The arguments made by climate change sceptics

[Naks]

http://www.copenhagenclimatechallenge.org/

 

[Alan]

That is some list of who's who of nasties, however your climate change enthusiast types seem quite content with the idea of genocide and mass eradication of fellow humans.

“A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
– Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor

“One America burdens the earth much more than twenty Bangladeshes. This is a terrible thing to say in order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. It is a horrible thing to say, but it’s just as bad not to say it.”
– Jacques Cousteau, UNESCO Courier

“My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with it’s full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
-Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First!

You realy want to change the world, you dont destroy people, you need to destroy the worlds supply of fossil fuels, nothing else will ever change until that occurs.

Well just take a look at what the priests of his religion say

John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar's co authored a book advocating forced abortions, sterilization through the water supply, involuntary fertility control and a "Planetary Regime" to determine the "optimum population for the world" and basically control everything and everyone.

 

[BCO]

Woh. I can almost see the froth.

First off, there is no observable evidence of drastic and dangerous levels of global warming. 0.7 degrees in a century is not a problem, it's not even a concern.

Thanks for the statement. Got anything to substantiate your claim that this temperature rise is not a concern?

Your only data comes from predictive models based on incomplete, some (including I) would even say fraudulent, variables, weightings and smoothings. These models cannot be accurate since nobody has a 100% understanding of how short term, and long term climate works. Theres some honesty for you.

How come the models from over twenty years ago have managed to predict the warming trend very nicely then? Quite ironic that you talk about honesty while sprouting an outright lie.

http://www.grist.org/article/hansen-has-been-wrong-before/

On top of that, the raw data, code and methodology for these models have never been officially released so general peer review is not possible. Your "scientists" are basically saying "trust us". Well, I have a simple phrase I live by: "Trust, but verify". In fact, anyone who is honest would do the same.

Another lie. Almost all the data is available - a simple search online would reveal that.

Now with climate gate in full swing, there is plenty evidence to show that temperature data has been manipulated and adjusted to favor anthropogenic warming.

What "evidence" from"climategate". Show me this smoking gun in the emails. I smell another lie.

Another piece of honesty is that the surface temperature data for most of the world is in a dire state. The data is so corrupt and inaccurate that it cannot be used as-is. How can models predict the future when nobody can say with 100% accuracy what the past was?

While it's true that differing weather station locations, probably make it impossible to arrive at a meaningful figure for global average surface temperature, that is not what we are really interested in. The investigation is focused on trends, not the absolute level. Often, it's easier to determine how much a given property is changing than what its exact value is. If one station is near an airport at 1m above sea level and another is in a park at 1000m, it doesn't really matter - they both show rising temperature, and that is the critical information.

Now 95% of all scientists agree with *A*GW? Really? How many scientists are there and how many are on record agreeing to this consensus? Making bold claims without anything to back it up is very typical for your crowd.

You're misrepresenting me/w1z here, nice tactic. Nobody ever said that 95% of ALL scientists agree on AGW. I said that 95% of CLIMATE scientists (i.e. those who are qualified to have a proffessional opinion on the matter) agree on AGW.

I can say for certain that you believe in AGW, you have faith in your "scientists" and nothing will change that. You will kill for your beliefs. In other words, you are a dangerous zealot.

Oh please. Nobody's advocating killing anyone.

Your kind has come before: Islam, Catholism, Rwanda, Germany, France, Russia. Always the same rhetoric, always the same result - nothing more than pain, misery, poverty and dark ages.

Care to elaborate?

BTW, if you are so worried about profits, do you give away all that you earn at the end of the month? Do you live in a box and on the charity of the government? If you don't then please do not talk about removing protections for profits; its profits that put food on your table, that provides clean and on-tap water, that heats your home, that cooks your food, that allows you the life so you can rant and rave about how you want to kill everyone. If you hate profits so much, how about doing a Ghandi and change the world by first changing yourself and give up everything you own and earn for those more deserving than you.

I feel pity for you, and sadness for this world that it is still so immature.

Life doesn't have to be lived in absolutes. You don't have to either be a SUV-driving, rainforest timber mogul or a vegan hemp wearing commune hippie. There is a whole spectrum of lifestyles in between. Any difference that one makes in life is better than none at all. The first step is recognising that as humans, we have a profound impact on other life on earth.

 

[Jenemesis]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8376286.stm

a lot of these fallacious arguments are used by our local troggs here or you yourself might be mistakenly using one of these arguments as you fell for one of their barks.

/woof

it is very confusing but I am gonna stick with the good book book on this one, which kinda makes all this arguing irelevant, (well at least to me):

/woof

there is gonna be serious turbulent winds, following the global desease and the global poverty and global inflation and some other major natural disasters

/woof

but dont worry, it wont be the end of the world for a thousand years after the huge war in israel at the valley of armaggedon

/woof

 

[Phronesis]

I really hope this happens soon. Humanity needs a wake up call slap. The death of billions should get that sorted out. Natural selection needs to run its course.

That post was directed at people like you, people that I dont see as humans. It was written out of frustration at having to deal with the evil stupidity displayed.

Sounds like hate...

Guess what! People like myself, BCO and the other rationalists and people in power (ie never you), know the reality of whats happening, and guess what? Change _is_ ganna happen. World leaders are way smarter than you and have seen the truth and are moving to protect people rather than profits. Economies will survive and life will go on. No thanks to "people" like you.

I don't think other self-proclaimed rationalists are going to be happy to see people spreading hate.

 

[w1z4rd]

For people who think the hundreds of thousands of scientists are doing this for grant money.
"Except you get the grant money regardless of conclusions. To imagine that career is advanced by falsifying data is the opposite of the truth. Here and there it happens in the short term, but actually it is a ticket to career death."