The Governator on climate change

Originally posted by normbenign
I guess there must be no problem with fuel in Romania.

Climate change and its anthropomorphic (that's man made to you) components are a matter of debate, not of some consensus of Scientists. Do the reading, instead of just swallowing whole panic statements by politicians, not scientists.

so first you claim the matter is up for debate and is not up to scientists.
then you accuse me of listening to panic statements made by politicians, not scientists.

which one is it, because you are contradicting yourself.


on a side note, only the severity of climate change is up for debate. the fact that it is happening and we are causing it is settled. what is also up for debate is just what can be done about it. the scientists cannot do anything if you find it just too hard to make an effort and stop fuking things up.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Your link says this:

"Climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities."

Does it say "primary cause"? No, it does not.

Does it imply "primary cause". You might think so at first, but what it really implies is that anthropogenic causes are 100% which is IMPOSSIBLE!

Conclusion: The link is misleading at best ...[text shortened]... her link if you would like, but I suggest you read it with skepticism first before believing it.

"Does it say "primary cause"? No, it does not."
that's exactly what it says.
the trends are due to human activities says humans are the primary cause. they inserted "very likely" just to account for some piece of data we haven't discovered yet. like goblins or santa claus having a barbecue.


"Does it imply "primary cause". You might think so at first, but what it really implies is that anthropogenic causes are 100% which is IMPOSSIBLE!"
what are you rambling about? who says that humans are 100% to blame for climate change? primary cause doesn't imply only cause.
"Conclusion: The link is misleading at best and a lie at worst."
another conclusion: you are awful at coming up with conclusions.

"Give me another link if you would like"
why? because you can't understand the first one? how about you try harder dismantling or discrediting the one i gave you? writing impossible in all caps doesn't make for a counter argument

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Consensus can be manufactured -- even where no consensus exists. For example, it has become very popular to claim that 97% of all publications support AGW. Here the key question to ask is: Which publications and what exactly is the form of support?

Thanks to the revelations of the Climategate e-mails, we now have a more skeptical view about the proc ...[text shortened]... of the blatant subversion of peer-review -- all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails.

"Consensus can be manufactured"
you mean all those scientists in the pockets of industries who would love more regulations and more environment taxes?

"We know now that peer-review, once considered by many as the 'gold-standard,' can be manipulatedand in fact has been manipulated by a gang of UK and US climate scientists who have been very open about their aim to keep dissenting views from being published."
perhaps you would be so kind as to provide evidence for this claim? what gang? when?
stuff like that. or do you expect us to take your word for it?


"For example, the case of a former editor of Science who was quite open about his belief in DAGW, and actively discouraged publication of any papers that went against his bias. "
link goes here


"David Douglass (U. of Rochester) and John Christy (U. of Alabama, Huntsville) describe a particularly egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review -- all supported by evidence from Climategate e-mails"
link. what do you want from us? to take you at your word? link the emaiils, link articles, link something. "egregious instance of the blatant subversion of peer-review" are very fancy words. for all we know someone dismissed another's paper because he didn't like the latter's tie.

Personally I refuse to support climate change until they can guarantee about 55 degrees throughout the whole winter.

How can we get that done? I'm prepared to pay up to 10% more in taxes.

Oh, and if you can limit the rain to once a week, I might be persuaded to pay up to 15% more in taxes.

I figure saving on heating and cooling expenses will help offset the increased tax burden

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
"Does it say "primary cause"? No, it does not."
that's exactly what it says.
the trends are due to human activities says humans are the primary cause. they inserted "very likely" just to account for some piece of data we haven't discovered yet. like goblins or santa claus having a barbecue.


"Does it imply "primary cause". You might think so at firs ...[text shortened]... crediting the one i gave you? writing impossible in all caps doesn't make for a counter argument

No, it does not say primary cause. You are lying! It says cause which implies there is no other cause and that is IMPOSSIBLE! That statement is merely a rip off from other misleading websites like the consensus project. It is pathetic that some idiot from NASA is promoting bunk science like that propagandist James Hansen whose climate model predictions failed miserably!

Also, the list of people on your link are mostly not qualified to have an expert opinion because they are not experts. They are not climate scientists. Hundreds of medical doctors are not qualified like climate scientists are. Your link is a joke.

Fred Singer is qualified, but I'm sure you will pull up some link that contains a lot of blatant lies about him from GW alarmists that can't do anything but slander him and avoid facts.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/singer.html

The vostok ice core samples show that CO2 levels increased AFTER temperature increases historically. The Pliocene epoch shows that the earth was much warmer back then even though CO2 levels today are close to the same. This fact shows that CO2 is not the primary driver of global warming today. Furthermore, this latest warming trend started over 300 years ago when the horse was the most common form of transportation.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so first you claim the matter is up for debate and is not up to scientists.
then you accuse me of listening to panic statements made by politicians, not scientists.

which one is it, because you are contradicting yourself.


on a side note, only the severity of climate change is up for debate. the fact that it is happening and we are causing it is set ...[text shortened]... sts cannot do anything if you find it just too hard to make an effort and stop fuking things up.

"the fact that it is happening and we are causing it is settled."

No, it is far from settled. You are also using the same flawed statement you lifted from the consensus project (which provides no evidence of their false claim) and you now are taking the position that man is causing 100% of GW. Since that is impossible and not a single climate scientists would ever endorse such junk you are nothing less than a promoter of propaganda.

You are a fool!

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
so first you claim the matter is up for debate and is not up to scientists.
then you accuse me of listening to panic statements made by politicians, not scientists.

which one is it, because you are contradicting yourself.


on a side note, only the severity of climate change is up for debate. the fact that it is happening and we are causing it is set ...[text shortened]... sts cannot do anything if you find it just too hard to make an effort and stop fuking things up.

For about the last two decades, "global warming" has been replaced by "climate change" due to the fact that measured temperatures have declined. The truth is that for more than a millenium, the global climate has seen increases, and decreases in temperature, and Dr. Mann's tree ring theory, and his hockey stick are considered total frauds.

There are still scientists who stand by the threat of global warming, while others just keep doing the scientific thing, searching for the truth.

The matter is not settled, despite a meeting of the minds (all the minds were preselected to eliminate disagreement).

What can be done about it? Nothing. The climate will do what it does, change without asking humans about it.

Don't you get just a little suspicious when the solutions to a so called problem, always amount to more taxes, and more government control?