captainslarty
N/A
No, but it got u stumped lol....
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Carbon Footprint (or should it be wake?)
- Thread starter awol
- Start date
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Eh?
captainslarty
N/A
I rest me case yer 'onour.....
poter
Well-Known Member
Ken,
serious debate would be welcome, I just get a little irate when the only comment is to discount the GW sceptics with a throwaway comment.
As to your two scientist & their assertion to yourself that there is no debate left in GW, if as I assume they are proponents of the man induced GW. I really do beg to differ, the pendulum would appear to have swung in the other direction, where the majority of earth scientists are now looking very closely at the climate models including the fossil records & are coming to very different conclusions.
The math of climate models is also now in serious dispute.
Like yourself I am not a physics or chemistry based scientist but rather an analyst of data.
poter
serious debate would be welcome, I just get a little irate when the only comment is to discount the GW sceptics with a throwaway comment.
As to your two scientist & their assertion to yourself that there is no debate left in GW, if as I assume they are proponents of the man induced GW. I really do beg to differ, the pendulum would appear to have swung in the other direction, where the majority of earth scientists are now looking very closely at the climate models including the fossil records & are coming to very different conclusions.
The math of climate models is also now in serious dispute.
Like yourself I am not a physics or chemistry based scientist but rather an analyst of data.
poter
poter
Well-Known Member
Capn' I really would not bother to get into a discussion with webby, been there seen that done it!!
He has absolutely no evidence based arguments whatsoever, the fact that the IPCC is now becoming a laughing stock, does not sit very well with the tree huggers.
Just to repeat, as I have said many times I am all in favour of man cleaning up the enviroment, as a water user & diver I have seen the destruction of the worlds oceans & agree with tree huggers, it just sickens me that we are still dumping waste into the oceans. But man made global warming & the economic impact ....Bol**s. (good scientific word that)
He has absolutely no evidence based arguments whatsoever, the fact that the IPCC is now becoming a laughing stock, does not sit very well with the tree huggers.
Just to repeat, as I have said many times I am all in favour of man cleaning up the enviroment, as a water user & diver I have seen the destruction of the worlds oceans & agree with tree huggers, it just sickens me that we are still dumping waste into the oceans. But man made global warming & the economic impact ....Bol**s. (good scientific word that)
webcraft
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the majority of earth scientists are now looking very closely at the climate models including the fossil records & are coming to very different conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ] The majority? Says who? How many have you polled?
- W
the majority of earth scientists are now looking very closely at the climate models including the fossil records & are coming to very different conclusions.
[/ QUOTE ] The majority? Says who? How many have you polled?
- W
webcraft
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
the fact that the IPCC is now becoming a laughing stock, does not sit very well with the tree huggers
[/ QUOTE ] Again, unsubstantiated and so intrinsically meaningless - and you have the nerve to accuse me of not producing evidence. You have obviously never bothered to follow a single link in any of my posts on this subject because you have already made up your mind.
YOU are apparently laughing at the IPCC - most people aren't. Even the Bush administration is starting to listen.
- Webcraft out . . .
the fact that the IPCC is now becoming a laughing stock, does not sit very well with the tree huggers
[/ QUOTE ] Again, unsubstantiated and so intrinsically meaningless - and you have the nerve to accuse me of not producing evidence. You have obviously never bothered to follow a single link in any of my posts on this subject because you have already made up your mind.
YOU are apparently laughing at the IPCC - most people aren't. Even the Bush administration is starting to listen.
- Webcraft out . . .
captainslarty
N/A
Nope, the Bush admin is starting to see TAX DOLLARS.... nowt more
so, how about the UN and Iraq and WMD AND their credibility in such a debate ???
so, how about the UN and Iraq and WMD AND their credibility in such a debate ???
poter
Well-Known Member
Just one reference ok
please read & comment I would be interested in your views:
Science & public Policy Institute
please read & comment I would be interested in your views:
Science & public Policy Institute
damo
Well-Known Member
"The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI), formerly the Center for Science and Public Policy for the Frontiers of Freedom, is a conservative think tank founded by former Republican senator Malcolm Wallop"
Nuff said.
I'm with you webcraft
Nuff said.
I'm with you webcraft
KenMcCulloch
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
ps, WTF is a 'Social Scientist' ... ???
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit like being a 'General Layabout' except that you have to go to work every day.
ps, WTF is a 'Social Scientist' ... ???
[/ QUOTE ]
It's a bit like being a 'General Layabout' except that you have to go to work every day.
captainslarty
N/A
AH yes, thanks for that.. like me pal who was a geometrical construction consultant... he assembled carboard boxes..
Now me understands...
ta..
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
Now me understands...
ta..
