Recent Global Cooling Controversy

by metatron 236 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  mP

  Before we go down the government in(action) rabbit hole pls answer my question:

  If you chose to hold a minority view (3%) then you should explain why you know better than 97% of climate scientists. I haven't seen your explanation yet.

  mP:

  I dont believe, because governments dont believe. If they did they would change something. Sure its getting warmer slowly, but nothing is constant stuff goes up and down. There are a zillion factors, im not a scientist and its far more cmplex than the simplifications presented here. The fact is some of the graphs include projections for 2010 and where made years before, and guess what they are wrong. There are also graphs on this very thread that have conflicting temps for the same years.

  I dont blieve climate change is as simple as carbon from man's activities. Like i said if it were that simple and the future waas that grim then surely one gov would change their ways but there hasnt been one.
• 

  besty

  You adopt your scientific beliefs based on what the government appears to be (not) doing?

  stuff goes up AND down. There are a zillion factors, im not a scientist and its far more cmplex than the simplifications presented here.

  Really? It is simplified here because I am not an expert and you are a simpleton,

  so it makes sense to approach it this way :-)

  Like i said if it were that simple and the future waas that grim then surely one gov would change their ways but there hasnt been one.

  And on that basis you will disregard the work of 97% of climate scientists, despite admitting its a complex subject and you are not a scientist?

  OK. Got it.

  This is not an unusual situation. The number of scientists who believe in evolution compared to the general public is similarly out of sync.

  Basically you have an anti-science approach to life, and thats OK - just so we are all clear on how things look to you. You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, but not your own facts.
• 

  mP

  besty:

  eally? It is simplified here because I am not an expert and you are a simpleton,

  so it makes sense to approach it this way :-)

  mP:
  Maybe its the other way. You argue its so obvious, and yet the data is confusing.

  Besty:

  And on that basis you will disregard the work of 97% of climate scientists, despite admitting its a complex subject and you are not a scientist?

  mP:

  Well i see it this way. Whatever i believe makes no difference because the ones who make policy dont beleive. Belief is cheap its not action.

  I find it interesting that they suposedly believe and yet hypocritically do nothing. Im confident you dont have much respect for Al Gore, but he preaches the same and yet travels in a private jet etc hardly the actions of a believer and more those of a hypocrit.
• 

  mP

  besty:

  And on that basis you will disregard the work of 97% of climate scientists, despite admitting its a complex subject and you are not a scientist?

  MP:

  generalisations again. Like i said i believe that temp changes, however i dont believe its all man made. Theres a difference.

  Im being honest i am not a scientist but i am trying to examine the data which should be relatively simple. YOu on the other hand are just a parrot, you cant explain much and then you turn to the typical tactic of petty insults. Thats just so pathetic and almost a sure sign about the abilities and iq of the other person. If you dont know be honest but dont lower yourself to insults as your defence.

  Without looking further into what those 97% actually wrote we cant tell. As always the site mentioned is written for 10 year olds and low on details.

  Then again i recall the advisor to the Aust gov on climate change Tim Flannery. He was preaching cimate change doom and its all man made and then he goes to work for virgin Galatic. Sure working for VG is a first class example of hypocracy and bullshit. Wasting zillions and creating all that pollution for a few seconds up in the sky when we should be cutting back.
• 

  mP

  besty:

  Basically you have an anti-science approach to life, and thats OK - just so we are all clear on how things look to you. You are entitled to your own beliefs and opinions, but not your own facts

  mP:

  You need to learn how to read what is said exactly instead of inserting your bias, especialy when you have such a hard time putting forth a simple response (1000 vs 10000). The hypocricy of your double standard does not need reminding.

  Again i gave advice that you should learn to quote so your responses are more accurate. I see you avoid this so you can make your childish taunts.
• 

  erbie

  For all the people on here who are anti SUV, some of us need an SUV because of where we live (due to flooding and snow etc. or as a work vehicle). The road tax on my 4x4 is now over £500 per annum!!!

  I'm punished for living where I do and for having a profession that requires that I drive accross rough terrain. I guess they would like us all to drive tiny cars but that is simply not an option for me.

  Trust me, I would love to walk to work but until I can semi-retire that will not happen.

  Yes indeed, there is a lot of money being made from so called 'carbon tax' and still we have more pot-holes than ever because the money does not get used for what it is intended.

  And what the hell has road tax got to do with emissions anyway???

  This is a rediculous idea formulated by the last Labour government and is in fact just another feature of their 'class war' which was waged on people living in the countryside who drive SUV's and ride their horses.

  Good riddance to them (New Labour) and may they never return!!!
• 

  bohm

  mP:

  The article does not qualify the total number of decades. You are pulling information from a different set of graphs. These same graphs as i have stated contradict each other. One graph claims the temp of the about 2000 is much hotter than early 1900s and yet your own graph shows for Australia a graph that varies but overlap.

  Read the text for what it says exactly. They did a bad job by not including the total count of decades. If they are going to tell you its the 5th hottest then they better tell you out of what. When i look at your last graph there are 100 years, and guess what 2000 was the 5th hottest out of 10, which doesnt sound that impressive, but rather is normal.

  Okay, just to be clear. This is the graph we are discussing:

  

  So does this graph show an increasing trend in your oppinion?

  BTW, I think its hillarious that you called basic linear regression and "appeal to authority" yesterday ;-).
• 

  mP

  MP:

  You really dont see that one does not prove the other. So theres an increase, i have never denied it, but i have said that there have always been variations. You still have not commented on the temps from 1000 years ago.

  5th hottest without qualifying the total count is poor writing. Without knowing this figure we dont have the full picture.

  Bohm:

  BTW, I think its hillarious that you called basic linear regression and "appeal to authority" yesterday ;-).

  mP:

  Did i actually say that ? How about learning how to quote so everyone can see how you twist things. We wouldnt want to quote and then look ridiculous now would we ?

  Its funny how im the one who quotes, and replies next to the original text while you are never exact and rarely help the reader with a direct quote.
• 

  besty

  Im being honest i am not a scientist but i am trying to examine the data which should be relatively simple.

  You have already made up your mind what you believe. A simple explanation has been provided, along with supporting information.

  Either you are a troll, you are of low intelligence or you are an anti-science ideologue. Or maybe a hybrid.

  Thanks mP - I appreciate the opportunity to appraise everyone else of the facts.
• 

  mP

  Its funny for all your superior intelligence you still havent figured out quoting from anything but the previous post is a good thing.

  Problem is when your as dumb as you are, your too pathetic to think for yourself quoting is a good thing, and then you claim intelliegence.

  how can such an intelligent person not understand the concept of quoting ?