The IPCC consensus is phoney: According to Mike Hulme - Page 2 - Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community

Thor · 06-15-2010, 08:30 AM

Hoz I'm just curious as I'm quite interested in what you do believe in this issue.

How concerned are you about man made pollutants in our oceans, atmosphere, etc?

How much of an impact does our current levels of pollution have on the global scale in regards to warming of the planet, zero, slight, moderate (recoverable), or harmful (dangerous)?

If you were to put forth a 100yr plan for our world economy taking into consideration that we are warming (man made or not,) what what you like to see our industries move towards, assuming green energy can be quite profitable if this is all done at a natural non panicked pace.

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

See.

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Hoz I'm just curious as I'm quite interested in what you do believe in this issue.

How concerned are you about man made pollutants in our oceans, atmosphere, etc?

How much of an impact does our current levels of pollution have on the global scale in regards to warming of the planet, zero, slight, moderate (recoverable), or harmful (dangerous)?

If you were to put forth a 100yr plan for our world economy taking into consideration that we are warming (man made or not,) what what you like to see our industries move towards, assuming green energy can be quite profitable if this is all done at a natural non panicked pace.

What is the topic of this thread? IT is quite important.

RedHot25 · 06-15-2010, 08:36 AM

You started the thread, yet you aren't going to provide your overall opinion and ideas?

Thor · 06-15-2010, 08:36 AM

I'm just curious about your specific beliefs in regards to this issue, are you then saying you think its completely untrue and that our planet is just fine as it is?

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

I'm just curious about your specific beliefs in regards to this issue, are you then saying you think its completely untrue and that our planet is just fine as it is?

Are you trying to change the topic to save yourself from embarrassment? Honestly.........I did not make anything up. I did not construe a fallacy.

BUT I QUOTED .....one of the TOP SCIENTIST FROM THE TOP UNIVERSITIES ON climate change.

Synapse

Topic: There was NO consensus on AGW.

IPCC: Continues to peddle this fallacy

Science: Suffers due to the Galillelo effect on science since GORE

Obviously I am a ######....

MrMastodonFarm · 06-15-2010, 08:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Obviously I am a ######....

Yah.

Pastiche · 06-15-2010, 08:47 AM

Acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery.

Thor · 06-15-2010, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

Are you trying to change the topic to save yourself from embarrassment? Honestly.........I did not make anything up. I did not construe a fallacy.

BUT I QUOTED .....one of the TOP SCIENTIST FROM THE TOP UNIVERSITIES ON climate change.

Synapse

Topic: There was NO consensus on AGW.

IPCC: Continues to peddle this fallacy

Science: Suffers due to the Galillelo effect on science since GORE

Obviously I am a ######....

You seem to assume a lot about my beliefs on the subject, why would I be embarrassed?

troutman · 06-15-2010, 08:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RedHot25

Why do you keep making University of East Anglia bold?

Logical fallacy - argument from "authority".

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrMastodonFarm

Yah.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Acceptance is the first step on the road to recovery.

Your intellectual repertoire has let me no choice but to abandon my position that

THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS ON AGW

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

You seem to assume a lot about my beliefs on the subject, why would I be embarrassed?

I assumed nothing other than you embarrassment....

photon · 06-15-2010, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troutman

Logical fallacy - argument from "authority".

But if it's the authority that confirms what I already think it must be the right one!

Thor · 06-15-2010, 08:56 AM

Again why would I be embarrassed?

HOZ · 06-15-2010, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thor

Again why would I be embarrassed?

The topic of this thread is simply

THE IS NO CONSENSUS ON AGW....now supported by on of the top scientists FOR AGW...

OUCH

So what is your spin on this Thor?

mykalberta · 06-15-2010, 08:58 AM

CP + Climate Change discussion = no win battle.

Pastiche · 06-15-2010, 08:59 AM

Consensus or not HOZ, show me a solidly researched paper that refutes any of the arguments of recent papers that point to anthropogenic warming.

Stop obfuscating. Deliver the goods. Where is the research saying that we are not having an impact?

Blogs, conspiracy theories, and bolded text do not count.

photon · 06-15-2010, 09:04 AM

HOZ misses the point of what Hulme is saying, so no point in arguing with him.

Thor · 06-15-2010, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOZ

The topic of this thread is simply

THE IS NO CONSENSUS ON AGW....now supported by on of the top scientists FOR AGW...

OUCH

So what is your spin on this Thor?

Like I've said many times before, I've been skeptical of both sides and from my non scientific knowledge I'm worried about the damage we're doing to our planet, especially our oceans and key eco zones that hold a high diversity of life.

As for warming, the fact we are dumping so much crap into our atmosphere is bad, we need to work are way out of doing that, and yes man made warming to all the things I've read is real.

Do I believe the hysteria over predictions of doomsday because of warming, no, I'm recently more interested in some evidence suggesting a warming period is common right before an abrupt change in climate to an ice age, something we've found tantalizing clues about recently.

Not sure why I'd be embarrassed about consensus, anyone who understands how science works knows that any paper published by anyone will be scrutinized and any bunk will be shown the door, sometimes takes time, sometimes takes fierce debate.

I'm however not all or nothing on this issue, I don't believe there is no harm in what we are doing, I also don't believe we with our air pollution can destroy the planet, but I do think it will have repercussions as possible one being hastening the next ice age.

Neat how I did all the above without links, videos or snappy comments; save for this one

Frank MetaMusil · 06-15-2010, 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pastiche

Consensus or not HOZ, show me a solidly researched paper that refutes any of the arguments of recent papers that point to anthropogenic warming.

Stop obfuscating. Deliver the goods. Where is the research saying that we are not having an impact?

Blogs, conspiracy theories, and bolded text do not count.

After a local peak in March 2010 (the second warmest month recorded in the NASA and NOAA datasets) global average temperatures have slipped downward for the second month in a row:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/ta...LB.Ts+dSST.txt

It looks like the recent El Nino is now fading away, having failed to produce even one new record warm month, and with it is fading the short term added warming effect.

Note that the Hadley Centre takes a little more time to collate and output its data, so we have to wait for their May figures. But all three datasets are typically similar.