Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread

Our best bits.
User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:58 pm

Tineash wrote:And when did global warming become AGW...


AGW is simply the analysis and criticism of actual man-made input to climate change. Cal does correctly assert that the climate changes naturally on its own, and this is nothing to do with man's activities. However, am kinds activities are also theorised to have an impact beyond natural shift that certain elements of the planet are not able to adapt to fast enough as the change is too rapid and we should therefore control and limit man's input. So this subsection of climate change is AGW.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Tineash
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Tineash » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:00 pm

So why is most of the thread dedicated to disproving the presence of any global warming? If there's no warming, why amend GW to AGW?

"exceptionally annoying" - TheTurnipKing
User avatar
Slartibartfast
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Worcestershire

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Slartibartfast » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:02 pm

Cal wrote:
Tineash wrote:And when did global warming become AGW...


Hard to say. I think it all began as Global Cooling, then morphed into worries about the Ozone Layer, then Global Warming appeared but when the facts didn't stack up on that it gradually became Climate Change, but as we see even that fail to fly we now hear about something called Climate Uncertainty, so-called Extreme Weather Events and the inventive (if wholly imaginary) Global Weirding. It's anyone guess what it'll all be called next month. Stay tuned.

CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warning), or AGW, is nothing at all to do with naturally-occurring Global Warming. CAGW is almost exclusively the preserve of computer models, so little evidence, if any, has ever actually been recorded of it in the real world (unlike natural global warming).

The ozone layer problem has very little to do with global warming and is still very much a real problem.

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:07 pm

Tineash wrote:So why is most of the thread dedicated to disproving the presence of any global warming? If there's no warming, why amend GW to AGW?


Cal has never disputed the fact of climate change, but objects to the idea that this is man made.

He saw a documentary on Channel 4 a few years ago which alleged the whole thing is a swindle and nothing anybody says will ever convince him that he is wrong. He will also ignore and avoid you if he thinks you are pedantic or if he cannot answer your question.

User avatar
SEP
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by SEP » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:12 pm

Moggy wrote:Cal has never disputed the fact of climate change


Apart from when he did. And often still does, whenever he posts a graph that is supposed to show us that there has been no warming an x number of years.

Image
User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Alvin Flummux » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:13 pm

Cal has never disputed anything, except when he has.

Man, that's cleared that up.

7256930752

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by 7256930752 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:17 pm

Cal wrote:
Tineash wrote:And when did global warming become AGW...


Hard to say. I think it all began as Global Cooling, then morphed into worries about the Ozone Layer, then Global Warming appeared but when the facts didn't stack up on that it gradually became Climate Change, but as we see even that fail to fly we now hear about something called Climate Uncertainty, so-called Extreme Weather Events and the inventive (if wholly imaginary) Global Weirding. It's anyone guess what it'll all be called next month. Stay tuned.

CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warning), or AGW, is nothing at all to do with naturally-occurring Global Warming. CAGW is almost exclusively the preserve of computer models, so little evidence, if any, has ever actually been recorded of it in the real world (unlike natural global warming).

Weird, it's almost like science is progressive and uses new information to improve our understanding of how the planet works.

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:36 pm

Tineash wrote:So why is most of the thread dedicated to disproving the presence of any global warming? If there's no warming, why amend GW to AGW?


You need to do your homework, fella.

Cal's position is and always has been that his only opposition is to the idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

That is, that the world is warming as a result of man activities and that this is going to lead to a significant enough shift in the climate of the planet to cause specific environmental issues of a destructive nature.

For instance, he has never denied that warming is taking place.

...

This is true. But it’s also a bit of a cop-out. After all, as most of us are now aware, there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998, which is when the curve on the graph goes flat. In the eternally moving battlefield of claim and counter-claim in the great climate change debate, even the fervently warmist Professor Phil Jones – of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – concedes that there has been no ‘statistically significant warming’ since 1995. In the simplest, human terms, therefore, no one younger than 14 years old has experienced global warming. So why does our Government go on acting as if it’s a major problem? Why all these hugely expensive commitments to ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘renewable energy’? Why all the eco-taxes on our holiday flights and wind-farms – if the supposed threat they were designed to avert now turns out to be unsupported by real-world evidence?


viewtopic.php?f=7&t=7258&p=2632712&hilit=1998#p2632712

Erm, well, he certainly never denied that humans were responsible.

