Climate sceptic scientist lets the evidence change his mind.

[Guest]

Humans may induce climate change Chook but not to the degree (pardon the pun) that the lefty, greenies are claiming mate. That was the point in her saying that. But you already knew that anyway you cheeky bastard.

So do you agree that humans induce climate change it's just a matter of measuring by how much?

Chook.

As BM and the old duck have said, humans may induce climate change somewhat, which they have been for thousands of years, but not to the percentages that some 'scientists' are dribbling.

Do you think a carbon tax will reverse or stop this 'climate change' Chookman?

[Guest]

All my news these days comes from twitter and my education comes from geniuses like chook on this forum

[Guest]

As BM and the old duck have said, humans may induce climate change somewhat, which they have been for thousands of years, but not to the percentages that some 'scientists' are dribbling.

Do you think a carbon tax will reverse or stop this 'climate change' Chookman?

To answer your question no, the carbon tax will neither stop nor reverse human induced climate change. But it was never meant to do so. The carbon tax is a pollution tax, whereas before polluting was free now companies have to pay to pollute.

Now onto your admission that, regardless of the amount, humans induce climate change, as therein lies the fundemental flaw with the whole sceptic argument. It changes and changes and changes and changes and changes!

From the beginning climate scientists have said the globe is warming and humans are more than likely responsible for that warming.

In the beginning climate change sceptics argued that the globe is not warming. It's not happening they all cried, nope, nothing, zero, isn't occuring, nothing to see here.

Then when climate scientists proved the globe was warming and that they still believed humans were the cause, the sceptics changed tact.

Oh ok so it is warming but it's the sun, it's volcanoes, it's natural, it's the re-allignment of the stars, it's cloud cover.

Now that climate scientists have ruled out all the above and still believe it's human causing the warming, the sceptics change tact yet again.

Oh ok so the planet is warming, and humans are causing it, but not by much, it's not very much, in fact it's infinitismal.

And when climate scientists prove the sceptics wrong yet again, I'm almost certain all the sceptics out there will change tact accordingly, just like a herd of small furry creatures that like to follow one another over cliffs.

I'm joking but can you see my point.

All along climate scientists have been saying exactly the same thing, it is the sceptics that have changed their tunes and will continue to do so because in most cases it's in their own financial interests.

But then it's the climate scientists that get called dodgy and disreputable and money grabbing liars when in fact it is the sceptics that are the liars and dodgy and the money grabbing arseholes.

Chook.

[Guest]

We're all going to die.

The sky is falling down.

It's guesswork Chook based on "research" done by "scientists" in the last 5 years since this became a trendy cause for the rainbow coalition. All looking for and finding the same conclusion. What a surprise!

Now they can all sleep sound at night knowing Australia is getting poorer and no cleaner and nor is the rest of the world because these lunatics ignore simple economic concepts like the substitution effect.

Yay for green socialism

[Guest]

And once again Chook is 100% correct, the lemmings are lining up.

http://www.smh.com.au/environment/cl...730-23a6s.html

AUSTRALIA'S climate change sceptics remain defiant following the self-described ''conversion'' of the prominent sceptic scientist Richard Muller, who had led a vast international research effort to debunk global warming science.

Professor Muller's team, partly funded by US fossil fuel interests, has now made public its findings and concluded that human emissions are driving climate change at a slightly faster rate than that asserted by the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

Professor Muller, a physicist at the University of California, Berkeley, said the results had prompted a ''total turnaround'' in his views. ''We were not expecting this, but as scientists, it is our duty to let the evidence change our minds,'' he said.

The results were obtained by re-examining more than 14 million temperature records at thousands of sites around the world, and excluding those that sceptics had believed were artificially enhancing global warming data.


Australian climate change sceptics were largely unmoved.

''I'm not convinced that [Professor Muller] was ever a sceptic although, of people I respect, there is a couple who do have a decent opinion of him,'' said blogger Jo Nova in Perth, the author of The Skeptic's Handbook.

Ms Nova said she did not expect climate change sceptics to change their minds because there were still potential flaws in Professor Muller's work.

''If [Professor Muller's study] removed stations that are near concrete, car parks, airports and airconditioners, and used only the best data we have, I'd be open to accept their warming trend calculations,'' she said. ''But even so, it's another leap entirely to say that just because the world has warmed that it's man-made.''

The ''urban heat island effect'' is real - it has been documented by meteorologists for decades - but the Bureau of Meteorology removes suspect thermometer sites from its climate change measurements. The two groups of data - one for weather forecasting and one for climate - are available for scrutiny on its website.

Another prominent sceptic group, the Galileo Movement, said its views would not change because of Professor Muller's study. The group includes broadcaster Alan Jones as its patron, and Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Andrew Bolt as advisers.

''We've based our views on empirical science, and there's nothing in the Muller study to undercut that,'' said the Galileo Movement's manager, Malcolm Roberts, a former mining engineer and company director.

Mr Roberts said climate change science had been captured by ''some of the major banking families in the world'' who form a ''tight-knit cabal''.

He said he understood that the group's views might sound strange, but claimed they were becoming increasingly popular.

