• Welcome, guest!

    This is a forum devoted to discussion of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Why not sign up and contribute? Registered members get a fully ad-free experience!

Climate Change Debate

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/12/fracking-will-be-allowed-under-national-parks

But energy and climate change minister Amber Rudd told MPs on Wednesday: “In the case of AONBs and national parks, given their size and dispersion, it might not be practical to guarantee that fracking will not take place under them in all cases without unduly constraining the industry.”
Click to expand...

Perish the thought that we might constrain an industry by suggesting they shouldnt drill under National Parks.

Greenest government ever, my arse.
 
You should hear Alaska's governor responding to Obama's attempt to mark large swathes of the state as protected.

Paraphrasing, she called it a "direct assault on Alaskan jobs". Moron.
 
Thankfully this thread seems to have returned to some reasoned discussion.
I made the point earlier that record adjustment although it may be valid is by necessity an opinion.
All is fine if error bounds are acknowledged. The Guardian having a hissy fit about 0.02 Celcius should at least concern Vis.
ALL of the acknowledged temperature series show no statistically significant warming for nigh on 20 years in stark contrast to the model output.
I doubt if anyone has an authoritive global energy budget that can support the hypothetical increase in ocean heat content, let alone tie it down to an anthropogenic forcing. The metrology to measure such simply does not exist.
 
I'm not sure reposting articles produced by paid lobbyists helps your argument. It merely cements your reputation as a dogmatist who is uninterested in evidence.
 
Who are the lobbyists paid by? A quick wiki of Cato shows a respected organisation that looks at many things - one of its segments seems to be that man does contribute to global warming but that the effects are very overstated.

Is it just wrong because it's a different view to yours, or is there evidence that they are paid to put out a false view?
 
They also own a chemical company that has a diabolical record in terms of environmental pollution. Their policy in the nineties is used widely as a case study for poor environmental performance.
 
Visage said:
I'm not sure reposting articles produced by paid lobbyists helps your argument. It merely cements your reputation as a dogmatist who is uninterested in evidence.
Click to expand...

I don't think he has a reputation as a dogmatist. I think he debates very well, in what he believes in. He is a free thinker, who makes his own mind up about things.

You don't win debates by labelling people, or insults.
 
Anyone that ignores evidence because it doesnt fit a faith-based position cannot claim to be a free thinker.
 
I could claim that 2+2=5, and that would certainly be evidence of free thinking, and an unwillingness to conform to conventional wisdom. It wouldnt stop me being wrong though.
 
Visage said:
I could claim that 2+2=5, and that would certainly be evidence of free thinking, and an unwillingness to conform to conventional wisdom. It wouldnt stop me being wrong though.
Click to expand...

The problem is, Visage. The climate debate is about interpretation of scientific data. There are different opinions about the accuracy of the data.
Because someone doesn't have the same opinion as you, doesn't mean they are dogmatic, or even wrong.
Insulting people, doesn't make you right, but more like you are struggling with the debate.
 
And if HGW were to put up legitimate concerns and argue his case then that would be fine and dandy. Putting up a succession of blog posts that simply repeat discredited claims isnt.

To go back to my example, its akin to arguing that 2+2=5 by quoting other people saying the same thing. Thats not evidence of anything other than someone else sharing your view.
 
Visage said:
And if HGW were to put up legitimate concerns and argue his case then that would be fine and dandy. Putting up a succession of blog posts that simply repeat discredited claims isnt.

To go back to my example, its aking to arguing that 2+2=5 by quoting other people saying the same thing. Thats not evidence of anything other than someone else sharing your view.
Click to expand...

He isn't saying 2+2 =5!
 
He's suggesting 2+2 might be 5, even though all the mathematicians in the world agree that it's 4.
 
Here's another analogy - it's like having an arse kicking competition with a one legged man
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top