Fighting Global Warming Hysteria Down Under

[4rooney]

there is nothing wrong with green ann. tis the colour of that little island you are from

[levar1979]

@4rooney that would be funny if it were true.

[oilhammer04]

Thank, you. You are such a joy to watch!

[alleyghost]

Make an argument?

Well, you have lots of arguments in front of you but you refuse to pick them up.

For example I said people like me have EVERY reason in the world not to believe people like you.

Maybe I need to paint a picture for you:

the global warming issue is one that will have real-life implications, like individual and national sovereignty being cast out, new sets of rule pandered by global elite, one-world government by UN, if you ever care to look at human politics and history...

[alleyghost]

On the other hand if you would just drop the theory, the planet is not going to melt over night for lack of action! Even if global warming is man made, which I doubt, there is no conclusive proof as to which element contributes the most, and it is almost certainly not CO2 (+/- 0.04% total atmosp)

The 'consensus' is in your dull heads.

[Nilopollis]

Your right, its all a conspiracy. Now put on your tinfoil hat before they read your brain. Dont forget to skip the vaccinations too or the chem-trails will get you.

[Nilopollis]

Anyway you can have the last word. Im done here. If I try to argue with every true believer will give myself an aneurysm. The evidence for GW is to the point that the scientific community is unified behind it. If you want to believe the fringe opinion for ideological reasons, nothing can dissuade you. But know that you are not objective. You choose to believe the deniers because you want to believe them. I choose to believe the overwhelming evidence because I have no good reason not to.

[alleyghost]

If the evidence is so overwhelming, care to show the rest of the world the results of your findings? But no...because for that one has to be ''objective'' right?

I have no good reason to trust a word you say.

I and many others have very good reasons NOT to believe folks like you, though.

And the more you squirm, the less credible you become, not only as a scientist, but as a human being.

Because you know, after all, that you don`t really make sense, that is why you have the decency to gtfo.

[Nilopollis]

Care to make any argument why I should disbelieve science anywhere in that pointless diatribe?

All the science is on one side. The only reason to disregard the science is previously held ideology. But if you want to believe some retarded conspiracy, by all means do so. I don't give a shit about your grandchildren, and its not like anyone is ever going to do anything about our long term problems anyway.

[Nilopollis]

I would debate this with you, but I prefer to deal with young earth creationists and moon landing conspiracy theorists. They are far more reasonable.

[Slavestorms]

Was this posted before the climate gate emails and NASA admitting they had released bad data sets?

It's just a coincidence, no conspiracy to keep the gravy train running.

Just curious how that "evidence" you claim, based on consensus, like a religion is, stands up now?

You probably even thought the glaciers falling into the sea in Gore's propaganda were real and not just CGI. Who needs the truth when you can just photoshop in what you want people to beLIEve in spite of what they know.

[Nilopollis]

And naming scientists (deniers or consensus) and people like al gore says nothing. The only thing that matters is what the people who do the research publish and agree on. There was a meaningful debate on GW only a decade ago within the community. Back then the dissenters were the skeptics. Now that the science is in, they are deniers.

[Nilopollis]

As a biology major I'm not qualified to second guess the concensus of the folks that gather the raw data and publish peer reviewed papers on climate models. I know the sentiments of that community because I keep up with the actual scientists, not some agenda driven source. If the current climate models turn out to be flawed and the concensus changes, so will my mind. I will be happy to have been wrong and learned something. Thats what science is all about.

[hayesism]

Okay. You said yourself that it's easy. Name me six geologists with PhDs who believe the earth is flat. Hell, name me one. And....go.

[Nilopollis]

Did you pick the flat earth part because you believe the earth is 6000 years old? Or because you know that it is incorrect, but plenty of jackasses get Phd's simply to try to prove it is.

Here is the flat earther scientist you asked for though... Samuel Birley Rowbotham, PhD. Member of the royal astronomical society and the royal geographical society. I guess since he was of a small minority opinion he must have been correct by your logic.

[hayesism]

Wrong. Rowbotham had no PhD. He was just an attention-starved writer, like Al Gore. The societies you mentioned are mere clubs that anyone can join. Please try again. And try to keep it contemporary: I used the present tense in my challenge since you did in the prior comment, so there's no need to dig up corpses.

[Nilopollis]

I think the problem is that people get the phenomenon of GW and our contribution or lack there of, mixed up with the hype and apocalyptic prophets.

