Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 26732 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
I'm sure Rick has gone off to prepare his concise answer to my question.

Concise in that it will be either a Yes or a No, and not a maybe....


While we wait, here is a person who claims to be able to thuroughly and utterly destroy Bunktons credibility as a climate science critic. I myself can't judge conclusively due to my lack of scientific expertise, although considering Bunktons credentials as a proven liar and career charlatan, I suspect he may be on to something.

Fortunately Rick can. After Rick provides a simple yes or no answer to my question, he can then justify his yes or no answer. After all, if he is capable of saying yes or no then he must have credible reason for his judgement. If he is currently struggling with a case of "writers block" perhaps using these videos can speed the process along.













BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 7, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
It doesn't even seem like you guys are arguing the same subject?

So here's one for ya, what's the difference between "reason" and "common sense"?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:08am PT
Ed, The Chief, Rick can't take your calls now-out climbing till sunday evening-please leave message. Beep.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:41am PT
So here's one for ya, what's the difference between "reason" and "common sense"?

As Werner states repeatedly and most assuredly is the bottom line logical point in all this, how about "The Truth".

Ed H hit it outta the park in another thread earlier today. Would really make this all that much more simpler if he only confessed it here as well. Definitely worth repeating as it is so appropriate.

While devastating to humans, it most assuredly has happened in the past "naturally."Why attempt to change what is natural?
Ed Hartouni





In addition, here is the opening paragraph of Roger Pielke Sr's (who btw was on the original "Draft Committee" of the recent Statement) response to the latest final AGU Statement on Climate Change:

I served on the AGU Panel to draft the updated Position Statement on “Human Impacts on Climate”. We were charged by the AGU to provide

“…..an up-to-date statement [that] will assure that AGU members, the public, and policy makers have a more current point of reference for discussion of climate change science that is intrinsically relevant to national and international policy.”

In my view, this means we were tasked to report on the most important aspects of climate change. This was incompletely done in the Statement, where they inaccurately, in my view, discuss a view of climate change that is dominated by the emission of CO2 and a few other greenhouse gases. Indeed, the Committee, under the direction of Jerry North, with the report writing subgroup led by Susan Hassol, was clearly motivated to produce a Statement of this one particular view. Under his leadership, other views were never given an adequate opportunity to be discussed.


Imagine that. Gotta maintain that bullshet and totally one sided propaganda protocol.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:19am PT
What's funny is what Judith Curry has to say about it. Her opening statement is so predictable since she is the Queen of Uncertainty and how to use it politically. She might just be looking for a new job soon, but tucked away where she is she is pretty safe. Here is what she says from her blog;

JC comments

" Of the two statements, I vastly prefer Roger Pielke Sr’s statement,since he discusses the complexity of the issue and the uncertainties.

That said, I will once again question why AGU or any other professional society is issuing statements on this topic. IMO, AGU’s statement is one of the worst I’ve seen from a professional society on this topic, in particular its title ‘Human-induced climate change requires urgent action.’ This is an explicit statement of advocacy, that goes well beyond what the IPCC has said (and is expected to say in the AR5; we will see).

What really irks me about this statement is that I am a member of the AGU, and therefore this statement is implicitly speaking for me. It is clear that not even the 15 AGU members set to write this statement agreed, since one of their members (Pielke) has written a dissenting statement. The words ‘uncertainty’ or ‘debate’ are not used in the statement, leaving no wiggle room for them to pretend that this statement accounts for the range of perspectives in the AGU (or even within the writing committee), or the uncertainties.

If the AGU wants to maintain credibility as a scientific organization, it should do some serious self reflection. "

Ha! If the AGU wants to maintain credibility it will show her the door! The foot-dragger Curry wonders WHY the AGU made a statement at this time. I wonder how long she will keep up her stupid ruse, or how much longer the world will let her. It's time to move on.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 09:40am PT
What's funny is what Judith Curry has to say about it. Her opening statement is so predictable since she is the Queen of Uncertainty and how to use it politically. She might just be looking for a new job soon, but tucked away where she is she is pretty safe

More like BEING TUCKED AWAY WHERE SHE CAN'T BE HEARD. Seems that is how the AGW INDUSTRY HEAD ZEALOTS role. Shut anyone up that disagrees, has the solid foundation to do so and more importantly, the over powering experience & credentials to back up their talk.



Talk about being "SPOT ON":
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:28pm PT
I think it can be said that to the extent that Curry is agreeing with the AGW side in her most recent statements, she is already scrambling to save whatever credibility she has left. She will have to get her sh#t together and let her affiliation with the Denialists go, or get a job with the tobacco industry.

It's a funny image thinking of Foot-Dragger Curry straddling the fence of AGW V The Denialists. There is no question which side she will ultimately end up on......she has already crossed BACK over more to AGWists.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 8, 2013 - 12:59pm PT
Do any of you smart guys know of a way to reverse the climate change?

If not, we're better off directing our resources toward dealing with the consequences of a changing climate.

Either way, it needs to be done quickly.

Me, I'd like it if it were warmer around here. Maybe my avocados wouldn't freeze so often.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:28pm PT
So what do you do, Monolith? Reverse it? Or adjust to it?

We have to choose, and we need to do it quickly.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:43pm PT
You do what you can, Chaz. If reducing the growth of CO2 emissions now will reduce the potential impact in the future, then that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

Why do you make it a choice of one or the other?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
If reducing the growth of CO2 emissions now will reduce the impact in the future, then that sounds like a reasonable thing to do.

And you all know for certain that will remedy the potential end of the world as you claim it will happen.


NOT!


You are all simply pulling that one outta your asses. Cus not ONE of your 200IQ scientist knows if that is the real issue. Nor do they know at all if that will actually work. No one knows.

That is a FACT!


Hell, according to head ZEALOT James Hansen, the turning point has past and there is NO turning back.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
^^And you are certain there won't be severe impacts? Do ya mind if we study the problem?^^

If we can keep man from causing the next worldwide catastrophe, we should try.

If nature wants to cause one in a few million years, fine.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:12pm PT
ive been bagging up my CO2, and my methane releases. I now have thousands of bags full and STILL i can find no one to accept them as credits towards may "account"..
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Aug 8, 2013 - 02:16pm PT
So Ron, you don't accept the simple fact that humans are warming the planet?

Why?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 03:14pm PT
And you are certain there won't be severe impacts? Do ya mind if we study the problem..

Ah, like I have posted a zillion times, you all have been studying this problem for well over a 100 years now. Really does appear that you all want to remain in the problem that you all have manufactured. Hmmmm.

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
And we continue to learn more and more. Is that ok with you?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Aug 8, 2013 - 03:20pm PT
Brandon the temps have been flatlined for 15 yrs.. Why?? The "great pause" has yet to be explained. I dont doubt man has SOME effect, yet we cant predict what natural forces are at work and how much things would be changing otherwise, without mans interference. Those are all guesses from what ive seen. like the model Ed posted on my fire thread- im STILL trying to figure out what is meant by climate driven fires vs human driven fires lmao! No , just have many doubts, and part of that comes from the many false flags they have flown in the name of that cause.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 8, 2013 - 05:05pm PT
And we continue to learn more and more. Is that ok with you?

SO, you admit the fallacy of it all. You want another 100 years and Billions of Tax Payers hard earned slim pickens to learn more. In the mean time, according you all, it gets hotter, everyone along any coastline will be flooded out, droughts and tornadoes as well as hurricanes will wipe out millions upon millions of humans.

Doesn't that sound familiar. The science filled pharmaceutical industry that is supposedly studying how to terminate cancer and all other diseases that are killing millions annually. All the while it is getting richer as each year and decade passes. But damn, they are still studying.

Got it.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 8, 2013 - 05:11pm PT
Are all the questions answered yet, Chief?
Messages 11041 - 11060 of total 26732 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews