CBC tonight at 9PM
- Thread starter Cuba Libre
- Start date
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Hey, Soxy--- I have to ask---what motivates you? How do you earn your paycheck? Come on now, 'fess up....
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
Plimer has been thoroughly discredited on many occasions. Plimer has become prominent among deniers and has authored 2 books critical of climate science. Most of his objections consist of long refuted talking points about solar cycles and bad models. Plimer suggests there is an outrageous conspiracy on the part of scientists and governments to promote global warming as a means of increasing tax revenue.
Plimer argues that volcanic activity releases more CO2 than all of humanity combined. This was quickly refuted by actual climate scientists, including the U.S. Geological Survey, who noted that humans released over 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes. Plimer's book "Heaven and Earth" misrepresents the content of cited sources 43 times, the nature of recreated graphs twice and recorded data at least 10 times. Ian G. Enting's lengthy analysis of Plimer's first book ("Checking the Claims" http://www.complex.org.au/tiki-download_file.php?fileId=91) ran to an impressive 64 pages of errors, misrepresentations and fabrications. Like any good crank, Plimer has continued to put forth these same debunked arguments over and over.
When journalist George Monbiot challenges him on his flawed data and the inaccuracy of his claims (like citing what he says is an ice core study in the southern hemisphere about the Medieval Warm Period when it's actually a borehole study from the northern hemisphere) he launches into grumpy-old-man rants about how young people these days need to learn some manners and stop interrupting him. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAQ7RzoI_Ns)
In 2011, he wrote a second climate change denial book, this one for children, entitled How to Get Expelled From School. Climate scepticism seems strongest among geologists like Plimer that are closely linked to the mining and fossil fuel industries. Perhaps the in the words of Upton Sinclair: "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it." However, the broader community of geologists seems convinced by the evidence that humans are causing global warming. The European Federation of Geologists says climate change is predominantly caused by anthropogenic emissions of CO2 and poses significant risks to human civilisation. The Geological Society of America concurs that "greenhouse gases have been an increasingly important contributor [to global warming] since the mid-1800s and the major factor since the mid-1900s". The Geological Society of London states that "evidence from the geological record is consistent with the physics that shows that adding large amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere warms the world and may lead to: higher sea levels and flooding of low-lying coasts; greatly changed patterns of rainfall; increased acidity of the oceans; and decreased oxygen levels in seawater".
If there is a real scientific case that challenges the views of almost all climate scientists about anthropogenic warming, why is so much of what is presented to the public based on fabrication?
GLG
Well-Known Member
Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility:
Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming
I have brought my previous study (see here [2] and here) [3] up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here [4].) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here [5].
My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here [6].
Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here [7]. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI [8] or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here [9].
Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming
I have brought my previous study (see here [2] and here) [3] up-to-date by reviewing peer-reviewed articles in scientific journals over the period from Nov. 12, 2012 through December 31, 2013. I found 2,258 articles, written by a total of 9,136 authors. (Download the chart above here [4].) Only one article, by a single author in the Herald of the Russian Academy of Sciences, rejected man-made global warming. I discuss that article here [5].
My previous study, of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 through Nov. 12, 2012, found 13,950 articles on “global warming” or “global climate change.” Of those, I judged that only 24 explicitly rejected the theory of man-made global warming. The methodology and details for the original and the new study are described here [6].
Anyone can repeat as much of the new study as they wish--all of it if they like. Download an Excel database of the 2,258 articles here [7]. It includes the title, document number, and Web of Science accession number. Scan the titles to identify articles that might reject man-made global warming. Then use the DOI [8] or WoS accession number to find and read the abstracts of those articles, and where necessary, the entire article. If you find any candidates that I missed, please email me here [9].
The scientific literature since 1991 contains a mountain of evidence confirming man-made global warming as true and no convincing evidence that it is false. Global warming denial is a house of cards.
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming
GLG
Well-Known Member
soxy... soxy...soxy.... Neil got you down huh... It's winter and you thought it should be hot.
Friends think your a little off.... come here for support and your not finding it.
Ford got you down again?????
soxy
Member
Foxsea, that vid was a joke. You sure you got the one? Georgie boy (a journalist) no qualifications for anything. All you have to do is read the comments. Monbiot makes a fool of himself as you are.
