More climate change propaganda

Originally posted by wolfgang59
Show me the point you were making that C Hess agreed with.

Ooops it wasn't C Hess, (apologies C Hess) it was twhitehead. Here are the relevant posts:

Wajoma 29 Sep '14 07:59

I contend that through agriculture (regardless of fossil fuels) and mans ability to inhabit more and more of the worlds barren areas or through congregating in cities in very dense populations each new human adds their own CO2 'bank' to the atmosphere.

The only reasonable argument against this that each human removes other critters from the equation and thus balances out or that the human population of the world is static (clearly not the case).


twhitehead 30 Sep '14 06:37

I know that. Nevertheless, one of the largest current sources of CO2 in the atmosphere is soil carbon released due to farming. When land is changed from swamp or other carbon rich soils to farm land, a very large amount of carbon is released into the atmosphere.
Farming is a very significant part of the cause of global warming.

wolfgang 29 Sep '14 09:10

You can contend what you like but you are wrong.

This is very simple science - easy to check out on the internet so I'll finish
this lesson here.

Originally posted by C Hess
13 Misconceptions About Global Warming: http://youtu.be/OWXoRSIxyIU

http://digg.com/video/veritasium-debunks-13-misconceptions-about-global-warming

Originally posted by C Hess
http://digg.com/video/veritasium-debunks-13-misconceptions-about-global-warming

Cute but hardly a debunking.

Originally posted by normbenign
Cute but hardly a debunking.

I came across it and realised that you had used some of those 13 misconceptions as arguments and thought you might be interested to know why you're wrong and possibly beget any future mistakes on your part.

Did it work? Did you learn anything?

Originally posted by Wajoma
Ooops it wasn't C Hess, it was twhitehead.

If you wanted to say what twhitehead said you should have said it.
We were debating the CO2 contribution made by mankind, as an animal.. It is trivial to say everyone contributes to CO2 if you include our practices ...

You were suggesting that breathing was a contributory factor.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
If you wanted to say what twhitehead said you should have said it.
We were debating the CO2 contribution made by mankind, as an animal.. It is trivial to say everyone contributes to CO2 if you include our practices ...

You were suggesting that breathing was a contributory factor.

I did say it you should note the date of my post predates twhiteheads.

Originally posted by Wajoma
I did say it you should note the date of my post predates twhiteheads.

😞
I don't care if it predates Noah.

Originally posted by wolfgang59
😞
I don't care if it predates Noah.

No need to get sarky, that was embarrassing enough for you the first time.

Originally posted by C Hess
I came across it and realised that you had used some of those 13 misconceptions as arguments and thought you might be interested to know why you're wrong and possibly beget any future mistakes on your part.

Did it work? Did you learn anything?

I've heard all those counter arguments before and heard them refuted by real scientists. It wasn't a learning experience. Nothing new.

Originally posted by normbenign
I've heard all those counter arguments before and heard them refuted by real scientists. It wasn't a learning experience. Nothing new.

Yes... real scientists are refuting climate change... *insert rolling eyes*

Originally posted by shavixmir
Yes... real scientists are refuting climate change... *insert rolling eyes*

The real ones do. Just like the Austrian school economists are the real ones.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
The real ones do. Just like the Austrian school economists are the real ones.

Science and economics aren't democratic. Being the majority doesn't make one correct in either case.

Originally posted by normbenign
Science and economics aren't democratic. Being the majority doesn't make one correct in either case.

No, that's true, but scientific consensus occur when an idea is supported by all the collected scientific evidence. Anyone who wish to challenge that consensus must bring new evidence to the table, and/or provide an alternate possible explanation that fits all the data (not just selected bits of it). Without doing that, a dissenter will not, and indeed should not be taken seriously by his/her peers - that is to say: science is not a game of opinions, like politics.

Originally posted by normbenign
Science and economics aren't democratic. Being the majority doesn't make one correct in either case.

Being in the majority in science makes one far more likely to be correct. In economics, it doesn't.
If you wish to use scientific opinion to back up a claim, it better be the majority opinion or it doesn't hold much weight.

Originally posted by C Hess
No, that's true, but scientific consensus occur when an idea is supported by all the collected scientific evidence. Anyone who wish to challenge that consensus must bring new evidence to the table, and/or provide an alternate possible explanation that fits all the data (not just selected bits of it). Without doing that, a dissenter will not, and indeed n seriously by his/her peers - that is to say: science is not a game of opinions, like politics.

"All The Collected Scientific Evidence."

East Anglia disagrees with your statement. They believe scientific consensus will occur when you fabricate the evidence you bring to the table.

Read the emails.