And please dont use the word skeptic to describe GW denial. Skeptics follow science and evidence without letting emotions guide their beliefs. That being said I have run across a few skeptics who disbelieve anthropogenic warming. (Penn Jillette) But as usual, most skeptics stick to the prevailing opinion of the scientists who do the research.

[hayesism]

Hey I came across an interesting list when I was poking around in our Flat Earth sub-debate thing. Google "flat earth corner archive" (without quotes). Tell me, do the guys listed there not qualify as 'skeptics' by your definition?

[Nilopollis]

Didn't I already tell you that I am up to date on the science? Do you think I do no research before I start talking about something? I've read all that. I've also read a lot from scientists with the consensus opinion. If you are only looking at information that confirms your previous opinion, that isn't research. Those folks are skeptical of GW. Most of them accept anthropogenic GW, they just think it is over hyped.

[Nilopollis]

BTW if you go to answersingenesis . com you can find a very large list of scientists who believe the earth is only 6000 years old. They have a dissenting opinion from the accepted consensus and credentials to back it up.

And they are absolutely wrong.

Just goes to show you how ideology can drive an educated person to the wrong answer. Science has no ideology, only reality. The reality that the geophysics community has found is that GW exists. As a skeptic I must follow the evidence.

[Nilopollis]

Its very perculiar that your sources agree with my position.

I only bring up holocaust deniers, 9-11 truthers, and creationists, because they show the same arrogance and confirmation bias. You cant change my mind, youre going to have to go around and change the vast majority of geophysicists minds first, when they publish their new papers, Ill be right there with you buddy. You cant tell me I dont know science when I spend all my time keeping up with it.

[bettertobealive]

It's very peculiar that you didn't even look for the right sources, and just clicked on the first link that came up.

[Nilopollis]

So there is a section of Argo that disagrees with this basic conclusion?

The data you are posting has no intrinsic meaning to the basic conclusion. Im not terrified or dogmatic about it, nor do I think it will kill us all. Nor am I absolutely certain about any of it. I just stick to the consensus when it is not my field of research.

But you win. Im tired of arguing with GW deniers. Too vitriolic. Ill stick to biology deniers. Thankyou for the compliment before btw.

[bettertobealive]

Do you ever convince anyone by being illogical?

Again;

"This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea

level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/−0.4 mm/yr)

somewhat reduced compared to the 19932003 decade (3.1+/

−0.4 mm/yr)."

[hayesism]

I have no interest in changing a mind as small as yours. It's like changing a penny. But I'm not the kind to let avoidable stupidity go unchastised and I want it on the record that you're a fool.

[Nilopollis]

Ok, Im a fool for believing the science. And you are a genius for choosing to believe the fringe because of political ideology. How exactly does believing the experts over you make me a fool?

[hayesism]

Because, by your own admission, you just "believe'" things. It takes a fool to just believe a priest or politician or even a scientist. The folk of true wit actually want to investigate things and decide for themselves, but again you concede that this is beyond you. (Hey, at least you're honest about it.) Fortunately, the results of my investigation are supported by many experts (I've already named a few), so it's erroneous for you to say that you believe this group "the experts".

[garlicbreds]

@hayesism You are out of your depth in arguing with Nilopollis. His position is quite sound. We have experts in our society for a reason - so we dont have to waste our own time becoming skilled in every profession. Specialisation is how we advance our civilisation.

You cant just dismiss the 97% without some pretty good evidence. Nilopollis is smart enough to know that. You are not, & are arguing like a child. You probably wont change your mind until your peers do.

[hayesism]

@garlicbreds "You cant just dismiss the 97% without some pretty good evidence." You can't submit that figure without some pretty good evidence (if you're referring to the Doran & Zimmerman poll, which itself was grossly unscientific, you have abhorent standards). Yes, we have experts for a reason, but if they don't agree then you have to man up and start thinking for yourself. Even if it IS only 3% (bullshit figure, of course) -- Michelson, Morley, Wegener, and Galileo weren't right by majority.

[Nilopollis]

I don't care about global warming. I just hate pseudo science and conspiracy bullshit. Global warming is real. There is little to no controversy among the people who actually know what they are talking about. That doesn't mean you have to care.

GW deniers are quickly becoming the same archetype as other senseless conspiracy cults like holocaust denial, evolution denial, 9-11 truthers and so on.

[hayesism]

...not to mention Galileo!