Cal wrote:My position remains thus: MMCC is NOT 'settled' or 'proven' despite what any government minister claims, any scientists claims.


Cal wrote:HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:


Cal wrote:As a MMCC heretic (and f*cking proud of it)


Cal wrote:...funnelled into the pockets of those pimping MMCC and all its deceptions.


Cal wrote: imagined 'man-made' climate change


Cal wrote:The BBC discovers that not everyone shares their illogical, if politically correct, enthusiasm for pro-AGW propaganda.


Cal wrote:show me the proof that the climate change we are currently experiencing (and nobody doubts that it is happening) is attributable to man's activities.


Cal wrote:AGW - and unproven theory?




SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


To which you replied;

I can't help you. You stopped listening a long time ago to anything that doesn't chime with your propaganda.


Oh gooseberry fool, he denied both those things.

Ah well, now he

a)admits the planet is warming
b)admits mankind have played a role

He just denies that anything, y'know, bad is going to happen.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 pm

Skarjo wrote:
Tineash wrote:So why is most of the thread dedicated to disproving the presence of any global warming? If there's no warming, why amend GW to AGW?


You need to do your homework, fella.

Cal's position is and always has been that his only opposition is to the idea of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.

That is, that the world is warming as a result of man activities and that this is going to lead to a significant enough shift in the climate of the planet to cause specific environmental issues of a destructive nature.

For instance, he has never denied that warming is taking place.

...

This is true. But it’s also a bit of a cop-out. After all, as most of us are now aware, there has been no ‘global warming’ since 1998, which is when the curve on the graph goes flat. In the eternally moving battlefield of claim and counter-claim in the great climate change debate, even the fervently warmist Professor Phil Jones – of the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit – concedes that there has been no ‘statistically significant warming’ since 1995. In the simplest, human terms, therefore, no one younger than 14 years old has experienced global warming. So why does our Government go on acting as if it’s a major problem? Why all these hugely expensive commitments to ‘decarbonisation’ and ‘renewable energy’? Why all the eco-taxes on our holiday flights and wind-farms – if the supposed threat they were designed to avert now turns out to be unsupported by real-world evidence?


http://www.grcade.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f ... 8#p2632712

Erm, well, he certainly never denied that humans were responsible.

Cal wrote:My position remains thus: MMCC is NOT 'settled' or 'proven' despite what any government minister claims, any scientists claims.


Cal wrote:HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:


Cal wrote:As a MMCC heretic (and f*cking proud of it)


Cal wrote:...funnelled into the pockets of those pimping MMCC and all its deceptions.


Cal wrote: imagined 'man-made' climate change


Cal wrote:The BBC discovers that not everyone shares their illogical, if politically correct, enthusiasm for pro-AGW propaganda.


Cal wrote:show me the proof that the climate change we are currently experiencing (and nobody doubts that it is happening) is attributable to man's activities.


Cal wrote:AGW - and unproven theory?




SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


To which you replied;

I can't help you. You stopped listening a long time ago to anything that doesn't chime with your propaganda.


Oh gooseberry fool, he denied both those things.

Ah well, now he

a)admits the planet is warming
b)admits mankind have played a role

He just denies that anything, y'know, bad is going to happen.


8/10 - needed more text in bold or italics.

User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:52 pm

Skarjo wrote:SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


And this assertion is what is disputed. Everything else is just you grandstanding - although to what end is anyone's guess. And CAGW is not a theory. It's an hypothesis. It is the result of opaque computer modelling and very little if any observable, measurable real-world evidence.

User avatar
Slartibartfast
Member
Joined in 2008
Location: Worcestershire

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Slartibartfast » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:32 pm

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


And this assertion is what is disputed. Everything else is just you grandstanding - although to what end is anyone's guess. And CAGW is not a theory. It's an hypothesis. It is the result of opaque computer modelling and very little if any observable, measurable real-world evidence.

