@Krellin -

I thank you for your pity and for your insightful words. Without them I would never have realised just how gullible I really am. However, before I am overwhelmed with gratitude, I would like to point out a few falicies in your, otherwise kind, message.

If you re-read my posts so far, there has not been one statement in which I have categorically said anything that can even be claimed to be incorrect.

Secondly, I don't know how you can claim that increasing CO2 levels are not a problem. Even if (and it is a considerable 'if') increasing CO2 concentrations do not lead to global warming, there are an incalculable (almost by definition of the word stochastic) number of possible negative outcomes that could result. We've already discussed the acidification of the oceans (will you deny that?) as a good example.

However, should you be able to put forward an argument which provides reasons as to why this is wrong (without simply relying on insults) I would be more than willing to listen. In fact, I would quite like to be relieved of my delerium. Of course, I am still somewhat concerned that, actually, it might not be me that has swallowed the false stories of those who would benefit from being able to continue to polute at will. But, then again, I imagine that you realise that you have and carry on just because it suits you to believe it rather than because you have actually thought it through.

In this sense, perhaps it is I who should pity you, rather than the other way around.

@Batt/Charlie Brown,

You think there is a problem...your belief that there is a problem is based upon sketchy claims by people who constantly predict doom...but who's prediction consistently fail to come true.

The problem is your concern - that too much CO2 will cause problems - is true....just as drinking too much water will kill you...so you think that any increase in CO2 will lead to doom. The problem with that belief is that thee is ZERO EVIDENCE that CO2 will continue to rise to catastrophic levels, especially since nobody has any idea *what* those levels will be. Further, we also know that the earth has built in feed-back control mechanisms -- plant-life -- among other things, that control unchecked CO2 rise.

The real question is this, Batt/Charlie Brown -- what do *YOU* do to minimize your CO2 output? Do you sit around wasting energ

y on webdip all day? Or do you turn off the computer?

Are you just another hypocrite? Or are you the real deal?

Your answer will demonstrate your hypocrisy...

http://www.c3headlines.com/predictionsforecasts/

Hypocrisy would be if I were to preach that you should be saving energy yourself, which I have not stated once. But it is a big word, so well done for trying to use it, even if incorrectly. I am indeed on the computer all day at the moment because I am reading before heading back to university. Unfortunately I can't access scientific papers offline and I don't know anyone who knows quite as much as you do who could tell me what I want to know.

My beliefs are not based on the journalistic or political doom-sayers, rather I build mine from scientific research. If you were to look at the vast majority of papers on the area, I think that you'd find that most don't predict with certainty, rather give the predictions with the assumptions that they have made and the error boundaries involved.

I'm pleased to see that you are relying a little less on insults to get your arguments across. I am also glad that you are no longer claiming that there are no problems related to high CO2. You now claim that there is no evidence that CO2 levels won't continue to rise. I again refer you to the scientific papers, many of which will consider the different possible levels of continued CO2 rise (you have already said yourself that CO2 concentrations are increasing), including a continuation at the current rate. I have already stated that there is no point at which CO2 becomes a problem, but it is instead a continuum. As I have also already said, if CO2 is rising then the feedbacks cannot be successful in keeping the rise in check. Some of the feedbacks are in fact deleterious themselves (must I mention ocean acidification again?).

Although I have not yet mentioned changes to weather, I will respond as though your link was aimed at me. It is important to publish research which does not find a significant result in order to avoid publication bias. Besides, the fact that no trend was observed does not suggest that there are not driving forces (climate change or CO2-related, or not) involved which may influence the weather. It has already been discussed how weather is not necessarily going to become 'bad' all of the time with climatic change, but is likely to become less predictable and often more extreme.

@Battalion....so then you are worse than a hypocrite...you are a fool. You preach that CO2 is increasing to dangerous levels, but are too stupid to do anything about it and encourage others to take corrective action....yeah, you are worse than the hypocrites.

As for your whining about the "insults"...oh grow the fuck up, seriously.

If you are saying one thing and doing another you are a hypocrite. It's a fact, not an insult.

If you think, you truly believe, that the world is going to be destroyed by CO2 increase, but won't do anything about it or encourage others to change, then you are a fool by definition, a moron...you are the kids that plays in traffic and thinks it's OK.

So my "insults" are not insults at all...they are accurate descriptions of your behavior.

Deal with it. OR...modify your behavior/speech such that you are not a hypocrite for a moron/fool. Then you won't have to whine like a bitch about people hurting your wittel feelings.

haha, I love it.

