But but but, they said the science was settled.

[cheap]

Who would have thought that this would come from a Greenpeace dude.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/02/25/gr...#ixzz2uODargFK

Greenpeace co-founder: No scientific evidence of man-made global warming

There is no scientific evidence that human activity is causing the planet to warm, according to Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, who testified in front of a Senate committee on Tuesday.

Moore argued that the current argument that the burning of fossil fuels is driving global warming over the past century lacks scientific evidence. He added that the Earth is in an unusually cold period and some warming would be a good thing.

“There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years,” according to Moore’s prepared testimony. “Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species.”

“It is important to recognize, in the face of dire predictions about a [two degrees Celsius] rise in global average temperature, that humans are a tropical species,” Moore said. “We evolved at the equator in a climate where freezing weather did not exist. The only reasons we can survive these cold climates are fire, clothing, and housing.”

“It could be said that frost and ice are the enemies of life, except for those relatively few species that have evolved to adapt to freezing temperatures during this Pleistocene Ice Age,” he added. “It is ‘extremely likely’ that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.”

Indeed, cold weather is more likely to cause death than warm weather. RealClearScience reported that from “1999 to 2010, a total of 4,563 individuals died from heat, but 7,778 individuals died from the cold.” Only in 2006 did heat-related deaths outnumber cold deaths.

In Britain, 24,000 people are projected to die this winter because they cannot afford to pay their energy bills. Roughly 4.5 million British families are facing “fuel poverty.”

“The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming,” Moore said.

“When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time,” he added. “Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.”

Moore, a Canadian, helped found the environmental activist group Greenpeace in the 1970s. He left the group after they began to take on more radical positions. He has since been a critic of radical environmentalism and heads up the group Ecosense Environmental in Vancouver, Canada.

Moore’s comments come after President Obama declared global warming a “fact” in the State of the Union. His administration has attempted to argue that the recent U.S. cold snap was influenced by a warmer planet.

[ltd]

Cheap, I love your work as always but mate, you're playing with fire on this global warming hoax that some are slow to wake up to. Did I say hoax? Sorry, that would imply it was harmless. I meant to say money making scam.
Sort of like those who send $5000.00 to Western Union waiting for King Batuuutti to die and transfer 50 bazillion dollars into their account yet can't admit they've been had.

[gtfpv]

Originally Posted by ltd

Cheap, I love your work as always but mate, you're playing with fire on this global warming hoax that some are slow to wake up to. Did I say hoax? Sorry, that would imply it was harmless. I meant to say money making scam.
Sort of like those who send $5000.00 to Western Union waiting for King Batuuutti to die and transfer 50 bazillion dollars into their account yet can't admit they've been had.

GLOBAL WARMING IN MY OPINION IS A CRUEL HOAX . it takes the real issue of POLLUTION off the agenda while everybody whinges about hoax or not ? the pollution is fact , rather than the hoax of cooling the planet , what about the real issues of clean air and drinking water /vegetation .
more emphasis is put into this warming HOAX , than the reality of declining human health and sea /air pullution .
A VERY CLEVER TACTIC IN DISGUISE . ( SOMETHING WE'VE ALL COME TO EXPECT)

[CFOUR]

until both polar caps melt, the planet will still be classified as in the tail end of the ice age. its been warming for thousands of years.

[Davehoos]

What a great read. could get the Bill Clinton storey to open.

[Geez Louise]

Yet ANOTHER Global warming thread. Yes kids, it's getting hot....so remember your 120 SPF+ before going outside.

Our kids these days, have no fear of skin cancers etc...they are never outside long enough anymore. However if you want to talk about the effects of playing video games 18hrs a day...I am all ears!

Cheers
Col

[xxx000]

based on the article he's a former Greenpeace person
It also doesn't state his quals to make this latest claim which goes against the enormous weight of scientific opinion to the contrary.

Right wing shock jocks will lap his statement up and run with it though as it suits their purposes: to influence easily led voters by making simplistic claims with dubious or no evidence.
Personally I'll go with scientific advice from organisations like the CSIRO instead of articles in right wing papers

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by xxx000

based on the article he's a former Greenpeace person
It also doesn't state his quals to make this latest claim which goes against the enormous weight of scientific opinion to the contrary.

