Climate talks fail

Post Reply New Topic

Absolutely!
Attack the main offender of plant food emissions, China.

.04% (point 04%) in the air is CO2.
Nature produces 97% of CO2.
Humans produce 3%.

The ABC is a disgrace.

Facts can be very inconvenient for those who wish to avoid the exposure of a scam.

For those who can't or won't watch the video:

The one accused of lying is David Karoly- a phony professor whose claim to fame is aggressive promotion of the CAGW political agenda in Australia:
David Karoly is the Leader of the Earth Systems and Climate Change Hub in the Australian Government’s National Environmental Science Program, based in CSIRO. He is also an honorary Professor in the School of Earth Sciences at the University of Melbourne.

The person refuting "professor" Karoly's claims is Nils-Axel Mörner- an actual scientist with expertise in relevant fields of study:
Nils-Axel Mörner
Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Institute Stockholm, Sweden
Position: Head of institute
Description: The separate unit of Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics (P&G) at Stockholm University was established in 1991 with main research topics in global sea level changes, neotectonics & paleoseismology, glacial isostasy and paleomagnetism.

I knew I would catch you eventually...sneaky...

I can confirm three things
1. The big Chute is a right wing propoganda machine which is why I never heard of it
2. Your reliance on this as a source of information indicates both your bias and your lack of education
3. Nils Axel Morner is renowned fraud, among his claims to fame are that he possesses paranormal abilities to find water and metal using a dowsing rod, and that he has discovered "the Hong Kong of the [ancient] Greeks" in Sweden.
The celebrated debunker of cobblers James Randi challenged Mörner to demonstrate his expertise with a dowsing rod, but he "consistently refused to be tested".
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... vel-claims

"an actual scientist"

Ignore mode temporarily off...

I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, but:

You haven't confirmed diddly-squat.

1) You're pulling lies out of your backside again.
'The big Chute' 'right wing propoganda machine' you refer to doesn't even exist.

2) A: see #1
. B: Project much? You really should take a look in a mirror sometime.

3) Has nothing whatsoever to do with the subject at hand and is simply yet another feeble attempt at misdirection. I see that you not only conveniently ignored the professional qualifications of Prof. Mörner, but also the lack thereof RE: the real fraudster in this case: David Karoly.

Lies, misdirection, ad hominem attacks... how very... Progressive.

Ignore mode: Reactivated

"criticise the source to invalidate the argument" - cyberdad

"The Guardian" as a reference point. <snigger>

Yes, I know,
Even "Stormfront" will report the truth from time to time.

People can validly utilise questionable sources,
But it usually comes at the cost of credibility.

Yep, this is a tricky subject.
Fortunately, I am way tricky.

You're really deluded if you think facts is on your side.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/


Nowadays conservatives media are spouting a MASSIVE amount of lies and misdirection and it work, peoples love being told lies.
Ad hominem attacks? Like the attacks on Al Gore and Greta Thunberg? Seem to me that a great deal of the attcks on the reality of climate changes are ad hominem attacks.

Am I really? You obviously haven't been keeping up with the conversation at hand.


Perhaps that's true in Quebec.. where I'm at it's the leftists that are spouting the crazy talk. You are right about people loving their lies though. Sadly, most people will happily eat up whatever propaganda is fed to them.


How about the constant use of the label "denier" used against *anyone* who who dares to question the doom and gloom narrative? Does that qualify as ad hominem in your view?


Seems to me you are selectively filtering your perceptions based upon what you want to hear.

This is what I see from many of those who are pushing the climate catastrophe story:

A strong us vs them mentality. (Can you say 'Deniers'?)

Dissent and criticism are not permitted and there is no tolerance for questions or critical inquiry. (Anyone who demonstrates an ability to think for themselves is shouted down and insulted.)

Intentional misdirection. (If a statement hits too close to home or an inconvenient fact comes to light, change the subject.)

Lying is not only allowed but often required. (Can't let a few facts get in the way of a cherished belief.)

A belief that the end justifies the means. (The planet is doomed if we don't do something.)

Incidentally, these same behaviours are also considered to be indicators of cult participation.

Oh you really were masquerading as impartial observer weren't you

You picked the wrong target...David Karoly is an internationally recognised expert in climate change modelling and a recipient of the 2007 Nobel prize for his research. He held a position of professor in the most presitigious university in Australia and was a lead author in the IPCC. You claims about Karoly are as credible as saying mother Theresa was an agent of satan.

Your hero Nils-Axel Morner (who you are at great pains to put on a pedestal) is a notorious fraudster making false claims about sea levels not rising. The man would be throttled if he ever dared set foot on any of the small little islands in the Pacific or Indian ocean where native people watch their land go underwater.

He is part of a a climate science denial group with links to President Trump’s administration has been funding work to sow doubt that low-lying islands in the Pacific are at risk from rising sea levels.

The two researchers being funded — one of which is a well-known climate science denier — have targeted little known “open access” journals with dubious quality controls to get their work published.
The CO2 Coalition funded the work and in March 2017 sent well-known climate science denier Nils-Axel Mörner to Fiji with Pamela Matlack-Klein, who has described herself as having a degree from the “Oceanographic Center of Nova Southeastern University, Dania, Florida, in 1983” and writes a weekly newspaper column.
https://www.desmogblog.com/2018/01/18/c ... y-journals

Last edited by cyberdad on 26 Dec 2019, 4:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

You forgot to switch off your autopilot button

This is the thing that pisses me off the most.
That,
And sand in my underpants.

Anyone who tries to inhibit healthy scientific scepticism lacks intellectual integrity, in my scientific journal.
This is why I have no time for: "Theconversation.com".

And there I was thinking it was *you* with "autopilot" switched on permanently.
Well, it could be both if you look at all the possible permutations.

You were correct. As in often flying by the seat of his pants.

He just doesn't want me to keep posting that every time he qustions a source, since he criticized me for doing so, which is what that quote is part of.

Rule number 6 don't lay something on someone that will keep coming back to bite you on the buttocks.

Those so-called skeptics should bring real proofs first, or at least offer explanations that are stronger rather the weaker on recorded observations; so far they are doing neither, and are spreading disinformation to cloud public perception and judgment.

Scientists not taking climate changes deniers seriously is the same as not taking creationists, homeopaths, flat-earthers or anti-vaccines seriously; they offer no real criticism and only have success thanks to a gullible public.

I like listening to debates by professionals on climate change and weigh both sides.