Conservatives waking up to climate change

[Saigon]

S.J.

Logic does not suggest that each year should be hotter than the last. No one has ever suggested that this would be the case.

Applying your idea of logic only makes sense if you understand what climate change is, and what scientists tell us is happening. You don't know, obviously.

What you have to remember is that we know for an absolute and certain fact that average temperatures are rising. We have known that for years now. It is a fact disputed by no one.

the logic that there would not be a break of a couple of years in rising temperatures if the earth is consistently getting hotter.

Why should temperatures rise in a straight and even line? Because you think that would make sense?

That simply is not how climate or weather work.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

Logic does not suggest that each year should be hotter than the last. No one has ever suggested that this would be the case.

Applying your idea of logic only makes sense if you understand what climate change is, and what scientists tell us is happening. You don't know, obviously.

What you have to remember is that we know for an absolute and certain fact that average temperatures are rising. We have known that for years now. It is a fact disputed by no one.

the logic that there would not be a break of a couple of years in rising temperatures if the earth is consistently getting hotter.

Why should temperatures rise in a straight and even line? Because you think that would make sense?

That simply is not how climate or weather work.

I noticed that your logic is very "flexible".

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.

No scientists has EVER claimed that every year would be hotter than the last. What scientists have claimed is that the trend is upwards - and given that the 13 hottest years on record all occur within the past 15 years, then the trend very obviously is upwards.

It really is worth going away and giving this some thought without getting too bent out of shape about what you personally think should be happening to the climate.

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.

No scientists has EVER claimed that every year would be hotter than the last. What scientists have claimed is that the trend is upwards - and given that the 13 hottest years on record all occur within the past 15 years, then the trend very obviously is upwards.

It really is worth going away and giving this some thought without getting too bent out of shape about what you personally think should be happening to the climate.

And when the trend starts going down, you will disregard the logic that the trend is down. You'll have another bullshit explanation that requires no proof, to shrug it off. But chances are any evidence that indicates a cooling trend will most likely be hidden by the GW "scientists". They've done it before, and you ignore that fact as well.

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

The reason you are finding this difficult to understand is because you expect climate to conform to your own predictions and expectations - and not those of scientists.

I don't find it difficult to understand, it's weather, and weather changes. But when it fits into your claims, you call it logic. When it doesn't, you call it weather.

 

[Saigon]

S.j.

But the trend is not going down. Quite the opposite - there is more evidence of climate change every week. As this thread shows, the information available becomes more and more precise, and more and more based on what people can see and measure outside their windows.

You can cling to those vague 'what ifs?' all you want, but I don't see a great deal of comfort in dodging facts.

And yes, you do find this difficult to understand. At the point you realise that the 13 hottest years on record all occuring in the past 15 years is clear and obvious evidence a warming trend, you'll be making progress.

 

[S.J.]

Saigon,

Let's say next year is cooler than this year. How many years will it have to be cooler before it qualifies as a cooling trend in your world? Or will you find a way to disregard it?

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

Firstly, it will not be cool next year. We can be fairly damn sure of that. It may be cooler than 2012, but I think we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that the era of truly cold years is well and truly behind us.

But for the sake of argument, let's say next year is quite cold. I'd listen to what scientists have to say, give it some thought myself, and go from there. Certainly I see no reason to disregard anything, and I am baffled every day on this board that people like yourself can just sidestep the last 20 years of science as if it had never happened.

I just don't understand at all why people have so much ego involved in this. I'm not a scientist. If it turns out the world is not getting warmer, that would be fine with me. Certainly I don't see what any of this has to do with peoples political views.

People should base their scientific positions on what leading scientists say - not on what people like Al Gore or George Bush or any other politician think. I don't understand that way of thinking at all.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

Firstly, it will not be cool next year. We can be fairly damn sure of that. It may be cooler than 2012, but I think we can say with a fairly high degree of confidence that the era of truly cold years is well and truly behind us.

But for the sake of argument, let's say next year is quite cold. I'd listen to what scientists have to say, give it some thought myself, and go from there. Certainly I see no reason to disregard anything, and I am baffled every day on this board that people like yourself can just sidestep the last 20 years of science as if it had never happened.

I just don't understand at all why people have so much ego involved in this. I'm not a scientist. If it turns out the world is not getting warmer, that would be fine with me. Certainly I don't see what any of this has to do with peoples political views.

People should base their scientific positions on what leading scientists say - not on what people like Al Gore or George Bush or any other politician think. I don't understand that way of thinking at all.

Except that those "leading scientists" were caught lying to us. You may be dumb enough to fall for it a second time but don't expect everyone else to be.

 

[Saigon]

S.J -

Come on, dude, try and retain some contact with reality.

There are thousands and thousands of research studies on climate change, conducted by 40 different countries and literally hundreds of different universities and agencies.

Perhaps 1% of those studies (and that is being generous) have been found to contain any kind of significant flaw or error.

