LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksclimate doesn't change from year to year that would be weather...how can you put up coherent intelligent debate on climate change when you don't know the difference between weather and climateOriginally Posted by Mac-7
Guru
climate doesn't change from year to year that would be weather...how can you put up coherent intelligent debate on climate change when you don't know the difference between weather and climate
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”-John Stuart Mills
Guru
Lovelock hasn't backed away from CC just his wacko predictions....one being the entire population of China moving to Africa by mid century...
“Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”-John Stuart Mills
Guru
Let's see what global warming deniers got wrong on this thread:
1. That Lovelock is some sort of notable mainstream climate scientist. He's not.
2. That Lovelock is someone who ever followed the evidence, or was someone climate scientists ever took seriously. He wasn't. The old man's always been a rebel, a contrarian of sorts who has never really trusted scientists, trusting in his own loner Gaia visions.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...gloomy-vision/
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/0...from_von_s.php
3. That Al Gore is wrong, just like Lovelock. He's not.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...nce/?mobile=nc
To be fair, Lovelock implies that his predictions (such the absurd 10 degree temperature rise in 10 years, claims of humans being reduced to a "few breeding pairs" in the Arctic by 2100) should be equated with Gore's following of mainstream projections, so that's on him. He needs to take responsibility for his nonsense, not project it to others. He made Gore look like Inhofe.
But buried in the article is Lovelock saying we should reduce fossil fuels. So he has gone from a position that global warming is happening too fast and there's nothing we can do about it to saying we can and should reduce fossil fuels. Welcome to reality.
Carry on, deniers.
"To the average American who’s struggling, we’re in some other stratosphere. We’re the party of Big Business and Big Oil and the rich." - Sen. Olympia Snowe (R)
Budget surplus inherited by Bush: $236 billion (CBO, 2000)
Budget deficit inherited by Obama: $1,667 billion (CBO projection, 3/2009)
OK.
Actually I do know the difference.
But I hope you will admit that the left has been guilty of using weather to back up their claims of climate change.
In fact some claim almost every weather pattern is the result of climate change.
Besides attacking me is not going to make Lovelock go away.
Libs are now forced to attack one of their gods when he no longer conforms to their preconceived ideas on global warming.
How unfortunate for you.
Predictions of doom is what pays the freight for climate scientists who depend on funding from the gullible to support them.
And their predictions have not been very good.
Not to burst your denier bubble, but actual mainstream science predictions (rather than press hype) are proving conservative if anything.
Hello! I'm from Europe, the place where history comes from.
According to predictions coming from the man-made global warming doomsday industry we should be well on the way to being a fried planet by now and it didn't happen.
Now a leading global warming Pied Piper has admitted that the "experts" were wrong and are likely to remain wrong because they don't know what they are talking about.
Last edited by Mac-7; May 01 2012 at 02:53 AM.
Commentator
So you were acting like you didn't as a debating ploy? Only a right-winger would think it's cool to look ignorant.
Climate science doesn't predict weather on any given day or year, but it does predict weather patterns. For example, global warming should be accompanied by dry places getting dryer and wet places getting wetter. So when we get an unprecedented drought in Texas (that is still ongoing), it's fair to say that global warming was part of the cause. Responsible climate scientists, such as the Texas State Climatologist say those things.
In the first place, Lovelock isn't anybody's god as far as I know. He holds no academic post and has no students. In the second place, Lovelock in the past didn't conform to the mainstream ideas of global warming. That's why pretty much nobody believed him. His current (changed) position is now on board with existing climate science. I'm not going to attack Lovelock for that. Instead, I'm going to attack you for not being where Lovelock is now.
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
Commentator
The IPCC projected in 1990 that if we got an additional .63 Watts per square meter of greenhouse gas forcing in the following 20 years, global temps would increase at a rate of .17° C per century. As it turned out, we actually got an additional .63 Watts per square meter of greenhouse gas forcing in the following 20 years, and global temps increased at a rate of .16° C per century. Bullseye.
False. The Pied Piper admitted that he was wrong and the experts were right.
The only one who doesn't know what he's talking about here is you, so the only one likely to remain wrong here is you.
The Top 5 Tactics of climate denial:
1. Cherry Picking 2. Fake Experts 3. Impossible Expectations 4. Misrepresenting the Science & Logical Fallacies 5. Conspiracy Theories
Diethelm & Mckee 2009
Honesty is not on the list.
Or if it suits the doomsday global warming crowd dry places getting wetter or wet places getting dryer can be blamed on man-made global warming too.Climate science doesn't predict weather on any given day or year, but it does predict weather patterns. For example, global warming should be accompanied by dry places getting dryer and wet places getting wetter.
Anything it takes to keep the funding going.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks