The Polar Vortex

[martin-w 3,238]

Do yourself a favour and get away from the blog sites and discover the truth behind the CO2 scapegoat

Spoken like a true conspiracy theorist. And I can only imagine the type of denier, conspiracy theory blog sites you frequent. :rolleyes:

 

 There are plenty of other sources where you can obtain an accurate scientific perspective Duggy. Download a few papers from Nature if you like, or other scientific pier reviewed journals. The web site I linked to will give you the same explanation as climate scientists do. So... is it all a huge conspiracy, is the massive scientific consensus all a big con trick, the greatest conspiracy known to man, are all the scientist trying to trick us?. Yes, I'm sure you think they are.

 

 

That consensus argument was dead the moment it was uttered. Consensus as a means of scientific argument is bogus.

Of course not. It's a damn site more useful than the ramblings of  anti-scientific, deniers with zero qualifications, who deliberately misinterpret the data.

 

 As for empirical obseravtions... did you miss...  "and fundamental physical equations." Again Duggy scientists aren't morons. They actually know what they are doing.

 

 

What have right-wing organisations got to do with anything? It's supposed to be science isn't it?

 

A lot, they are the organisations that spread the ridiculous notion that you and others latch onto. That our CO2 emissions increasing temperature since the industrial revolution is a myth, or unproven, or open to debate, or all a big con.

 

 

 

Straight from fearless, self-proclaimed, low-carbon footprint (NOT) leader himself, Mr Gore and his ridiculous propaganda film.

 

 No idea, I've never seen Gore's film.

 

 

Who denies climate? I'm not denying global warming, or that CO2 plays a part, just the catastrophic alarmism that keeps the funds flowing and the degradation of science.

 

Well yes you are really.... You said, "the man-made signal is so miniscule as to be not discernible from natural variation". And "Climate sensitivity to CO2 remains unproven". And, "the tenuous link between CO2 increase and global temperature remains just a theory".

 

Climate scientists tell us that it is discernible, the climate is sensitive to CO2, and as for "theory". I presume you are using the layman's definition of "theory" which is different to a scientific theory.

[martin-w 3,238]

That one word in the context of climate science with respect to warming is enough to conjure billions in funding and drive global fiscal policy. Scary

Likely was the word you're referring to, and climate scientists, and the IPCC, are quite honest about this, they tell us we are 95% certain to be responsible for a significant percentage of warming. So yes, that is indeed very likely.

 

As for the funds spent that you are so concerned about, feel free to be concerned. What interests me is the science, if it's valid or not. And I think the vast majority of climate scientist agree we should be concerned, and should take significant action.

 

 

He's just regurgitating the 'blog' site mate and the almighty IPCC

 

No Duggy, that's unfair. I've had numerous debates regarding this with many individuals. In particular on the Just Flight forum, I'm a moderator over there, so have spent a lot of time there.

 

 

What I regurgitate as you put it is from many sources. I read it. I contemplate it and decide if I agree.

Sorry, mate. Can't help myself when the global warming religion nuts pipe up.

Trust me... there's a HUGE difference between a religion, a belief system based on zero evidence, just faith, and a scientific theory, a scientific fact, and yes, a scientific consensus.

 

And regarding me as a "nut" could be what Freud called "projection". 

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Funny...I thought this forum was about aviation...

[martin-w 3,238]

So did I, and fully expected someone like you to arrive and remind us. :rolleyes:

 

Thanks for the reminder, we thank you kindly for it. You provide a valuable service.

 

We are indebted to you and will bestow upon you all kinds of gifts and adornments, come next Christmas, or your birthday.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

Glad that it was expected.  Looking forward to my gifts and adornments!

 

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a mod - but can we get off of the conspiracy theory, stats manipulation, the-world-is-ending tangent and at least get a little aviation back into the discussion?

 

People are so polar - black and white - on this discussion that the discussions generally tend to be just a bunch of people yelling at each other from opposite ends of a canyon of stupidity.  The world exists in shades of grey.  It may be darker than light, or lighter than dark, but it's rarely ever black and white.

[martin-w 3,238]

People are so polar - black and white - on this discussion that the discussions generally tend to be just a bunch of people yelling at each other from opposite ends of a canyon of stupidity.

I espouse the scientific viewpoint, I actually agree with it because it's based on replicated research, logic. So stupidity isn't a word I would associate with the vast majority of scientists. Don't think there's been any yelling on my part. The problem is that some won't accept the scientific viewpoint no matter what. There's definitely an anti-science campaign being conducted, a campaign against reason, more so in the US than UK I'd say.

 

So yes, you are right, it is a waste of time debating it on a forum. And this forum isn't the right place anyway.

 

If there's no more responses regarding climate change, there'll be none from me.

[scandinavian13 5,192]

 

 

I espouse the scientific viewpoint, I actually agree with it because it's based on replicated research, logic. So stupidity isn't a word I would associate with the vast majority of scientists. Don't think there's been any yelling on my part. The problem is that some won't accept the scientific viewpoint no matter what. There's definitely an anti-science campaign being conducted, a campaign against reason, more so in the US than UK I'd say.

 

Just to be clear, I wasn't referring to anyone, specifically.  The topic, in general, has a vast audience of people who stand on opposite sides and shout at each other about why they're right, instead of trying to come to an understanding of how to move forward with a more productive discussion of the topic.  The more intelligent discussions happen somewhere in the middle with more facts, but I took enough stats classes to know that data can show just about anything you want it to if you look at it the right way.  Still, data is better than some of the simple, uneducated opinions that get tossed about.

[Air1 136]

It has happened many times before and will happen again, long after we are gone! I don't really know what else there is to say.

 

Steve

[january 19]

The toilet flush vortex seems to be where this thread is going! I'm out.

january

[martin-w 3,238]

It has happened many times before and will happen again, long after we are gone! I don't really know what else there is to say.

 

Steve

Well yes it has. And we know pretty much why, many natural mechanisms have in the past warmed the planet. None of them present now. Look at the instrumental tempereture record and compare to our CO2 release to see why now.

 

In addition, the rate of warming now is unprecedented.