You can just go from excuse to excuse to excuse as long as you like - but you must realise yourself its a fairly desperate tactic, and has nothing to do with science.

btw. "Everyone else" is up to speed on climate change. Every major scientific agency, oil companies, auto manufacturers, universities, governments and political parties. This thread is about CONSERVATIVE politicians working with climate change. So when you talk about "everyone else" you need to also remember that tou represent a view point that has no standing and no support in the real world at all.

 

[S.J.]

S.J -

Come on, dude, try and retain some contact with reality.

There are thousands and thousands of research studies on climate change, conducted by 40 different countries and literally hundreds of different universities and agencies.

Perhaps 1% of those studies (and that is being generous) have been found to contain any kind of significant flaw or error.

You can just go from excuse to excuse to excuse as long as you like - but you must realise yourself its a fairly desperate tactic, and has nothing to do with science.

btw. "Everyone else" is up to speed on climate change. Every major scientific agency, oil companies, auto manufacturers, universities, governments and political parties. This thread is about CONSERVATIVE politicians working with climate change. You represent a view point that has no standing and no support in the real world at all.

I'm tired of arguing with you. Your arguments are disingenuous, you ignore what you don't like. You can continue to push this politically motivate hoax, but I'm not gonna spend valuable time picking apart your false claims and manipulated data. I'll just leave you with these links, not that you'll accept anything in them, but somebody else who is interested in
the truth might want to check them out.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/en...used-of-manipulating-global-warming-data.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704888404574547730924988354.html

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

In other words, you know full well that science and facts are not on your side, and you know there is absolutely no reason at all for you to ignore the past 20 years of science.

But ignore it you will.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

In other words, you know full well that science and facts are not on your side, and you know there is absolutely no reason at all for you to ignore the past 20 years of science.

But ignore it you will.

And you'll continue to ignore the 3,000+ emails between politically and financially motivate scientists proving they were hiding evidence contrary to their claims.

 

[Saigon]

SJ -

Congraulations.

You have found an excellent reason to ignore the 1% of climate changes that has been found to cut corners and uses poor methodology.

Now you need to find some credible reason to ignore the 99% of climate change that has never been challenged, criticsed or accused of anything.

Do you really not see how childish and blinkered your thinking is here?

 

[S.J.]

SJ -

Congraulations.

You have found an excellent reason to ignore the 1% of climate changes that has been found to cut corners and uses poor methodology.

Stop acting like their deliberate conspiracy to hide the truth was "cutting corners" or using "poor methodology". Like the cover up was an unintentional or something. You're just flat out disingenuous, dude.

 

[Saigon]

SJ -

No, I just understand that if a fake doctor is uncovered in Finland, I don't boycott hospitals as a result.

It's case of using a little common sense. 99% of doctors are trustworthy, capable people, and 99% of climate scientists, physicists and biologists are too.

Whereas your entire reason for ignoring 20 years of impeccable scientific research is based on a scandal involving three people that happened 10 years ago.

 

[gslack]

Classic Saigon thread... he posts a PR piece from a media source and then dictates what is and is not allowed in his thread... What a crybaby..

And yes this is off-topic punk.. But then again the constant whining to posters to post within your paramters is off-topic as well...

 

[S.J.]

Saigon, 2011 was not 10 years ago. And here are another 5,000 emails found 2 years later, meaning the deception never stopped.

“I’ve been told that IPCC is above national FOI [Freedom of Information] Acts. One way to cover yourself and all those working in AR5 would be to delete all emails at the end of the process,”writes Phil Jones, a scientist working with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), in a newly released email.


“Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden,” Jones writes in another newly released email. “I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.”

“I have been talking w/ folks in the states about finding an investigative journalist to investigate and expose” skeptical scientist Steve McIntyre, Mann writes in another newly released email.

These new emails add weight to Climategate 1.0 emails revealing efforts to politicize the scientific debate. For example, Tom Wigley, a scientist at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research, authored a Climategate 1.0 email asserting that his fellow Climategate scientists “must get rid of” the editor for a peer-reviewed science journal because he published some papers contradicting assertions of a global warming crisis.

More than revealing misconduct and improper motives, the newly released emails additionally reveal frank admissions of the scientific shortcomings of global warming assertions.

“Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. Phil, hopefully we can find time to discuss these further if necessary,” writes Peter Thorne of the UK Met Office.

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

Your point here is to try to convince me that you are far more stupid than you really are. That is what I see.

Let's say that there are 1,000 papers which confirm evidence of climate change.

And let's say 10 contain serious errors.

Your suggestion is that we dump the entire 1,000 in the bin.

Mine is that we take the 990 good papers seriously.

The question is - why are you working SO hard to avoid what you know is that 990 papers?

 

[007]

You are soooo right...

Scientist predicts earth is heading for another Ice Age | Science & Tech | News | Daily Express