OP is all like, "[insert anything here] is contrary to what climate scientists think."

As if [insert anything here] is in any way valid or worth listening to if it's not what climate scientists think.

Great, back to the insults. Come back when you have something constructive to say.

I wasn't refering to 'hypocrite' as an insult - I've already disproved that. I'm not whining about insults (in fact I find them amusing, if anything), rather pointing out that you have no other way of defending your points. Your last post only supports that statement.

I have no way of defending my points? lol That's because you, the typical global warming doom and gloom conspiracy theorist, have painted yourself into the negative argument....there is no way to disprove the negative, thus you are impenetrable to facts and common sense.

You say that, even though the models are all wrong, even though we have *no idea* what the "bad" level of CO2 is, even though none of the dire predictions over the decades have come true...even though you have NO evidence to back up your doom-and-gloom belief system, you say it must be true…and it must be true why? You don’t know…because you can’t define when things will get bad…you just know they will, despite having no evidence of predictions come true or models that are accurate. So of course nothing I say will impact you, because you have a RELIGION, not a scientific belief system. And religions are impossible to disprove…thus you…are a fool…Not an insult, it’s an accurate description of what you are. You are a guy that holds an unsupportable belief…and even at that doesn’t change his life in regards to it…I can’t think of a better definition of fool that what you describe your beliefs and actions to be.

"the models are all wrong". Which models do you refer to exactly?
"we have *no idea* what the "bad" level of CO2 is". I have told you there is no such point.
"none of the dire predictions over the decades have come true". This is because you have listened to the hype of the media. I once again refer you to the scientific papers which do not profess to be able to predict the future, rather talk about the likelihood of different scenarios under different conditions.

Finally, I have never forecasted any apocalyptic future. I am no conspiracy theorist. Far from it. I have simply argued for the case that releasing CO2 into the atmosphere at the rate that we currently are is likely to be unsustainable and have negative effects. If you really want me to, I shall find and present the evidence to you. Thus far I haven't bothered, but I am more than happy to if you really want (and if you promise to actually read them with an open mind).

krellin, you know well my thoughts on this.

I'd just remind you gently that not everybody can be an expert on every thing. That's why we have to trust those that are experts. If you are frustrated because those on our side don't seem to be listening, it's because we don't really care what you (or anybody who isn't a climatologist) has to say on the matter. And the experts do not agree with what you say.


Nobody I know is absolutely convinced global warming is real. We're just willing to be guided by those who are evaluating this subject in their area of expertise. To be truthful, I'm happy to make the appeal to authority that I'm making right now. This is not a fallacious appeal if the authority in question is actually an expert on the subject. I just think it's kind of funny that some other people are unable to recognize what the science says, or who think that their opinion is as important as peer reviewed research.

@YJ - It is OK to go along with the experts....then why do you not believe in God, YJ, because the experts in religion say there is a God... :P

Further...by my definition, and expert is someone who consistently gets it RIGHT. For example, I watch old reruns of Julia Childs to learn recipes because consistently, if I follow her recipes, I get good results.

In the arena of Global Warming "science", we have a set of experts that make a lot of predictions that consistently FAIL to come true. They make dire warnings about catostrophic global events that do not materialize. They make predictions on the increase in temperature that fail to occur.

So really, by *any* measurable standard, the "experts" in AGW are *frauds*. Nothing they say can be taken seriously because nothing they predict comes true. More to the point, they constatnyl change their predictions, make excuses for why they are wrong, get caught massaging the data/read LYING...and then blame everyone else for catching them (kind of like Obama...)....in short, they are NOT EXPERTS....

That's why you don't believe them if you have common sense...


BUT seriously...if you are all for agreeing with experts...I've got some religion for you, buddy! :)

So Battalion....according to what you said above....you *know nothing*...but agree that there is a problem because someone told you so. You are a fool...you actually have zero data about anything other than a nebulous claim that CO2 is a problem in the future...but you don't know when, you don't know why/how it will be a problem....but it's a problem.

Good lord...

I'm bored of this now; I can no longer tell whether I am baiting you, or you are baiting me. Either way, I think I know who's made themself look stupid (and it's probably the one who supports my suspicions because they can't use an ellipsis correctly). Goodnight!

Your argument is basically coming down to saying "There are no experts on this matter. My sources are therefore as reliable as climatology." That's just not true.

Anyways, when you put quotation marks around "science," when you're actually talking about HOLY SHIT IT'S FUCKING SCIENCE I'm pretty sure I'm done too. You've made your disdain for hard research plain in the past, and I don't think there's anything I can do to sway your opinion. Fortunately, it seems the best argument you have against the rigors of climatology is the one you just presented, and I'm pretty much OK to let that one stand.

