kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 9:03 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
kreed wrote:
On Sep 30, 7:27 am, "Trevor Wilson" wrote:
keithr wrote:
On 29/09/2011 1:17 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
Arfa Daily wrote:
snip
**Nope. I accept that when all the planet's climatologists warn
of a problem that they are likely to be correct.
All ?
**Near enough. 97% is as close to consensus as it gets. If 97
doctors told you that if you did not alter your diet, you would
get a heart attack and 3 doctors told you not to alter your diet,
because you'd be fine, what would you do?
Heres one with a fair amount of credibility who puts up a
reasonable theory contra to that put up by the IPCC. Whether he
is right or wrong is way beyond the capability of anybody here to
decide, but at least he is approaching the subject from a
reasoned scientific perspective not the screaming political one
that most seem to favour.
Global warming is a fact, the only argument is whether it is
natural and we cannot do anything about it or it is caused by man
made conditions that we can control.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/research...rming-as-a-nat...
**Whilst not proof that Spencer is wrong about climate science, it
is important to realise that Spencer is a strong proponent of
'Intelligent Design', rather than evolution as an explanation for
the way that species have become diverse on this planet. A
religious viewpoint such at Spencer's places him in rather a poor
light straight off. Spencer is a believer in the supernatural. Not
only that, but he is very active in groups that support the notion
of a supernatural explanation of how things occur on this planet.
Sad.
Roy Spencer is (partly) paid by the Heartland Institute. The
Heartland Institute is funded by Philip Morris (big tobacco), Olin
Foundation (the gun lobby) and Exxon (big oil). His views are
hardly surprising, given his employer/s.
Here are some claims made by Spencer, along with some criticisms of
Spencer's supernatural ideas:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-sensitivity.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/clou...e-feedback.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Drop...uce-warming-bi...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/ipcc...-consensus.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/few-...al-warming.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/loeh...year-cycle.htm
http://www.skepticalscience.com/roy-...edback-climate...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/sate...warming-tropos...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/a-cl...w-climate-sens...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-1.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-2.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Roy-...er-Part-3.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/spen...f-surface-temp...
It is good that you've taken the time to read about the AGW issue.
I trust that you will also take the time to read the science, from
real scientists, who do not place their faith in the supernatural,
nor take their money from big oil. This is an excellent place to
start:
www.ipcc.ch
Yes, this is an organisation funded by big government,
**Of course. It was set up by the World Meteorological Organisation
and the UN Environment Programme. As such, it was funded by the UN
and thus by member states of the UN.
banksters etc,
**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the
IPCC? Evidence please.
who stand to gain trillions in revenue from this.
**Do they? How? The IPCC reports on the science. The IPCC was set up
by the UN. The UN is "owned" by the 193 members of the UN. Thus,
everyone on the planet is part of the UN.
It is a modern version of the USSR, - a global USSR if you prefer.
Take a look at UN policies implemented in Australia and tell me how
many of them have actually benefited society and the nation and not
hurt it
**Here are the questions that you (most recently) failed to answer:
**"Banksters"? What are "banksters"? Which "banksters" funded the IPCC?
Evidence please.
Saying that the IPCC is setup by the UN only further buries its
credibility.
**How? The UN os "owned" by all the nations on the planet. Is it perfect?
Nup. Would you prefer that the UN was controlled by (say) Enron, Nestle',
Union Carbide, GE or Philip Morris? Is that what you would prefer? Why?
Dont worry though,
they are the good guys and deserve our money, so we must go along
with it.
**Well, they do have all tht science to back them. You know science?
The stuff you have NOT managed to present, at any time during this
thread. Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big
tobacco for your independent information?
**Would you prefer to listen to the words of big oil and big tobacco for
your independent information?
Why do you continually avoid answering ANY of my questions?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au