Stop arguing about climate change and...

Stop arguing about climate change and start finding ways to save lives

There are 36 comments on the Palladium-Item story from Jul 13, 2010, titled Stop arguing about climate change and start finding ways to save lives. In it, Palladium-Item reports that:

WASHINGTON -- It's odd how little we've heard lately from the skeptics who deny that climate change is real.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Palladium-Item.

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#1 Jul 13, 2010
Are there any sceptics here who 'deny' climate change?

No?

Thought not.

The headline message is more suited to alarmists, "Stop arguing about climate change and start finding ways to save lives."
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#2 Jul 13, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Are there any sceptics here who 'deny' climate change?
Not even the scientists deny climate change.

And you cannot find 'skeptics' only denialists. To be a skeptic would mean have a 'basis for skepticism' and if they have one, they are hiding it REALLY WELL.
Earthling wrote:
No?
Thought not.
The headline message is more suited to alarmists, "Stop arguing about climate change and start finding ways to save lives."
As ususal, it is probably a denialist setting up a strawman. Fact is that 'enhanced' climate change ( a shift in the RANGE of the climate) due to changing global temperature is still the issue.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#3 Jul 13, 2010
I knew it wouldn't be possible for 'him' to take advice,'he' has to argue about something or nothing instead of doing something usful while 'he' is still able.

My 'basis' for scepticism is doubt in the intelligent life forms called climate scientists who base their assumptions on man programmed computer models.

Anyway, no one can force me to believe in a dubious science or a god if I choose not to.
I live in a world where individuals still have freedom of choice and thought.
Up to a point.
Northie

Spokane, WA

#4 Jul 14, 2010
Earthling wrote:
Anyway, no one can force me to believe in a dubious science or a god if I choose not to.
I live in a world where individuals still have freedom of choice and thought.
You're entitled to your own opinion; not your own facts. Not when lives are on the line.
Peter Jones

Christchurch, New Zealand

#5 Jul 14, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
You're entitled to your own opinion; not your own facts. Not when lives are on the line.
Being a bit dramatic are'nt we?How if this is not a settled science can we stop arguing?
Northie

Spokane, WA

#6 Jul 14, 2010
Peter Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a bit dramatic are'nt we?How if this is not a settled science can we stop arguing?
Not settled science? Every major national academy agrees...as do 98 percent of the world's climatologists...after the largest scientific inquiry since the Earth was born.

It's settled for me.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#7 Jul 14, 2010
Northie wrote:
You're entitled to your own opinion; not your own facts.
Thank you, that's enough for me.
Northie wrote:
Not when lives are on the line.
My opinion will affect nobody's life.
Northie wrote:
Not settled science?
No, even Phil Jones admits that.
Northie wrote:
Every major national academy agrees...as do 98 percent of the world's climatologists...after the largest scientific inquiry since the Earth was born.
What do they, "agree," that's the question?
Northie wrote:
It's settled for me.
Really, no one would have noticed.
If it was, "settled" for you, you wouldn't be arguing, you'd either be sitting there with a smug or a worried look on your face, saying nothing.
Gord

Calgary, Canada

#8 Jul 14, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not settled science? Every major national academy agrees...as do 98 percent of the world's climatologists...after the largest scientific inquiry since the Earth was born.
It's settled for me.
What a HOOT!

If it's the "largest scientific inquiry since the Earth was born."

Then:

-Post ANY Law of Science that supports the fantasy "Greenhouse Effect".

-Post ANY measurement, ever done, that shows that CO2 in a colder atmosphere can heat up a warmer Earth.

Come on, this should be a snap for you to do....if your AGW CULT "science" has any basis in reality.

You won't do it and can't do it because they simply DON'T EXIST.
----------
All that will happen is that you will get "all wound up" and "implode" by responding with another irrational babbling post that does not include any Laws of Science or measurements to support your irrational CULT Beliefs.

This is typical Cult behaviour throughout history.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#9 Jul 14, 2010
Want to see something real?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...

Imagine if this happened today, instead of 1859?

