Climate Skeptic Shop
My T shirt.
4 parts in 10,000
CO2 where the bloody hell are you.
Boris, like all warmists, youre backing out of the debate and name calling in the process. No wonder you are losing. That you dont care is also an indictment on your real level of interest in the planet and human endeavour. You can thank sceptics later when this debacle is over and I dont mind if you pay my carbon tax in the meantime.
Oh wow. I'm not going to drag myself down to that level of conspiracy, unfound assertions, and logical fallacies. You've won, I don't care.
Boris, we are also concerned about how the IPCC works. Its not a bunch of scientists as the government and green movement would like us believe.. they are bureaucrats .. all bureaucrats I know have an agenda .. usually political in nature. The IAC (Inter Academy Council - worlds highest academic body) reviewed the IPCC and its AR4 report (which is the basis of current Aust Climate policy). The IAC formally and severly criticised the IPCC & its AR4 report on points of 1. Political Interfere, 2. Bias, 3. Conflict of Interest, 4. Poor treatment of Uncertainty and 5. Poor Management Practices. Why would any Australian not question the Aust governments reliance on such a discredited organisation ... why?
Boris, your missing the point.. like all warmers you think we have predetermined or politically held beliefs.. well we dont.. we believe in science and the process of science. We contest that science is being swayed by green money (no doubt you will deny that). Why do we contest it so? The primary question we ask in this debate is what real world evidence is on offer that man-made carbon-dioxide is contributing to dangerous global warming? No one, not the IPCC, not the CSIRO, not the BoM, not the RS or any other party is offering any real world evidence. They offer models.. but as every real scientist knows models are not evidence. In those models there is a feedback parameter, without it the models do not produce the heating effect that is predicted. Where does the value for the feedback parameter come from? Hansens team at NASA say its axiomatic yet the 19 different models in use have a different value for it.. why?.. because it is axiomatic is not a good scientific answer... more..
Yes scepticism is the cornerstone of science. Blindly following a pre-determined or politically-held belief isn't. The debate about climate change ended in the 1990s, long before it really hit the media. You don't argue with your doctor when they diagnose you with tonsillitis, why argue with climatologists (of all different organisations funded by different people, governments and organisations the world over) about climate change?
Science is scepticism. Ignoring it isn't. Science isn't democratic, the majority doesn't make something true. How we deal with science is democratic and that's where the debate should be, how we deal with climate change, not whether it exists. There is very little left on the table to debate and if you want to debate it you better get a degree and find some evidence, not wear a shirt that promotes your ignorance. Just thought someone better tell you how little you mean to the scientific world.
Boris, you really need to get with the programme. Apparently you missed something ... sceptics (contrarians or goats if you like) hav won over the majority of the sheep and Gillard or whoever is leading Labor will be out at the next election... this is a given. Being sceptical is the cornerstone of science (ask Galileo, Dawin and a thousand others), science doesnt work without it... and its part of the formal 'process of science'. Mind you the science fraternity has been drawn to grant money in recent decades and grant money as we know has been driven mostly by things green. Anyway the public have now reminded scientists that real science involves sceptisism and not money. And if you also missed it .. its becoming quite respectable to be a climate sceptic so we dont mind at all running around with our labels on.
Thank you for providing a great service so that all the idiots in society wear the same clothing so everybody else can identify them and avoid them. I wonder if somebody does the same thing for creationism?
Call me a troll if you like but you should all know trolling is all your worth. Besides you've been trolling science for the past 30 years so perhaps you should know how it feels.
#32 mango 2011-06-28 16:01
There is no such thing as a greenhouse gas - either you don't understand gases, or you don't understand greenhouses - or both.
And regarding the ozone hole, evidently you don't understand UV from the Sun creates the zone and the ozone hole is seasonal. That is, when the poles goes dark, ozone is not being produced during the winter and a hole appears in the spring.
I get so irritated by the ignorance of commentators when discussing alternative energy. Many of them seem to think the Laws of Thermodynamics are part of some conspiracy of Big Oil to stifle innovation. Living in Avatar La La land.
Refresh comments list
RSS feed for comments to this post
E-mail (required, but will not display)
Notify me of follow-up comments
Payment & Shipping
Terms & Conditions
Climate Skeptic Shop