July 13, 2012 at 3:06 am #490563
Thanks Andre :wave:
I wasn’t far away really, only a reply. I’ve been lurking. 🙂July 13, 2012 at 1:50 pm #490564
Andre post=346276 wrote: Some may notice the size of this thread has been somewhat reduced.
Thanks Andre – a masterly job of thread control! My computer will no longer have to waste electrons replying to doubtful comments. “8-)July 13, 2012 at 2:07 pm #490565AndreKeymaster
Thanks owlbrudder … I am awaiting flack from other corners, but I’m prepared ..July 13, 2012 at 5:43 pm #490566DennisMember
I have been a member of this forum for many years but what I have just read on these last posts have helped me make a decision. I wont be coming back because of the childish attitude and also the attacking of certain people I have just seen. Also the science that certain people here promote is flawed and just a reflection on their EGO. There are those among us that seek far greater knowledge to help with free energy and food production than has ever been promoted on this forum. You may call this flack Andre so be it. Good bye.
DennisJuly 13, 2012 at 6:08 pm #490567
Dennis post=346316 wrote: I have been a member of this forum for many years but what I have just read on these last posts have helped me make a decision. I wont be coming back because of the childish attitude and also the attacking of certain people I have just seen.
I am sure there was no intention to attack a person: the intention was to attack certain misinformation. It is regrettable that you cannot see the difference.
Dennis post=346316 wrote: Also the science that certain people here promote is flawed and just a reflection on their EGO.
To say the science is flawed, without giving concrete examples, does not enhance the debate. If someone is promoting misinformation, the best way to correct it is to point to scientific research that rebuts the information objected to. To have a meaningful debate requires the parties to it to have support from solid science and repeatable experiments.
Dennis post=346316 wrote: There are those among us that seek far greater knowledge to help with free energy and food production than has ever been promoted on this forum. You may call this flack Andre so be it.
The knowledge you seek will only come from solid, repeatable, peer-reviewed science. A scientist of any merit is prepared to do research, develop experiments and allow conclusions reached to be examined by other experts in the same field. Most importantly, a good scientist is prepared to go where the evidence leads, even if that means they have to change their mind about something they used to accept.
This is not the forum for scientific debate about global warming causing climate change: for that, I recommend you visit Skeptical Science.
Dennis post=346316 wrote: Good bye.
Refusing to visit sites where different opinions from your own are expressed seems to be a good way to end up only talking to people who agree with you, in which case you may learn very little. I hope for your sake that is not where you end up: I hope you find what you are looking for. Go in peace.July 13, 2012 at 6:12 pm #490568AndreKeymaster
Off topic, but pertinent to this thread. :blink:
(I guess this will be a pointless post, if Dennis doesn’t come back …)
Hi Dennis, not sure where you are coming from, but you are welcome to your opinion and views.
All we ask is to remain on topic, and if you have a differing view – it would be great if you could somehow substantiate that perspective.
For instance – and this is not a dig – you say the science is flawed.
I’m not of the scientific-ilk to know the difference, (nor am I the type that will believe in something on the simple say so of others – especially if there is no proof. I call that faith, and with science, you can’t do that) but again, if anyone can substantiate what they say with some backing, then please provide for our knowledge.
I don’t believe there were attacks, per se, simply several entities having a different point of view. Some entities could substantiate their point of view, and one simply denied that evidence out of hand, yet failed to back-up said claim.
As for ‘childish’ (and while I’m certain we’ve all managed that from time to time) I believe my ‘editing’ has removed anything that maybe regarded as childish or belittling – and hopefully steered the posts to the topic in hand. (I’ll probably have to delete our posts too, as it doesn’t move this thread along). :laugh:
Please, anyone, feel free to start a new thread “Evidence that Climate Change is a Crap” or similar, and back it up with proof. The more proof, the better.
:whistle:July 13, 2012 at 6:38 pm #490569
Andre post=346319 wrote: Climate Change is a Crap
That was a direct quote of Tony Abbott, if I recall correctly. He, also, has ducked the issue of proof. If you are serious about allowing such a topic, I think it would let people vent their true opinions and bring forward their scientific evidence. It would have the potential, however, of being nothing more than a flame war.
Bring it on and let me see for how long I can keep my temper. :sick:
Dennis, Len: there is the challenge. Are you up to it? I’m game if you are. Just be prepared to be required to show solid evidence to support your point of view.July 13, 2012 at 8:14 pm #490570df418Member
Just found this on CSIROJuly 13, 2012 at 11:11 pm #490571FreddogMember
I believe that Dennis is correct by saying that there is too much focus on who says what and what science is correct.
Science by its very nature is always open to scepticism, you only have to read the works of Immanuel Velikovsky and realise just how radical to some his ideas were and then remember that he was a very good friend of Albert Einstein and yet they never argued over their differing views.