Our magnetic field is 10% weaker ... and we are much more dependent on electric and electonic devices.
We ought to be working on protecting ourselves from this possibility ... instead of the climate change mularkey.
Peter Jones

Christchurch, New Zealand

#10 Jul 14, 2010
Northie wrote:
<quoted text>
Not settled science? Every major national academy agrees...as do 98 percent of the world's climatologists...after the largest scientific inquiry since the Earth was born.
It's settled for me.
Well the proof is in the pudding.Why are there so many scientists who appear on documentaries an say the science is not settled it's political.

Global Warming or Global Governance

Prof. Tim Patterson Dept of Sciences Carlton University
Doctor Robert C.Balling Fmr Director of Arizona State University
Professor Tim Ball retd Dept of climatology University Winnipeg
Dr Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa
Professor John Christy lead Author IPCC
Professor Richard Lindzen Dept of Meterology Massachusetts Institute technology.
Dr Fred Singer Atmospheric physics George Mason University
Dr Vincent Gray Expert IPCC reviewer ,Climate Consultant New Zealand
Dr Michael Coffman CEO Sovereignty International
Dr Robert Davis University of Virginia
Dr Patrick J michaels prof of environmental studies Univ. Virginia
Dr Roy W Spencer
Analsyt Stephen Macintyre and Professor Ross McKitrick analysed and recompiled the data they debunked the "hockey stick"
and this is just off one doco!
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#11 Jul 14, 2010
Even Realclimate.org denies that, "The Science is Settled."
In fact they go one step further:
“The Climate Science Isn’t Settled”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives...
Surely all alarmists believe what that website prints?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#12 Jul 14, 2010
Scientists make a distinction between the fact there is always more to learn and tweaking of theories to be done, and the fact that some things in science are well established and not questioned.
In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community.
Scientists tend to avoid the phrase "the science is settled", whilst making the above point.

However, this distinction is a bit subtle for many "sceptics", who continue to argue about whether CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, additional CO2 can cause an enhanced greenhouse effect, the world is warming, if the sun could be responsible... etc.- no longer subject to fundamental debate in the scientific community.

For climate scientists the real issues are: how much warming will CO2 cause.
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#13 Jul 14, 2010
In the climate field, there are a number of issues which are no longer subject to fundamental debate in the community.
No mention of the science being settled there, eh, Norfie?

Although I imagine FuG would like to have agreed with you, he's trying to be careful how he copy pastes his word.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#14 Jul 14, 2010
Peter Jones wrote:
<quoted text>
Well the proof is in the pudding.Why are there so many scientists who appear on documentaries an say the science is not settled it's political.
Global Warming or Global Governance
Prof. Tim Patterson Dept of Sciences Carlton University
Doctor Robert C.Balling Fmr Director of Arizona State University
Professor Tim Ball retd Dept of climatology University Winnipeg
Dr Ian Clark Dept of Earth Sciences University of Ottawa
Professor John Christy lead Author IPCC
Professor Richard Lindzen Dept of Meterology Massachusetts Institute technology.
Dr Fred Singer Atmospheric physics George Mason University
Dr Vincent Gray Expert IPCC reviewer ,Climate Consultant New Zealand
Dr Michael Coffman CEO Sovereignty International
Dr Robert Davis University of Virginia
Dr Patrick J michaels prof of environmental studies Univ. Virginia
Dr Roy W Spencer
Analsyt Stephen Macintyre and Professor Ross McKitrick analysed and recompiled the data they debunked the "hockey stick"
and this is just off one doco!
Whittle the list down to those who are active climate scientists and you have I think three names.

Look at the credentials of the other and you'll find some examples of outright fraud.

Vincent Gray, for example, is not a "climate consultant", he's a retired chemist and coal industry researcher.

Then you have the retired geology professors earning retirement money going on the fossil fuel industry funded denial circuit and the professional hired deniers who've been taking money to do it since the tobacco industry first bought them.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#15 Jul 14, 2010
U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010

A strong, credible body of scientific evidence shows that climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems….

Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/19/nationa...
Earthling

Pinoso, Spain

#16 Jul 14, 2010
FuG, check out the list of IPCC lead authors and tell me how many of them are well known climatologists?