''It does sound outlandish,'' Mr Roberts said. ''I, like you, was reluctant to believe it [but] there are significant things going on in Australia that people are waking up to. The UN's climate front is just a part of the overall UN 'Agenda 21', which is the sustainability program and the biodiversity program … But the biggest one's the UN agenda for global governance.''

__________________________________________________ _____________________________________________

I love their conspiracy bullshit language - tight knit cabal - significant going ons - UN's climate front - Agenda 21, all sounds very sinister except for the fact these retards cannot prove a bloody thing. This is the best part - "The group includes broadcaster Alan Jones as its patron, and Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Andrew Bolt as advisers." What would call this quartet, A Cabal of Lemmings? lol

Allan Jones is nothing but a media sock puppet for anyone who pays him, and I proved Andrew Bolt wrong so many times on Global Warming I was banned from his blog. lol

Here you are lemmings, line up, fall in step and to follow your heroes.

Chook.

[melon....]

Always interested in a differing opinion mleon, but even she says humans induce climate change, is she right?

Chook.

She's more than entitled to that opinion. As is everyone. She isnt ramming it down my throat and labelling me an evil denier though. And she casts enough doubt in the conclusiveness of the so called science to make it a continuing debate and far from settled.

[Guest]

I love their conspiracy bullshit language - tight knit cabal - significant going ons - UN's climate front - Agenda 21, all sounds very sinister except for the fact these retards cannot prove a bloody thing. This is the best part - "The group includes broadcaster Alan Jones as its patron, and Ian Plimer, Bob Carter and Andrew Bolt as advisers." What would call this quartet, A Cabal of Lemmings? lol

Allan Jones is nothing but a media sock puppet for anyone who pays him, and I proved Andrew Bolt wrong so many times on Global Warming I was banned from his blog. lol

Here you are lemmings, line up, fall in step and to follow your heroes.

Chook.[/QUOTE]

Ha ha ha ha

Quality comedy Chook Quality


We're the lemmings. Thanks for educating us. You are the one with the open rational mind.

Thank you

[Guest]

She's more than entitled to that opinion. As is everyone. She isnt ramming it down my throat and labelling me an evil denier though. And she casts enough doubt in the conclusiveness of the so called science to make it a continuing debate and far from settled.

You haven't answered the question melon, is she right when she says humans induce climate change?

Chook.

[Guest]

I remember living in the U.S. in 1988/9 (the good old days) and the funding of climate science research went from about 20 million a year during the Reagan years to 8 billion in Bush Snr's first year.

That was around about the time of the CFC/Ozone Layer debate. Which I think was when Maurice Strong was involved in the climate change situation.

[melon....]

You haven't answered the question melon, is she right when she says humans induce climate change?

Chook.

No. I dont think she is correct. I think human impact, compared to natural impact, is negligible. Certainly not enough to influence climate. Pollution one the other hand (real polution not this false term called Carbon Pollution), is defintely up there. We do more to poison air, water and earth with chemical by-product (real toxins not CO2) than we do to change climate. Infinitely more.

Our contribution to climate change is so miniscule, I can safely say we do not influence, tip, nor drive where climate is heading.

We'll poison our fresh water stocks well before we become responsible for raising or lowering temps by even 1 degree.

[Guest]

Bingo Melon

[Guest]

No. I dont think she is correct. I think human impact, compared to natural impact, is negligible. Certainly not enough to influence climate. Pollution one the other hand (real polution not this false term called Carbon Pollution), is defintely up there. We do more to poison air, water and earth with chemical by-product (real toxins not CO2) than we do to change climate. Infinitely more.

Our contribution to climate change is so miniscule, I can safely say we do not influence, tip, nor drive where climate is heading.

We'll poison our fresh water stocks well before we become responsible for raising or lowering temps by even 1 degree.

And again you highlight another major flaw in the sceptics argument. Even when both sets of scientists, climate scientists and sceptic scientists say the same thing, that humans induce climate change, you guys don't believe it. You'd rather believe your own beliefs rather than facts derived by research and analysis from either side of the debate. You'd rather believe your beliefs than imperical data and results?

You'd rather believe what you want rather than the facts.

It is not the climate change believers who are the zealots in this debate melon, it is you deniers as you and morls have demonstrated right here. You with refusing to even believe a scientist that you referenced to support your argument and morls with his typical lemming responce.

I said earlier that regardless of who says it deniers will simply refuse to believe that humans induce climate change. And you proved that point. And that's fine, you can choose not to believe in it just as you can choose not to believe the Earth is round. But in doing so you forfeit the right to argue the facts because you dismiss the facts in favour of your own beliefs.

Chook.

[Guest]

Chook. You keep repeating the same stuff and telling us we are not listening to the facts.

I heard you. I don't agree.

Shouting at people and repeating yourself does not make you right. It makes you Ricky Stuart and like him you will eventually be found wanting and voted off the island.

[Guest]

Chook. You keep repeating the same stuff and telling us we are not listening to the facts.

I heard you. I don't agree.

Shouting at people and repeating yourself does not make you right. It makes you Ricky Stuart and like him you will eventually be found wanting and voted off the island.

The facts make me right and you wrong. Your belief is irrellevant.

Chook.

[Guest]

Your reading of the facts Chook

You know what opinions are like Chook...they are like you: a rseholes