As Dennis intimated, lets get on solving the issue not arguing over it or else you will just end up like the politicians and having no one taking any notice of you.July 14, 2012 at 2:32 am #490572SnagsMember
There is overwhelming scientific consensus on this issue
About 98% of scientists believe in anthropogenic global warming
and yet about 50% of the general public dont
This has more to do with a concerted misinformation campaign funded by the people who have the most to lose politically and financially.July 16, 2012 at 6:23 pm #490573BobbeeMember
:shrug:July 16, 2012 at 8:54 pm #490574pennyMember
Discussion of any topic should always be courteous and considerate of others views, even if you believe them to be incorrect or misinformed. I am not a scientist BUT i believe I should always question information given to try to persuade me to a particular view. After all everyone knew the world was flat until those who questioned the proposition were able to prove their hypothesis. I have noticed also that sometimes when a fact, that does not support the global warming view, is presented that the point is ignored. Wine grapes used to grow in England. Greenland was once farmed and the retreat from Greenland was apparently orderly and over a period of time. (I know at this point I should put in a link but I cant find it) which indicates a slow change or not one due to a catastrophic event. I know the climate is changing because it has in the past and will continue to do so. The causes are many and most beyond our control. However I am always prepared to do what i can to reduce my consumption and not pollute the only planet i have. I would like to leave my descendants the legacy of having done my best to not have damaged the earth.
I think that those on this site are doing their bit for the planet and am glad that there are so many wonderful people out there who are willing to share their knowledge and kindness and seeds!
Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and perhaps leave it at that.
:wave:July 17, 2012 at 2:22 pm #490575
penny post=346507 wrote: I have noticed also that sometimes when a fact, that does not support the global warming view, is presented that the point is ignored. Wine grapes used to grow in England. Greenland was once farmed and the retreat from Greenland was apparently orderly and over a period of time. (I know at this point I should put in a link but I cant find it) which indicates a slow change or not one due to a catastrophic event.
Penny, local climate does not give us a good prediction of global climate. There was a period in the Middle Ages when parts of Europe experienced warm weather, but the rest of the globe was not experiencing this warmth. This link gives a good overview of the situation.
penny post=346507 wrote: I know the climate is changing because it has in the past and will continue to do so. The causes are many and most beyond our control.
The important thing to remember is that climate changes because of something forcing it to change. We have a good idea – not perfect, but very good – of what has forced the climate to change in the past and we know what is forcing it to change now. At present, human-caused CO2 emissions are the dominant influence.
penny post=346507 wrote: Sometimes we just have to agree to disagree and perhaps leave it at that.
If we are reading and understanding the same evidence, then differences of opinion are fine – everyone is entitled to their own opinion. The important thing is for those opinions to be formed from an understanding of the evidence. There is a mountain of misinformation out there and many noisy nay-sayers trying to muddy the waters. Don’t be trapped into forming an opinion based on misinformation. Don’t take my word for it either: seek out original research and listen to the people who understand it. Google is the greatest weapon in our armoury to combat propoganda.
The most important thing to understand is that the climate is changing: the globe is slowly warming up. Even if you don’t accept that we are the cause, this thread is about how to combat the effects of warming, irrespective of the source.July 24, 2012 at 10:43 pm #490576
Satellites See Unprecedented Greenland Ice Sheet Surface Melt
July 24, 2012: For several days this month, Greenland’s surface ice cover melted over a larger area than at any time in more than 30 years of satellite observations. Nearly the entire ice cover of Greenland, from its thin, low-lying coastal edges to its two-mile-thick center, experienced some degree of melting at its surface, according to measurements from three independent satellites analyzed by NASA and university scientists.
On average in the summer, about half of the surface of Greenland’s ice sheet naturally melts. At high elevations, most of that melt water quickly refreezes in place. Near the coast, some of the melt water is retained by the ice sheet and the rest is lost to the ocean. But this year the extent of ice melting at or near the surface jumped dramatically. According to satellite data, an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface thawed at some point in mid-July. Story Continued… Click Here
Extent of surface melt over Greenland’s ice sheet on July 8 (left) and July 12 (right). Measurements from three satellites showed that on July 8, about 40 percent of the ice sheet had undergone thawing at or near the surface. In just a few days, the melting had dramatically accelerated and an estimated 97 percent of the ice sheet surface had thawed by July 12.July 24, 2012 at 11:24 pm #490577
This kind of data, now and in the future, will be useful to determine the extent and the pace of climate change. More melt events of this magnitude more often will be a valuable indicator, for those who don’t understand the difference between weather and climate and then climate change/global warming. For those who understand climate change/global warming, as it exists, future events of this magnitude will only add to continued disappointment that humanity didn’t act on scientific advice 30 years ago.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.