[Nilopollis]

???

Yeah, but the church eventually came around and admitted the science was right. I dont see GW deniers doing that any time soon. They dont need to imprison the scientists anyway....they can just cause mass confusion on the subject.

[hayesism]

You obviously missed my point. Was not Galileo in the minority, up against an alleged consensus in the scientific community? Is the same not so for the GW skeptics? It's you guys, with your Church of Alarmism, who need to cede and apologise.

[Nilopollis]

Alarmism? Im not alarmed. Its not a very hard thing to take carbon out of the atmosphere if we wanted to. I never said we were the main cause of warming either. The phenominon of GW exists. Period. There is no debate on whether the earth is warming. Or whether dumping billions of tons of carbon helps. And no, the sun is not the source of all heat. Nor does its relation to our paper-thin atmosphere have any meaning in this discussion.

[Nilopollis]

Galileo was against the consensus of the scientific community? That funny because the "scientific community" did not exist for a couple hundred years after his death. I have no intention to cede or apologize because Im not one of the mainstream geophysicists that you think you know more than. The pope could have looked through the telescope. You and I on the other hand would have to get a phd to be qualified to interpret the reams of data on climate change. I trust the consensus.

[hayesism]

The scientific community didn't exist until a couple of hundred years after Galileo's death? Jeez, what Renaissance are you thinking of? I had no idea that Argentina predates science!

Galileo was in the minority, just like guys from Charles Darwin to Robin Warren. Or, in this debate, like Svensmark, Christy, Douglas, Spencer, Akusofu and Singer (whose very existence disproves any claim of a consensus). But very interesting that you just want to trust majorities rather than decide for yourself.

[Nilopollis]

Consensus doesnt mean universal acceptance. I could easily name that many biology and geology Phd's that believe the earth is flat or 6000 years old....that doesnt change the concensus. Real peer reviewed science is only about 200 years old at the most. (Although certain fields like mathmatics go back to the greeks and farther) Im not qualified to judge raw geophysics data, but the vast majority of the people who are agree that GW exists.

[hayesism]

Come to think of it, Galileo's heliocentric model is a great analogy, because he was saying that the Sun is more powerful than the Earth and that the world doesn't revolve around our petty selves. The skeptics similarly say that a huge fireball in the sky about 2 billion billion trillion times the mass of our atmosphere is more likely the cause of temperature changes than man's meager contributions to a gas constituting ~0.038% of atmosphere. I mean it's only the source of all our heat, right?

[bettertobealive]

Endlessly stating that some thing is true over and over again doesn't prove it, nor does your "subscriptions to Science and Nature ".

Your intellectual stnadpoint is so weak, you have to turn to ad-hominem attacks correlating people who don't agree with your point of view as Holocaust deniers.

I think my work here is done.

[bettertobealive]

"I don't care about global warming"

No, you obviously don't. You don't care about science either. All you care about is unyeilding trust in authority.

[Nilopollis]

Only in the authority of people who spend their lives researching a certain topic. I know I know....I should act like I know more than the scientists. Look, Ive read the raw data, Ive seen the scientific consensus. Im not wasting calories looking into global warming denial any more than I second guess astrophysicists on the age of the universe. Im more than open to changing my mind with new information, I checked out Argo...they hold the same position I do. They dont deny GW.

[Nilopollis]

I'll change my mind about global warming when the vast majority of climatologists and other geophysicists do. But for now, I'm not burning any calories to say that their science is wrong.

[Nilopollis]

Its typical that they try to link peoples perceptions of global warming to one mans reputation, instead of to the facts. Classic tactic of deception. Just make people believe that al gore = global warming, then attack al gore instead of the issue itself.

[Nilopollis]

here's another

2005, a team of researchers, lead by NASA's James Hansen, found that the earth had become a "net importer" of heat -- due to the build-up of human-generated carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Hansen called the study a "smoking Gun" proof that humans are changing the climate. "Earth's Energy Imbalance: Confirmation and Implications," Science, Vol 308, Issue 5727, 1431-1435, 3 June 2005

[ancientcian]

whoa whoa whoa, stop right there. stop with the copy/paste. give me the site. besides, there isnt enough room for the info needed.