If you've been in any large building built in the last 30 years, over virtually every bridge in the Western world (rail and road), you've put your life in the hands of computer models built on the very same principles as climate models.

And opaque to you doesn't mean that no one understands them, it just means you don't understand them.

User avatar
Alvin Flummux
Member
Joined in 2008
Contact:

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Alvin Flummux » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:34 pm

Those opaque buildings and bridges weren't built with measurable data though, were they? :roll: ;)

User avatar
Moggy
"Special"
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Moggy » Thu Nov 15, 2012 5:58 pm

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


And this assertion is what is disputed. Everything else is just you grandstanding - although to what end is anyone's guess. And CAGW is not a theory. It's an hypothesis. It is the result of opaque computer modelling and very little if any observable, measurable real-world evidence.


See, prove Cal wrong and you are either being pedantic or you are grandstanding. This is as pointless as debating the existence of God with a religious person.

7256930752

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by 7256930752 » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:27 pm

Where has this "CAGW is a hypothesis not a theory" nonsense come from?

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:28 pm

Cal wrote:
Skarjo wrote:SUPER MEGA BULLSHIT BONUS.

A year ago, I posted this;

All reliable sources seem to point to a number of things;

CO2 levels are rising.
CO2 is a principle greenhouse gas.
Global temperatures are rising.
Human output has created a sustained increase in CO2 levels across the last century.

Therefore, as the theory goes (yes, a theory, but a scientific one, please understand the definition (unless you want this to descend into a debate over Popperian terminology which, at this point, would actually be a far more interesting read than another ten pages of point-rebuttal-denial-initial point again)) increased human CO2 output has led to change in global climate.


And this assertion is what is disputed. Everything else is just you grandstanding - although to what end is anyone's guess. And CAGW is not a theory. It's an hypothesis. It is the result of opaque computer modelling and very little if any observable, measurable real-world evidence.



Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
Hexx
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Hexx » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:34 pm

Yes, Cal flip flops on if there's evidence of climate change or not. It's been pointed out before - you can see on this page how that turns out ;)

Basically what this thread comes down to is not what's the truth - but what Ca's decided is wrong. Not not for any logical or scientific reason - but for a purely zealous idealogical one.

It's not searching through the evidence and debating it's merits - the active avoidence of stiffling of dicussion is evidence of that.

It's about spreading the message. It's a soapbox designed not for debate, but to insideously undermine a viewpoint Cal has determined, on no logical basis and (as the thread demonstrates) he can't prove, is wrong.

It's important to spread anything that shows the "dominant" position is wrong [even if it's contradictory about why it's wrong]. (It's in the thread title. Resist the majority of opinion)

You are dealing with someone desperate to be viewed to be counter mainstream. As rasing questions. Someone challenging preconceptions. A thorn in the side of the big guys.

It's about how Cal views himself (or more likely wants others to view him), but sadly lacks the critical thinking ability to do so effectively, and just undermines himself by continued, demonstratable, idiocy (See: BBC Licence fee debacle in the Paedo thread).

This thread is both a suicde note of and a memorial to that desire, not a discussion thread on a forum. Which is why it's continued existence is baffling.

User avatar
Winckle
Technician
Joined in 2008
Location: Liverpool

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Winckle » Thu Nov 15, 2012 6:47 pm

Hexx you forgot it, so allow me.

Standard.

We should migrate GRcade to Flarum. :toot:
User avatar
Cal
Member
Member
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Cal » Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:58 am

Image

User avatar
Skarjo
Emeritus
Joined in 2008

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by Skarjo » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:10 am

Cal wrote:Your diagram is, as expected, a laughable, infantile and ill-informed collection of gradeschool nonsense.

Karl wrote:Can't believe I got baited into expressing a political stance on hentai

Skarjo's Scary Stories...
User avatar
SEP
Member ♥
Joined in 2008
AKA: Moggy

PostRe: Resisting The Consensus: A Climate Change Thread
by SEP » Fri Nov 16, 2012 9:13 am

This is what Cal has been reduced to? Posting a comic?

I guess that's what happens when you keep getting debunked. You run out of actual arguments.

Image

Return to “Archive”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 257 guests