"monbiot is a climate normality denier! climate change has occured since before mankind walked this planet. and that has been the normality since time began. are we expected to believe a globalist schill like monbiot who is just a god dammned newspaper columist, or a scientist like plimer who speaks common sense with incredible eloquence. monbiot is just a mouthpiece for tax hikers"
"monbiot is a climate normality denier! climate change has occured since before mankind walked this planet. and that has been the normality since time began. are we expected to believe a globalist schill like monbiot who is just a god dammned newspaper columist, or a scientist like plimer who speaks common sense with incredible eloquence. monbiot is just a mouthpiece for tax hikers"
Last edited by a moderator:
soxy
Member
Foxsea
Well-Known Member
The Earth had its fourth-warmest year on record in 2013, equaling the level set in 2003, scientists from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) announced Tuesday.
The average temperature across global land and ocean surfaces was 1.12 degrees above the 20th-century average and marks the 37th consecutive year (since 1976) that the annual temperature was above the long-term average.
All of the top 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. The warmest year on record was 2010, NOAA reported.
Global temperature records go back to 1880.
This was one of the warmest years on record that did not include the warming influence of an El Nino climate pattern, according to Thomas Karl, director of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
Australia recorded its warmest year on record, while both Japan and South Korea endured their hottest summers on record.
The deadliest global weather disaster in 2013 was Super Typhoon Haiyan, which killed more than 5,700 people as it lashed the Philippines in November with record winds of more than 195 mph.
Last year, the most expensive weather disasters were in Europe, which included floods in central Europe and hailstorms in Germany, reported Munich Re, the world's largest reinsurance firm, earlier this month.
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Hey Soxy, I don't know you and you don't know me but my guess is, you have financial ties to the oil industry. Am I correct?
From what I have seen, the Climate Change Denial Camp falls into two categories:
Category No. 1)) Marginally educated people who like to think of themselves as fiscal conservatives and will spout fiscal conservative dogma at any occasion but who generally have zero analytic skills, zero intellectual curiosity, zero impetus to RESEARCH all sides of a topic before opening their mouths to make their pronouncements.
These pronouncements, when taken as a whole (with specific regards to greenhouse gas emissions, man's contribution to them, and the dire consequences of allowing the level of these greenhouse gas emissions to continue unabated), come to resemble "noise" rather then any type of logical intellectual summary or cogent conclusion based on having read and understood the existing "best science" of the time, science which CLEARLY underscores and seeks to quantify the dire consequences if man continues down this reckless path.
In my corner of the world, Sarah Palin and anyone even remotely associated with Fox News falls into this category.
The reoccurring theme is STUPIDITY (in Sarah Palin's case) or being paid huge amounts of money to act STUPID (Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity etc)
Category No. 2))-- Soxy, my guess is you fall into this category, which can be summed up as follows:
Soxy---The words I see missing from your eloquent posts are the following:
..." I am a shill for the oil industry. I am a rabid climate change denier because I make my living directly from the oil industry. In short, I AM AN HONEST MAN.
When I call people "goofs" and refer to them as being ignorant, I realize that I am on a thin-ice from the standpoint of having a logical intellectual argument to counter their claims and data, but I can't let the pronouncements of the scientific community nor can I allow a group of apologists for the scientific community get between me and my paycheck..."
Soxy, did I get any of that right?
From what I have seen, the Climate Change Denial Camp falls into two categories:
Category No. 1)) Marginally educated people who like to think of themselves as fiscal conservatives and will spout fiscal conservative dogma at any occasion but who generally have zero analytic skills, zero intellectual curiosity, zero impetus to RESEARCH all sides of a topic before opening their mouths to make their pronouncements.
These pronouncements, when taken as a whole (with specific regards to greenhouse gas emissions, man's contribution to them, and the dire consequences of allowing the level of these greenhouse gas emissions to continue unabated), come to resemble "noise" rather then any type of logical intellectual summary or cogent conclusion based on having read and understood the existing "best science" of the time, science which CLEARLY underscores and seeks to quantify the dire consequences if man continues down this reckless path.
In my corner of the world, Sarah Palin and anyone even remotely associated with Fox News falls into this category.
The reoccurring theme is STUPIDITY (in Sarah Palin's case) or being paid huge amounts of money to act STUPID (Bill O'Reilley, Sean Hannity etc)
Category No. 2))-- Soxy, my guess is you fall into this category, which can be summed up as follows:
Soxy---The words I see missing from your eloquent posts are the following:
..." I am a shill for the oil industry. I am a rabid climate change denier because I make my living directly from the oil industry. In short, I AM AN HONEST MAN.
When I call people "goofs" and refer to them as being ignorant, I realize that I am on a thin-ice from the standpoint of having a logical intellectual argument to counter their claims and data, but I can't let the pronouncements of the scientific community nor can I allow a group of apologists for the scientific community get between me and my paycheck..."