/forums/images/graemlins/laugh.gif
flaming
Well-Known Member
wow, this one sure splits the troops!
The original post was about overuse of oil for personal use. It was referenced to GW, but surely just as good an argument against this behaviour is that Oil is a limited resource, and burning it by the tonne for a leisure activity is not exactly considering the rest of the planet.
And that's before the GW "theroy" is considered. Big problem is that is seems to now involve nearly as many emotions as it does science.
For my part, on the chance that it's true I try and keep my impact as small as I can within reason. And if it's not true, then at least I'm saving myself a small fortune.
The original post was about overuse of oil for personal use. It was referenced to GW, but surely just as good an argument against this behaviour is that Oil is a limited resource, and burning it by the tonne for a leisure activity is not exactly considering the rest of the planet.
And that's before the GW "theroy" is considered. Big problem is that is seems to now involve nearly as many emotions as it does science.
For my part, on the chance that it's true I try and keep my impact as small as I can within reason. And if it's not true, then at least I'm saving myself a small fortune.
damo
Well-Known Member
And just to be absolutely clear how valid their opinions are: The Frontiers of Freedom Institute received a donation of $100,000 from ExxonMobil in 2002 for the foundation of the Frontiers of Freedom Institute's Center for Science and Public Policy. The institute received $90,000 in funding from ExxonMobil in 2006.
poter
Well-Known Member
Your Point being??
Are you saying that there are no interested parties or funding on the pro Man Made GW side??
$90,000 is penuts?
Are you saying that there are no interested parties or funding on the pro Man Made GW side??
$90,000 is penuts?
webcraft
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
Just one reference ok
please read & comment I would be interested in your views:
Science & public Policy Institute
[/ QUOTE ] I was out of this thread but you tempted me back and I have read through this. I have given it my best shot and read screenfuls of it but I am afraid it seems like waffle to me. I don't have the time or inclination to dissect it in detail here, so let's just look at one 'killer remark':
[ QUOTE ]
In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. However, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.
[/ QUOTE ] To me the obvious interpretation of this is that only 20% of the reviewers thought it worth commenting on because the rest agreed with it and didn't think it was worth commenting on.
The 'arguments' presented here do nothing AFAIAC to discredit the IPCC . If this is the best you come up with then there is no contest. You read what you want into this Peter because you think it confirms what you have chosen to believe.
- W
Just one reference ok
please read & comment I would be interested in your views:
Science & public Policy Institute
[/ QUOTE ] I was out of this thread but you tempted me back and I have read through this. I have given it my best shot and read screenfuls of it but I am afraid it seems like waffle to me. I don't have the time or inclination to dissect it in detail here, so let's just look at one 'killer remark':
[ QUOTE ]
In Chapter 9, the key science chapter, the IPCC concludes that "it is very highly likely that greenhouse gas forcing has been the dominant cause of the observed global warming over the last 50 years". The IPCC leads us to believe that this statement is very much supported by the majority of reviewers. However, only 62 of the IPCC’s 308 reviewers commented on this chapter at all.
[/ QUOTE ] To me the obvious interpretation of this is that only 20% of the reviewers thought it worth commenting on because the rest agreed with it and didn't think it was worth commenting on.
The 'arguments' presented here do nothing AFAIAC to discredit the IPCC . If this is the best you come up with then there is no contest. You read what you want into this Peter because you think it confirms what you have chosen to believe.
- W
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
Give up
I stopped commenting on global warming issues a long time ago, as just not worth the effort. I have scientific training, and trying to explain scientific rigour to those who don't understand it is just not worth it.
I stopped commenting on global warming issues a long time ago, as just not worth the effort. I have scientific training, and trying to explain scientific rigour to those who don't understand it is just not worth it.
webcraft
Well-Known Member
Re: Science and Public Policy Institute
Robert Ferguson is the President of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which was formerly the Frontiers of Freedom Center for Science and Public Policy.
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year."
And you don't see anything wrong with this then? You believe this is an impartial source?
Give us a break . . .
Robert Ferguson is the President of the Science and Public Policy Institute, which was formerly the Frontiers of Freedom Center for Science and Public Policy.
Greenpeace's ExxonSecrets website states that "Ferguson set up the Center for Science and Public Policy in early 2003, after a $100,000 grant from ExxonMobil in 2002 - specifically tagged for the center. Exxon has continued to fund the Center each year since then, to the tune of at least $50,000 a year."
And you don't see anything wrong with this then? You believe this is an impartial source?
Give us a break . . .
poter
Well-Known Member
Brendan
please explain scientific rigour to me!
please explain scientific rigour to me!
BrendanS
Well-Known Member
Peer group approval of scientific articles, in high level journals, not low class ones.
