The Climate Change Debate Thread

[Wakeupcall]

[quote=Tombo;2729455]

You seem to want to pursue this line of:

persons beliefs unsupported by science on subject A => persons beliefs on climate unsupported by science.

You see it is a logical fallacy you are persisting in using and I am trying point that out to you with the example that I look on anyone who goes to mass as showing poor scientific acumen.

But unlike you, I am willing to think you a bit loopy for believing religious mumbo jumbo, but still limit my judgement of you beliefs about Dangerous AGW to the evidence and facts you use. See?

Now for the record:

• I am an atheist and believe people who believe in God or any deity or supernatural guff are potty (so that should cover creationism as well).
  
• The Holocaust was one of if not the most obscene crimes in history that resulted in the murder of some 7 million Jewish people.
  
• HIV is the retrovirus that appears to be the cause of AIDS. We don't yet have sufficient understanding of this retrovirus to immunise against it or to create an antivral agent.

and while I'm at it:

• Neil Amrstrog did land on the moon
• The twin towers attack was perpetrated by Islamic extremists
• John F Kennedy was shot by Lee Harvey Oswald from the book repository.

Do we need to go on with this?

How's that? My views tend to be scientifically driven 100% of the time.

You, on the other hand, seem to like a little mumbo jumbo. But, I will only ever judge your views on Dangerous Climate Change on their merits and never say, "Why would I listen to you. You think you are eating Jesus flesh every week."

OK?

Hehe, well said Tombo!

[Cassandra Syndrome]

I want my daughters, my grandson and my grandson's kids to have decent lives on a good planet. I can't save them on my own, and I can't save them as individuals and ignore everyone else's kids. So it has to be collective or not at all.

My focus is on the science of climate change because I think the case for action on climate change needs good science a priori. My own examination convinces me the case for AGW is sound. I actually wish it was otherwise.

Lots of I's and Mys there. Should you not have said, our future and our civilisation's future to begin with?.

And again you had another rant about libertarians without knowing what exactly the term means.

The points I bring up are very relavant to climate change. No one denies that excessive Carbon Dioxide is bad for us. No one denies that it has zero impact on climate. But in relation to the best possible strategy to deal in the short medium and long term with CO2 emissions has not been implemented nor indeed ascertained.

Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Cap and Trade are extremely poor efforts to deal with this issue and have created a deadweight loss on society in the short term.

Furthermore this fanatical obsession with CO2 emissions has rendered other forms of pollution trivial and possibly ignored. As I said before the level of concern by proponents of AGW are seldom crying out about the massive Gulf of Mexico environmental disaster which could potential devastate the eco system of that region.

[Tombo]

I want my daughters, my grandson and my grandson's kids to have decent lives on a good planet. I can't save them on my own, and I can't save them as individuals and ignore everyone else's kids. So it has to be collective or not at all.

Relax. Everything suggests that human influence on climate will be the least of the concerns of your children and grandchildren.

I have an interest in the welfare of my children and grandchildren too. I want them to enjoy an even better quality of life than we have obtained today via economic development. As a requirement for that and as a natural benefit in its own right I want them to enjoy as full freedom of choice as can be justified, which includes the unbridled thrill of driving a V8 convertible down the M4 on a sunny day in June.

[owedtojoy]

[quote=Wakeupcall;2729570]

Hehe, well said Tombo!

Great chest-thumping stuff! Did you do theTarzan call as well?

Actually we do have something in common (not the Tarzan part), I also try to be scientifically/ rationally driven 100% of the time.

Now, I think I have shown the basis of my acceptance (provisionally, of course, until it is dispoved) of the science of AGW.

Can you reciprocate by showing the basis for believing otherwise? And don't bother regurgitating dross from some wingnut website.

[Tombo]

[quote=owedtojoy;2729806]

Great chest-thumping stuff! Did you do theTarzan call as well?

Actually we do have something in common (not the Tarzan part), I also try to be scientifically/ rationally driven 100% of the time.

Now, I think I have shown the basis of my acceptance (provisionally, of course, until it is dispoved) of the science of AGW.

Can you reciprocate by showing the basis for believing otherwise? And don't bother regurgitating dross from some wingnut website.

OK, so I will offer you a choice. Answer one of the two following questions:

1. Do you attend mass?
   
2. Will you stop using people's views on non-climate related areas whe promoting your (flawed) views on clmiate change?

[owedtojoy]

No one denies that excessive Carbon Dioxide is bad for us. No one denies that it has zero impact on climate. But in relation to the best possible strategy to deal in the short medium and long term with CO2 emissions has not been implemented nor indeed ascertained. .

What do you mean by "excess". There are plenty of wingnuts who think excess CO2 is a good thing (plant food, you know). I think there is a typo in your second sentence, it is illogical. Maybe you should correct it. if "no one denies it has zero-impact on climate", then what is all the fuss about. Am I "no-one"?

Carbon Taxes, Carbon Trading, Cap and Trade are extremely poor efforts to deal with this issue and have created a deadweight loss on society in the short term.

So basically you are with Bjorn Lomborg, the most despised figure in the climate change world, that we should set about curing malaria, supplying clean water etc. as the planet warms up and we get more mosquitos and drought, without addressing CO2 at all.

It is an illogical position, but it took an awfully long time to get even that much sense out of you.

And after we have cured world hunger etc., and the panet is still warming, what would you do next?

[Tombo]

What do you mean by "excess". There are plenty of wingnuts who think excess CO2 is a good thing (plant food, you know). I think there is?

Sorry, but the "wingnuts" are those who claim, without a scrap fo evidence, that increasing CO2 will have a necissarily adverse affect on earth, flora, fauna, humans.

And flora does grow more plentifully with increased conentrations of CO2. Only a "wingnut" would deny that.

HOw are you coming with those questions.

[faoimhoidbheithsaor]

Look up Lord Christopher Monckton. He consistently shows that there is no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTFUqhGkU3c]YouTube - Lord Monckton Greenpeace Arguments on Camera[/ame]

[Cassandra Syndrome]

What do you mean by "excess". There are plenty of wingnuts who think excess CO2 is a good thing (plant food, you know). I think there is a typo in your second sentence, it is illogical. Maybe you should correct it. if "no one denies it has zero-impact on climate", then what is all the fuss about. Am I "no-one"?



So basically you are with Bjorn Lomborg, the most despised figure in the climate change world, that we should set about curing malaria, supplying clean water etc. as the planet warms up and we get more mosquitos and drought, without addressing CO2 at all.

It is an illogical position, but it took an awfully long time to get even that much sense out of you.

And after we have cured world hunger etc., and the panet is still warming, what would you do next?

What are you waffling about now? Hurin who is an AGW poster here, does not agree with the 3 Cs either. So by your rational anyone who does not agree with these austerity measures is another Lomburg whoever he is at home.

You have a very absolutist algorithm thought process. The end result I suppose from selling your soul to technocracy, a loss of appreciation of humanity.

And the hypocrisy of calling people Glib? Pass the bucket.

[owedtojoy]

Look up Lord Christopher Monckton. He consistently shows that there is no such thing as anthropomorphic climate change.

... problem is he is a proven liar, or sloppy/ economical with the truth, to put it a bit more kindly..

Monckton Chronicles Part II ? Here Comes the Sun?

Abraham shows Monckton wrong on Arctic sea ice

NewEnergyNews: Climate Crock Of The Week: Lord Monckton, Part 1

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XjhTrCgVb5U&feature=player_embedded]YouTube - Debunking Monckton Part 2 (updated)[/ame]