Right wing shock jocks will lap his statement up and run with it though as it suits their purposes: to influence easily led voters by making simplistic claims with dubious or no evidence.
Personally I'll go with scientific advice from organisations like the CSIRO instead of articles in right wing papers

I'm with you on that, some of the genuises here think they are smarter than NASA & the CSIRO so don't expect too much from this thread.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

[GREGL]

Originally Posted by xxx000

based on the article he's a former Greenpeace person
It also doesn't state his quals to make this latest claim which goes against the enormous weight of scientific opinion to the contrary.

Right wing shock jocks will lap his statement up and run with it though as it suits their purposes: to influence easily led voters by making simplistic claims with dubious or no evidence.
Personally I'll go with scientific advice from organisations like the CSIRO instead of articles in right wing papers

For what it's worth I reckon farmer joe out in Birdsville might say to his mate . " Jeez it was a hot one today , must of hit 48 in the shade " Bill replies " Yeah , she was a warm one I reckon it was .1 a degree hotter than our record set in 1968 " .
I did read a article the other day that mentioned the ice caps melting and expanding over time ( hundreds of years ) . I am with the naysayers , engineered crap to advance an agenda who someone somewhere is making a living/profit out of it .
Before anyone says think of your grandkids , I personally think their quality of life will be affected by lack of job opportunities before they succumb to heat exhaustion , and the only reason they die of thirst is they cannot afford to pay a bloody water bill which used to be free and essential commodity . F ...ing bureaucrats . That and your power bills , who privatised most of this our social engineers from the King of Kickback party .
Take a bow and be proud Mr B .

[BHDOGS]

Lmao yup don't worry tho abbots direct action plan spending millions to fix it will help

[Bossxr8]

So you don't think government funded organisations can be influenced into spreading propaganda, of what the government of the day wants the people to believe. Have a think about it. They will do what they are told or there goes your funding.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So you don't think government funded organisations can be influenced into spreading propaganda, of what the government of the day wants the people to believe. Have a think about it. They will do what they are told or there goes your funding.

Even former PM John Howard changed his mind about after he left government.

[jpblue1000]

Patrick Moore, a paid spokesman for the nuclear industry, the logging industry, and genetic engineering industry, frequently cites a long-ago affiliation with Greenpeace to gain legitimacy in the media. Media outlets often either state or imply that Mr. Moore still represents Greenpeace, or fail to mention that he is a paid lobbyist and not an independent source.
He did not found Greenpeace, however was involved in early years,

JP

[cheap]

And people like Tim Flannery - they're credible?

His agenda seems to be to spew out multiple false alarmist claims and run crying to mummy whenever someone questions him, what are his credentials - playing with the bones of dead creatures...

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

And people like Tim Flannery - they're credible?

His agenda seems to be to spew out multiple false alarmist claims and run crying to mummy whenever someone questions him, what are his credentials - playing with the bones of dead creatures...

now, now, who said anything about Mr flannery? this thread is about Mr Moore, his claims, his agenda and paid for opinion isnt it?

I'm sure for every 'one of them' the other side could find 'one of those'

JP

[chamb0]

Geez, this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.

The BS detector is picking up some readings.

Moore left Greenpeace in a huff and now makes a living as a spin doctor running a PR consultancy delivering "sustainability messaging" to various industries involved in logging, mining, lead-smelting, fish farming, nuclear and plastics. In this capacity he's demonstrated his objective neutrality and understanding of complex systems with some very brainy statements including: describing clear-cut logging as “making clearings where new trees can grow in the sun,” justifying spills of dangerous sodium cyanide caused by gold mining by saying "cyanide is present in the environment and naturally available in many plant species."

He's famous for using the 'gish-gallop' style of public debating (beloved by creationists, moon-landing hoaxers and other scientific free spirits) which involves a sustained rapid-fire scattergun torrent of error that is impossible to rebut in sufficient detail during a debate.

His climate change claims have previously been picked apart in detail here. Cheap, if you feel you have a better grasp of the science than the scientists then write up your thesis and go and grab that easy Nobel Prize.

Originally Posted by cheap

And people like Tim Flannery - they're credible?

His agenda seems to be to spew out multiple false alarmist claims and run crying to mummy whenever someone questions him, what are his credentials - playing with the bones of dead creatures...

Flannery obtained a PhD in evolutionary biology, Patrick Moore has one in ecology. So neither of them specialised in climate science. If you believe Flannery isn't qualified to speak authoritively on climate matters then neither is your mate Moore. You can't have it both ways... In any case this isn't about Tim Flannery, it's about a man who makes a living as a spin doctor making absolute claims that run counter to virtually every major scientific organisation in the world and scientists who are comfortable in publicly quantifying their levels of confidence in the data.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

So you don't think government funded organisations can be influenced into spreading propaganda, of what the government of the day wants the people to believe. Have a think about it. They will do what they are told or there goes your funding.

http://www.theguardian.com/environme...climate-change

Not every one toes the line you say is there.
One thing I do know for sure, there are some minds that will never change no matter what evidence is presented. Believe what ever you like.
Bill

[cheap]

The Guardian and Lenore Taylor = zero credibility

It would be difficult finding two bigger card carrying socialist/lefties

[jpblue1000]

Originally Posted by cheap

The Guardian and Lenore Taylor = zero credibility

It would be difficult finding two bigger card carrying socialist/lefties

name calling and misrepresentations wont win any arguments!

JP

[Lotte]

Whoever says science is settled is thinking of pseudo science - the science of absolutes (so not science at all).
The science is never settled, probabilities/theories/assumptions/possible outcomes are just changed as more data comes to light.

/end rant about linguistic misrepresentation about science

Besides. I thought topics about religion were taboo here?

[UberKnee]

Originally Posted by Lotte

Whoever says science is settled is thinking of pseudo science - the science of absolutes (so not science at all).
The science is never settled, probabilities/theories/assumptions/possible outcomes are just changed as more data comes to light.

/end rant about linguistic misrepresentation about science

Besides. I thought topics about religion were taboo here?

Its true science never truly is settled. We constantly rediscover and redefine things we once believed as truth as we make new discoveries. I dont deny climate change though, I do deny this idea that mankind is 100% responsible for climate change and the idea of what climate change is. Its just that human life, particularly our C02 creating industry sectors are relatively new additions to the planet in the grand scheme of things. Yet millions upon millions of years before there were even primates of any kind the earth went through drastic climate changes. At worst we are marginally speeding up a natural process.

[Streets]

do you guys really think one greenpeace dropout can undo all the work the thousands of actual climate scientists across the world have done? climate scientists actually study climate science for a living, it is their job, they do it day in and day out

I'd take their word over Patrick Moore's, whose day job is doing consultancy and PR for nuclear power companies

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Streets

climate scientists actually study climate science for a living, it is their job, they do it day in and day out

I think you'll find that they study it because they get paid to (Via Gov grants etc)

Although no great fan of former PM John Howard, his speech in London last year is worth noting.

A small part of his speech says...
"The ground is thick with rent-seekers. There are plenty of people around who want access to public money in the name of saving the planet."

If you have a spare 15mins, read the whole thing here (ignoring the video)

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...#ixzz2uZ9nnAYr

[Streets]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I think you'll find that they study it because they get paid to (Via Gov grants etc)

well I wouldn't expect them to be able to do it for free; research costs money and I don't see how receiving that funding compromises their integrity

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Streets

well I wouldn't expect them to be able to do it for free; research costs money and I don't see how receiving that funding compromises their integrity

If you don't follow the current governments line/policy on your research what do you think will happen to next years application?

[cheap]

Does anyone have a tally of all the predictions, who, when, what and accuracy.

Polar Ice Caps - GONE by xxxx
Perpetual Drought - FOREVER by the year xxxx
Glaciers - GONE by the year xxxx
Sea Levels - RISING by +10m by the year xxxx

How many of these events have actually occurred ?

It would be interesting to see the accuracy of the climate science. Mr Newton made some observations, worked on his theory, others repeated his theory and out came the accepted science. This science withstood the test of time for some hundreds of years until some little unknown patent clerk saw something different.

[chamb0]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

If you don't follow the current governments line/policy on your research what do you think will happen to next years application?

It's normal and appropriate for governments to fund scientific research. The alternative is for special interest groups to do so. In Australia we have government funding allocated through independant statutory bodies, set up to free political interference from the scientific process as much as possible, such as the Australian Research Council and the National Health and Medical Research Council. These have a traditional independence in the rigorous assessment of grant applications and are widely considered independant arbiters of research excellence. The researchers are not paid paid to prove climate change is occuring, they're paid to investigate it. These Councils fund research endeavours into all sorts of scientific disciplines using tax payer dollars but for some reason climate science is singled out?