NB: I didn't think it would take you long to hint at the, "settled science."

TBH, it doesn't really matter what conclusions anyone arrives at, the outcome will still be the same.
The human race is either k-cuffed or it isn't, how simple is that to understand?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#17 Jul 14, 2010
Glasnos wrote:
Want to see something real?
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-...
Imagine if this happened today, instead of 1859?
Coronal Mass Ejections are another problem, sure. Just like Near Earth Asteroids. But they don't happen often while AGW affects every day life.
Glasnos wrote:
Our magnetic field is 10% weaker ... and we are much more dependent on electric and electonic devices.
We ought to be working on protecting ourselves from this possibility ... instead of the climate change mularkey.
Because AGW has more effect on TODAY and the near future while an earth directed CME and Asteriods may not occur once in a millenia.

And we should be working on ALL problems. If you want 100% of people to agree on the 'top priority' before anything can be done, you are STUPIDER than the dinosaurs with their walnut sized brains.
Glasnos

El Paso, TX

#18 Jul 14, 2010
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Coronal Mass Ejections are another problem, sure. Just like Near Earth Asteroids. But they don't happen often while AGW affects every day life.
<quoted text>
Because AGW has more effect on TODAY and the near future while an earth directed CME and Asteriods may not occur once in a millenia.
And we should be working on ALL problems. If you want 100% of people to agree on the 'top priority' before anything can be done, you are STUPIDER than the dinosaurs with their walnut sized brains.
Look whom is calling who stupid!.. an asteroid? When was the last asteroid strike of any size? It is comic book stuff. You have been watching too much Bruce Willis.
If the CME that hit in 1859 hit today ... all electric grids in the world would be fried ... possibly for months. All electronic equipment would stop working, including your remote controlled toy car ... and you think this would be minor?

Go back to reading your comic books ... neutrino brain.
Disraeli

Virginia Beach, VA

#19 Jul 14, 2010
Fair Game wrote:
U.S. National Academy of Sciences labels as “settled facts” that “the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities”
New report confirms failure to act poses "significant risks"
May 19, 2010
It's not "settled science" until the Academy of Sciences can report without using terms such as "much" and "very likely." Neither are very scientific.

It will be settled science once they can state that "XX percent of this warming has been conclusively proven as due to human activities"

After all it is man-caused global warming that we're worried about, right?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#20 Jul 14, 2010
Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
It's not "settled science" until the Academy of Sciences can report without using terms such as "much" and "very likely." Neither are very scientific.
The only people that DON'T use terms like "much" and "very likely" are religious fanatics and psychotics. All reality is measured by fuzzy yardsticks. Science is just more HONEST about what it considers 'established science' by saying that the data is not perfect and there is some (small) chance of error. But as soon as science backs it (and NAS has backed it as solid theory) it IS a scientific fact qualified to be taught as fact in schools.
Disraeli wrote:
<quoted text>
It will be settled science once they can state that "XX percent of this warming has been conclusively proven as due to human activities"
After all it is man-caused global warming that we're worried about, right?
Since the percentage is changing every day that means that you can never firmly establish the facts by YOUR claim since the data will be 'out of date' by some amount as it must have been collected 'in the past'.

Asking that only perfect data and perfect theory be called science would mean that we HAVE no science. Thus we can see that you are an ignorant yahoo with no understanding of 'fact' much less reality.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

James Inhofe Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News US Sen. Inhofe OK after weather forces him to l... Jul '16 Hostis Publicus 1
News GOP chairman intensifies fight with White House... (Dec '15) Dec '15 goonsquat 10
News On climate change, Republicans are truly except... (Dec '15) Dec '15 serfs up 3
News Sen. Inhofe's 81st Birthday Present: Senate Vot... (Nov '15) Nov '15 Patriot AKA Bozo 1
News Global warming deniers unimpressed with pope's ... (Jun '15) Aug '15 Earthling-1 126
News Pope Francis Expected To Blame Global Warming O... (Jun '15) Jul '15 don t drink the k... 6
News James Inhofe to Pope Francis: Shut up with your... (Jun '15) Jun '15 2all 42
More from around the web