Soxy, did I get any of that right?
Last edited by a moderator:
walleyes
Crew Member
Well at least a guy can always count on all these climate change advocates to keep us busy..
Life looks good.. Thx all..
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-forecast-21618696?ref=https://www.google.ca/
Life looks good.. Thx all..
http://abcnews.go.com/International...-forecast-21618696?ref=https://www.google.ca/
Last edited by a moderator:
soxy
Member
While hypocrites like sharphooks, GLG and Fauxsea use oil products just like the rest of us.
el.Pereh
Well-Known Member
Irrelevant.
Sharphooks
Well-Known Member
Calling me a hypocrite for worrying about greenhouse gas emissions while generating my own is one line of defense, Soxy.
But it doesn't answer the question of where you get your paycheck.
I'm in the commercial seafood sector. My guys burn piles of carbon-based petroleum products to chase their paychecks. All of them would welcome cheaper diesel fuel, no doubt.
But the over-riding question is--- what would you be willing to trade to get that cheaper diesel fuel and what are the long-term consequences of that trade?
That is the real question here.
I have a big puker of a truck that gets approx. 7 km per liter. I need that truck for my business. But it rarely gets used. It sits in my driveway 95% of the time. As a trade-off for having purchased that truck, I've used an electric bicycle for the last decade. That's what I use for my day to day banking, trips to the post office, and grocery shopping.
That's my carbon credit for owning that big puker of a truck. You probably think it's cheesey, an inconsequential attempt at pretending to be "green"
So what have you done to justify your existence, Soxy, besides freely insulting people willing to have a logical discussion about what secretly, maybe after a drink or two, even you would admit is HUGE problem that our children and their children's children will be forced to inherit (whether they want to or not)
What a crappy legacy, all because a group of people (and their apologists) who rely on resource extraction fueled by short-term profits have decided to shoot the messenger who dares to even insinuate that short-term profiteering from rampant carbon-based resource extraction has HUGE global consequences, the cost of which could very well make those short-term profits look like chump change
You know it and I know it and everyone reading this thread knows it
But it doesn't answer the question of where you get your paycheck.
I'm in the commercial seafood sector. My guys burn piles of carbon-based petroleum products to chase their paychecks. All of them would welcome cheaper diesel fuel, no doubt.
But the over-riding question is--- what would you be willing to trade to get that cheaper diesel fuel and what are the long-term consequences of that trade?
That is the real question here.
I have a big puker of a truck that gets approx. 7 km per liter. I need that truck for my business. But it rarely gets used. It sits in my driveway 95% of the time. As a trade-off for having purchased that truck, I've used an electric bicycle for the last decade. That's what I use for my day to day banking, trips to the post office, and grocery shopping.
That's my carbon credit for owning that big puker of a truck. You probably think it's cheesey, an inconsequential attempt at pretending to be "green"
So what have you done to justify your existence, Soxy, besides freely insulting people willing to have a logical discussion about what secretly, maybe after a drink or two, even you would admit is HUGE problem that our children and their children's children will be forced to inherit (whether they want to or not)
What a crappy legacy, all because a group of people (and their apologists) who rely on resource extraction fueled by short-term profits have decided to shoot the messenger who dares to even insinuate that short-term profiteering from rampant carbon-based resource extraction has HUGE global consequences, the cost of which could very well make those short-term profits look like chump change
You know it and I know it and everyone reading this thread knows it
Last edited by a moderator:
soxy
Member
Well I don't drive anymore period SH. I don't even own a vehicle. I'm 63 and retired. I worked for DFO for 15 years before that. Construction before that. So no my income has nothing to do with oil. Your sleuthing was in vain. Sorry to disappoint. Its always your views and god help anyone that says anything different. They get attacked for stating them. Even though I don't have the gift of the gab if I see posts that I disagree with i'll say so, not hide under a rock and the hell with eloquentcy.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Englishman
Well-Known Member
Soxy,
You keep clingiing on to this naive idea that climate change is about "views and opinions" like monetary policy or modern art. It is not it is about FACTS EVIDENCE AND SCIENCE. El.pereh post a large list of professional scientific organisations that agree the evidence is clear that anthropogenic factors are the cause of climate change.
And the yet you SERIUOSLY believe your opinion trumps all the science and knowledge represented by those academic organisations. That is not just arrogance on your part. It is delusional.
Last edited by a moderator:
Similar threads
