• 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

YoungWolf said:
I don't think anyone is forcing Pav or PPB to read this, so I don't understand their problem.

I quite enjoy reading it!
Click to expand...

Totally agree. Apart from Hazelgrove trying to write big long sentences that sound clever, the two lads are having a good debate, as it is the Climate Change debate thread after all, and there's no insults being thrown around clogging up the thread.

To ask them to continue via PM is beyond cheeky IMO.
 
Visage said:
Then ask!
Click to expand...

But you and Hazel don't write in words or sentences that I understand!! And he says one thing and you say another, and you're left wondering who is right and who is just talking bollocks.

I do read this thread, just wished I could understand it more :(
 
tredman said:
Pav I agree this thread is terrible, but as awful and as boring as it is everyone has a duty to confront idiots like HGW. When he's long gone it will be our children reaping the results of narrow minded bigoted engineers such as him.
Click to expand...

Evidence? BTW my eldest son is studying for a geography degree, he is looking at a climate related dissertation for the up coming final year. Things are a lot less certain than you assert. It was noticable when he was chosing a university that opinion varied between universities, Man Met (former poly) was downright militant for example. The kids aren't stupid.
Engineering certainly doesn't permit bigoted opinion, you get found out.
 
Pittpenguinbabe said:
But you and Hazel don't write in words or sentences that I understand!! And he says one thing and you say another, and you're left wondering who is right and who is just talking bollocks.

I do read this thread, just wished I could understand it more :(
Click to expand...

We just demonstrate that the political and media presentation of the subject as 'settled' is far from the truth either the theory or the solutions.
 
thehistorymakers said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33182065
Click to expand...

I wondered when someone would mention that on here. Funny how he doesn't like contraception and wants to reduce poverty while denying access to resources that help to solve the real problems. I dislike religious arguements for the simple fantasy they represent beyond some moral code and allegorical phylosophy.
The good news is that fracking for gas in the North West is to go ahead and financial support for onshore wind is to be removed ASAP.
 
The one thing all of those dissenting groups have in common is a complete lack of experience in the field of climatology.

Are they arguing from a position of knowledge, or from a position of dogma?
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
"continues to be discredited".
Click to expand...
Surely the consistency of discreditation in this area has been the climate change deniers.
The only time I thought the MMGW science was questionable was when news of the Climatic Research Unit emails scandal broke. But when 8 committees that investigated the allegations published reports finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, I was again a believer.
Time and time again we find out the denier's "work" have been funded by the energy industry. The most recent (that I know of) was Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. A Drexel University study found that a large slice of donations to organizations and individuals that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder.
 
Visage said:
The one thing all of those dissenting groups have in common is a complete lack of experience in the field of climatology.

Are they arguing from a position of knowledge, or from a position of dogma?
Click to expand...

Really, I challenge you to define climatologist. I'm guessing that it is a bit like self appointed astrologist unless you show otherwise.
The sceptical view has physicist and engineer written right through it like Blackpool rock.
 
LukeO9 said:
Surely the consistency of discreditation in this area has been the climate change deniers.
The only time I thought the MMGW science was questionable was when news of the Climatic Research Unit emails scandal broke. But when 8 committees that investigated the allegations published reports finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct, I was again a believer.
Time and time again we find out the denier's "work" have been funded by the energy industry. The most recent (that I know of) was Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics. A Drexel University study found that a large slice of donations to organizations and individuals that deny global warming are funneled through third-party pass-through organizations that conceal the original funder.
Click to expand...

I think you will find that almost all sceptics have no funding other than their own conscience, me included. I suggest you look up Lindzen, Curry, Spencer and many others. A debate exists don't let anyone convince you otherwise. Something your present PM takes on board.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
Really, I challenge you to define climatologist. I'm guessing that it is a bit like self appointed astrologist unless you show otherwise.
The sceptical view has physicist and engineer written right through it like Blackpool rock.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. Yet to meet any physicist who doesn't believe in climate change.

And the only 'engineer' skeptic I have come across is yourself. And as you are a faceless 'engineer' spouting unproven nonsense on the Internet, backed up by non-scientific people such as delingpole I doubt you actually are an engineer.
 
tredman said:
Rubbish. Yet to meet any physicist who doesn't believe in climate change.

And the only 'engineer' skeptic I have come across is yourself. And as you are a faceless 'engineer' spouting unproven nonsense on the Internet, backed up by non-scientific people such as delingpole I doubt you actually are an engineer.
Click to expand...

I believe in climate change, I just think that natural forcings are to be accepted. I am not alone.
 
HAzelGroveWolf said:
I belive in climate change, I just think that natural forcings are to be accepted. I am not alone.
Click to expand...

I missed out man made - read thew above again and imagine man made before climate change.

People such as yourself are the most dangerous people on the planet.
 
Johnny75 said:
I read all of that and you're wrong. It's not worth looking at. In fact it's a lot of disinformation, scurrilous lies and bullshit opinion. All backed up with.......... absolutely nothing.

Written by an utter prick to boot. Well done HGW.
Click to expand...

You could of course pick (not prick) your counter assertions to Booker's arguements.
Granted some of it is political arguement but there is factual basis.
I don't resort to abuse.
 
tredman said:
I missed out man made - read thew above again and imagine man made before climate change.

People such as yourself are the most dangerous people on the planet.
Click to expand...

Evidence please. Explain the necessary positive feedback of increased carbon dioxide to water vapour.
Explain also why that is important given the heat content and physics of the oceans.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top