To give some perspective: less than 4% of awarded grants from the ARC during 2002-2013 addressed the topic of climate change. The high point was 2010 with 7.4% of grants having a climate change focus. It's dropped to just 2.9% in the latest round. It's a universal complaint among scientists from every discipline that they feel they don't get a fair share of ARC funding. That probably indicates it's more or less a fair system.

Funnily enough looking at the track record of governments around the world, including Australia, they have mostly done their best to ignore research advice on climate change for as long as they can get away with, instead responding with political obfuscation and doing the absolute minimum possible when they're eventually forced to act, or too afraid to act for fear of offending vested interests. It's why we are now left with an increasingly limited window of opportunity to respond effectively to this problem, the unfortunate result being that the longer we leave it the more expensive it becomes. And it's us who are already, and will increasingly be, carrying the burden of damage, a grossly unfair result of people who should have known better refusing to take steps in our national interest.

Originally Posted by mik

I don't know who said the science was settled, more people are speaking out about alternative scenarios every day, and the ipcc over the years has made it self look like a turkey and retracted some of its statements.

this is one of many sites with a lot about weather/solar/planetary stuff ......... very enlightening............( solar .....enlightening .... get it )
http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/cliemate/
many more links and articles provided on this site, well worth looking at imo.

Have you heard the saying that the internet is about as reliable as a dribbling drunk guy down at the pub standing in his own vomit scribbling on a dunny wall in black texta? There's good reasons why there's an established method to conduct scientific discussion through peer-reviewed technical journals and conferences where scientists submit themselves to scrutiny and accountability, rather than via anonymous online posts (and this is the way every famous scientist who turned the establishment upside down operated). Science is actually really hard, and writing scientific papers and submitting them to journals is tough work, because peer reviewers know rubbish when they see it. For some reason "sceptics" prefer blog posts and trying to get coverage in the media where they employ the good old gish-gallop approach. If they really knew what they were talking about they would have the confidence to use the process of engaging other scientists in journals and at conferences. That they use the internet instead is telling.

Originally Posted by mik

For years all we heard was global warming we will warm up by X by 2xxx we will all fry or drown.......quick .......show dodgy hockey stick graph again !
now it is being called climate change ................... "climate change" you say ! really ?

Both terms ('global warming' and 'climate change') are used because they refer to two different phenomena. GW specifically refers to the long term trend of rising global surface temperatures, while CC is a broader term referring to clear sustained changes in the components of climate (i.e. rainfall, atmospheric pressure, winds, and including temperature changes). Both terms have been used for a long time. I think I've explained this on here previously and I'm pretty sure you read it?

Originally Posted by mik

This little rock we call home has been subject to changing climate since day dot long before we ever got here with far more extremes of temp and weather, this is proven by geologic history.

The difference is, this time we caused it (rather than natural processes), and the pace of change is far greater, over decades rather than tens/hundreds of thousands of years. The relatively rapid rate of change means that it poses a threat to those natural and human systems which cannot adapt anywhere near quickly enough, including our agricultural systems.

Originally Posted by mik

here is another thought for those listening to the doomsday agency, why do they only allow man made global warming/climate change scenarios and nothing else?
you have to ask yourself is there an agenda here, the only conclusion I can come to is yes.

Yes there is an agenda here - it is to investigate climate system science and figure out why things happen and where we are headed. Given that climate changes presents an unacceptable risk to our well-being and prosperity, especially here in Australia, I think it's only prudent to study it. As for a supposed singleminded pursuit of only man made effects, climate scientists investigate thousands of different questions every year, including both natural and human effects, to gain further understanding of the system as a whole. Looking over the journals makes this pretty clear!

[Lotte]

His grasp of the English language isn't too good either. I wouldn't call 500million years modern. That would be approximately Cambrian. Triassic was 200million to put that in perspective. Completely different life forms dealing with those conditions right there.

[Sox]

The so called science that is AGW has never been settled, in fact it's full of rubbery data, false predictions, and guesswork.

Climate change is a real phenomenon, that's for certain, but the part that humans are accountable for it is a ridiculous assertion.

There is actually very little real science to support AGW, certainly nothing solid.
Pretty much all scientific data can be manipulated to suit whatever agenda is most useful at the time.

[Maka]

"The Daily Caller is a politically conservative news and opinion website based in Washington, D.C., United States. Founded by Tucker Carlson, a libertarian conservative political pundit, and Neil Patel, former adviser to former Vice President Dick Cheney"

Oh, ok enough said!

cheers, Maka