel emotionally involved.

 

[Bob_the_lost]

Why? Is your thinking so linear that you can't tolerate any deviation of any sort? This thread is now hundreds of posts; how much more discussion can there be concerning the credentials of the petition signers?

The discussion has moved on: judging by the number of views, many people remain interested.

Deviation is often another way to say avoid in this context. Or do you consider the issue resolved, and if so what sort of consensus has the thread come to (excluding the inevitable outliers?). I'm very interested to see if you still think that this is a new petition and that this represents a disagreement in the scientific community (of any particular scale, as opposed to a very small group of dissenters backed up by a load of nonscientists).

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I mean, I do understand why you think that snake handlers with unusual numbers of chromosomes and lickspittles working for Exxon are your people JC, but I really don't see why the rest of us should feel emotionally involved.

Huh?


And get your own words next time.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

I think we should talk about Antarctica next.

 

[William of Walworth]

I've bumped the 'Great Global Warming Swindle'** thread in General.

**Title of Martin Durkin's well dodgy Channel 4 'documentary' (ie denialist polemic), last year, and title of the consequent multipage Urban thread about it.

Because :

OFCOM have finally adjudicated on the many complaints sent to them over Durkin's programme (thread title and subject).

Summary of OFCOM findings from today's Guardian

Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists (report, today's Guardian)

Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? (George Monbiot, today's Guardian)

Global warming is a brutal truth :Channel 4's dismissal of Ofcom's damning verdict about its flawed programme is the usual professional self-deception (George Monbiot's blog, today)


No time to comment much, but if you have time, please read the above links.

Anyone who thinks Durkin (programme maker) comes out of all this looking like anything other than a lying charlatan, really needs to take a closer look IMO.

Climate Change denialists, take note ....

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Some important aspects of climate appear not to have changed.


No significant trends of Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over the period of systematic satellite measurement (since the 1970s).

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+of+systematic"+IPCC&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

We suggest that modern grounding-line retreat is part of ongoing recession that has been a consequence of anthropogenic warming or recent sea level rise. In other words, the future of the West Antarctice Ice Sheet may have been predetermined when grounding-line retreat was triggered in early Holocene time. Continued recession and perhaps even complete disintegration of the WAIS within the present interglacial period could well be inevitable.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/286/5438/280?ck=nck

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Current ice dynamic models project that the WAIS will contribute no more than 3 mm/yr to sea level rise over the next thousand years, even if significant changes were to occur in the ice shelves.

http://www.grida.no/climate/IPCC_tar/wg1/409.htm

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Temperature at the South Pole has been declining since the beginning of measurement in 1957.

-Goddard Institute for Space Studies, 2006: Amundsen Scott Temperature Data.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

The Antarctic Peninsula has in fact warmed......but the other 96% of Antarctica has cooled.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Is the Earth still recovering from the “Little Ice Age”?
A possible cause of global warming
Syun-Ichi Akasofu
International Arctic Research Center
University of Alaska Fairbanks
Abstract
There seems to be a roughly linear increase of the temperature from about 1800, or even much earlier, to
the present. This warming trend is likely to be a natural change; a rapid increase of CO
2
began in about
1940. This trend should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years. Thus, there is a
possibility that only a fraction of the present warming trend may be attributed to the greenhouse effect
resulting from human activities. This conclusion is contrary to the IPCC (2007) Report, which states that
“most” of the present warming is due to the greenhouse effect. One possible cause of the linear increase
may be that the Earth is still recovering from the Little Ice Age. It is urgent that natural changes be
correctly identified and removed accurately from the presently on-going changes in order to find the
contribution of the greenhouse effect.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...+little+ice+age+1800&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=ca