[Nilopollis]

Well, you can't post links on youtube. I was giving you quotes from peer reviewed scientific journals that I'm subscribed to online, with citation. That is where science papers are published. Im confused...do you want raw data showing climate change? Technical papers? Reports? Or do you just want to know how I know what the scientific consensus is? Either way, now I know way more about global warming than I ever cared to. I'll send you a PM link to IPCC studies and reports if you want.

[bettertobealive]

"Or do you just want to know how I know what the scientific consensus is?"

It's irrelevant, the consensus was that the Sun orbitted the Earth. Only for some "right-wing moron" named Galileo to prove a large amount of dogmatic idiots wrong.

[Nilopollis]

Galileo was right wing? how so? Im sorry the science is that global warming occurs and that humans contribute. You can compare 97% of climatologists to the middle ages catholic church all you want, but that doesnt change the science.

[bettertobealive]

"Galileo was right wing?"

No, but apparently anyone who disagrees with a consensus is a right wing nutjob, thats how hysterical people are. "You can compare 97% of climatologists to the middle ages catholic church all you want, but that doesnt change the science. "

And you can quote all the percentages, opinion polls and surveys you like, that doesn't change the science either.

It's not a numbers game.

[bettertobealive]

In fact, your argument is against science, your argument is for authority, and blind trust.

[bettertobealive]

Actually, it could be argued that Galileo was right wing, although I find the binary idea of right and left rather redundant. He was an individualist which is the opposite of what is perceived by some as left wing, ie collectivist.

[bettertobealive]

Do the words cum hoc ergo propter hoc mena anything?

[bettertobealive]

Actually, you are starting to sound like the Catholic church.

Your anti-scientific, morally hypocritical, semi-apocalyptic and highly dogmatic.

[bettertobealive]

In closing, I will draw your attention to some recent examples of a scientific consensus with a few quotes from the 70s;

"" Science Digest (February 1973) reported that the worlds climatologists are agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age.

Newsweek agreed (The Cooling World, April 28, 1975) that meteorologists are almost unanimous that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said may mark the return to another ice age. "

[bettertobealive]

Although, I did enjoy your video on Aliens in pop culture.

[Nilopollis]

Look, I don't pretend to be smarter than the scientists, I just listen to what they have to say on the subjects they dedicate their lives to. Trotting out one or two random papers from the 70's doesnt mean anything, and I could give a shit about right wing/left wing. Thats all you. The data shows that we are helping the world warm. Why is that such a controversial idea? What the hell does it have to do with political ideology? You seem like the one that is making decisions based on ideology.

[bettertobealive]

And I just irrevocably pointed out that your argument is logically flawed.

"Trotting out one or two random papers from the 70's doesnt mean anything"

Comically evasive response, the Argo data is from 2008, and is entirely relevant to the debate. I gave you those newspaper headlines to show you how little a perceived scientific consensus means.

"The data shows that we are helping the world warm"

No, some of it may. Numerous amounts of data don't support that conclusion.

[Nilopollis]

"comically evasive response"?

I can find news articles from now claiming that the consensus is still out on evolution. I however get my information FROM THE SCIENTISTS. My subscriptions to Science and Nature let me know what the consensus is because they are where the science is actually done.

[bettertobealive]

"I however get my information FROM THE SCIENTISTS"

So, what about the Argo data I showed you?

I suppose the people who compiled it aren't scientists, just Holocaust deniers?

[Nilopollis]

Do you ever convince anyone by being an arogant jerk? Im open to new data. All the valid data I come across points in one direction. The earth is warming. Period. I just read the argo site and they are saying the same exact thing. Is this all a conspiracy?

[Nilopollis]

I hope that data I sent helps you understand the scientific basis for our current climate change models, and clears up how I know what the scientific consensus it. If you ever need more, there seems to be an unlimited supply of boring as hell global warming science. Anyway, as usual, public opinion and "controversy" have little to do with the actual science.

[bettertobealive]

"Sea level budget over 20032008: A reevaluation from GRACE space gravimetry,

satellite altimetry and Argo

Conclusion

This can be summarized as follows: since 2003, sea

level has continued to rise but with a rate (of 2.5 +/−0.4 mm/yr)

somewhat reduced compared to the 19932003 decade (3.1+/

−0.4 mm/yr). Over 20032008, the GRACE-based ocean mass has

increased at an average rate of ∼1.9 mm/yr (if we take the upper range

of possible GIA corrections as recommended"

[Nilopollis]

opps...I fogot my reference to a peer reviewed journal.

here you go.