Yellowjacket -- it is *not* science. IN *real* science, you come up with an idea, you test it, you prove it or at least demonstrate that your theory is somewhat correct by repeatable experiements.

IN global warming "science", we have a *complete failure* to come up with predictable outcomes, first and foremost a complete failure of all the predictions to come true.

That *hardly* classifies in my book as real science.

must... fight... urge... to... ridicule... ignorant.... argh!!!

*head explodes*

http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/international/radio/program/pacific-beat/scientists-criticise-reporting-of-ipcc-leak/1191262

For an alternate POV than that dodgy article in The Australian.

@spyman - that is a really good article, it really demonstrates the lies told by the likes of the daily mail (as blindly repeated by this thread's op)

The point being this is misleading 'journalism' - regardless of what the science actually says - journalism with the knowledge that people who question antrogenic climate change will automatically agree with (confirmation bias) and further the myths surrounding climate.

Fortunately, i'm going to mars! ( www.mars-one.com/en/ )

I was just watching Media Watch on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and it turns out this story was a total lie! Both the Daily Mail and The Australian newspapers have been forced to print a retraction.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3854782.htm

Krellin - You make a really good point about climate change scientist and religion. You could probably throw in any number of other topics, capitalism and democracy to name but two. The "experts" within each sphere generally always support the cause. I would be very surprised if the Pope woke up one morning and decided there was no God - he'd be out of a job pretty smartish. Climate change scientist obviously have the same vested interest - the more worried the public are the more society needs climate change scientists.

The difference is that the scientist, for all their bias, continue to seek to further their (and our) understanding and realise they don't yet have all the answers. It is, of course, a very complex area. But just because something cannot be proved today and predictions replicated does not make it bad science. Take the Higgs (or Higgs, Kibble, Guralnik, Hagen, Brout, Englert) Boson. Back in the sixties it was predicted and theorised about but it has only been tentatively confirmed recently. The LHC only got built because of the scientific community believed it existed. They were able to produce data that no doubt some doubted and sometimes they probably doubted, but by continuing to experiment they reached a tentative conclusion. I don't need to understand science at all to accept they are probably right. I could also find you a load of scientists that say they are probably wrong. Am I a sheep, or a moron or a fool for believing one side against the other?

On balance I think we should stop deforestation for example, nit because I'm convinced that it will lead to a warmer world if we don't because because I think the chances that it might are greater than the benefit we get from chopping trees down. You may feel that this is getting in the way of capitalism, and you may be right - but capitalism, like climate change and religion is only a belief system.

"I was just watching Media Watch on the ABC (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) and it turns out this story was a total lie! "

the story was no lie. i am afraid you were lied to by the abc. confirming yet again that the extent of their deception to keep those who still believe them from defecting.

the ipcc is set to release a report, and the leaked drafts were going to address the fact that there has been no warming in the past 15 years in spite of all their predictions. and now there is all this controversy with some academics and the governments of many countries telling the ipcc that it cannot mention that fact because it jeopardizes the belief in global warming that they banked so much on.

in other news, this is quite similar to other acts of nonscience in history. and it proves that our current academic system is far removed from science and the scientific method.

scientific method: observation, theory, prediction, test, review theory.

global warming: observation, theory, prediction, law.

testing of global warming started when the theory and predictions were made. after 1999 with the first ipcc report.

we have now looked at the predictions against reality. the earth has cooled since those predictions, complete opposite to the predictions.

but the theory is now a law, essentially, in the eyes of those in roles of entrenched power, and this is why there may be hope for change to the system. because they are holding onto this theory as it collapses, taking away all legitimacy they once purported to have.

Sorry Blankflag you are plain wrong. The newspaper article posted by the OP made some specific claims that have since been shown to be false; that is why the Australian newspaper printed at retraction. Fact.

hahaha i like how you give the word fact its own sentence

ok well i am not sure of the validity of the australian or how compromised they are, to be honest i did not read the original piece, but the fact remains that the leaked ipcc report was going to mention the declining temperatures in the past 15 years, or lack of warming, or whatever they want to call it, and that is causing a controversy.

Blankflag - I know climate and weather predictions are different, but out of interest if 4 out of 5 TV channels were predicting a hurricane in your area and the fifth says it will miss by 100miles, do you...

(a) board up your house
(b) wait and see if predictions were accurate and then decide what you should have done
(c) call antbody who does board up their house a sheep

Tick all that apply.