"A search for human influences on the thermal structure of the atmosphere," Nature, Vol. 382, July 4, 1996, B.D. Santer, et al.

[Nilopollis]

More than 2,000 scientists from 154 countries participated in the IPCC study that named antropogenic climate change "unequivicol".

Look....I dont care about global warming...I just don't like people who lie about science because it goes against their political ideology.

[Nilopollis]

32 National science academies have issued declarations confirming anthropogenic global warming, urging the world to reduce emissions. The signatories are the national science academies of Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Cameroon, Canada, Caribbean, China, France, Ghana, Germany, Indonesia, Ireland, Italy, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, New Zealand, Russia, Senegal, South Africa, Sudan, Sweden, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, United States, Zambia, and Zimbabwe

[showaltermicro]

Good job !

[Baadger]

Stop the ETS!

Liberal Party - please ditch Turnbull and grow some balls!

[Nilopollis]

Too bad all the science is against your nonsense. Oh well....we cant all base our beliefs on silly things like "facts". Some beliefs have to be based on profits.

[ancientcian]

that really affected the way i look at all this. thank you for your very convincing argument.

[Nilopollis]

Its just skepticism 101...if 97% of climatologists believe humans contribute to global warming, I'm not going to jump through hoops to believe the the other 3%. The only reason the public is so divided is the monetary interest in a certain conclusion.

[ancientcian]

thats an excellent point. in this case, however, 97% of climatologists do not agree with global warming.

[Nilopollis]

Im just quoting all the surveys of climatologists that I am finding. And what do you mean "agree with global warming"? The science is in on whether the earth is heating up, that consensus has been reached. There are still a small minority of scientists that dont attribute any of it to humans. That doesn't mean the world is over...it just means its slowly heating up..... and we're helping. Its been much worse off before, and life didn't end.

[ancientcian]

like i said, i cant take what your saying as an argument without seeing the evidence for myself. a deductive argument uses proven facts. if i cant confirm that you are using proven facts, your argument is useless. like i said, my requests for confirmation are important and not optional. if all you have are quotes, with no scientists names, and, more importantly, the published results of experiments with all information included, then you have nothing. that's more your problem than mine.

[Nilopollis]

What argument? The only argument we are having is over whether climatologists agree that the world is heating up and humans contribute to it. If you want to see the surveys I can direct you to them...but somehow I dont think it will make a difference to you. You have your conclusion and you find the information to fit into it. Instead of vica versa.

Can you find a reputable scientific body that says global warming is a hoax? Or just one or two random scientists out of thousands?

[ancientcian]

exactly! thats the argument im talking about! and what do you mean find evidence against it? find evidence for it! thats absurd! youve got to have evidence for a theory before it can even be considered a theory! you cant just ask critics to find evidence against it! thats like saying that the internet will be down in 40 days and asking those that disagree for evidence against it! what fallacy! YES! SHOW ME THE EVIDENCE! THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING FOR! SHOW ME IT!

[Nilopollis]

So you are saying that the vast vast majority of the scientists that study climate can not be trusted? Or just that you are smarter than them? (conspiracy maybe?) Im guessing if you really cant find the studies, you either dont know how to use the internet or dont care to.....being purposely obtuse. But if you wish I can just post all the studies I can find on global warming one by one and you can search out denial sites for nonsense to try to debunk them.

[Nilopollis]

#1

1995, a team of researchers led by Dr. Benjamin Santer of the Lawrence Livermore Labs examined the pattern of heating in the atmosphere. That pattern of warming -- over land and water and warm and cold areas -- produced a very specific pattern. That pattern matches the pattern projected by computer models of "greenhouse gas" plus sulfate warming. When the vertical structure of the warming was examined, it was found to be graphically different from the structure produced by natural warming.

[JSharmaine]

Maybe if Australia, and the rest of Europe wake up, America will too. And then we can stop these nuts from tyring to plauge other countries with this foolishness of "global warming"!!!

[terraalert]

It's an incredibly important film for big oil & coal corporate profits.

Those poor big oil & coal execs could lose their jobs if we shift away from fossil fuels!

On behalf of big oil & coal... I thank you!

[chaps666]

Terraalert,

Does it hurt being an ignorant twat? Non-jackasses of the world want to know.

[quuaa1]

You don't know shit, shut the fuck up

[liber8me]

tens of millions of people will lose their jobs around the world - no-one is caring about the top execs - they could find a top job working in almost any company.