• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

High price for load of hot air

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,254
Reaction score
580
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Climate scientist says global warming stopped in 1998... *

" The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998. Oddly, this eight-year-long temperature stasis has occurred despite an increase over the same period of 15 parts per million (or 4 per cent) in atmospheric CO2. Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events and large volcanic eruptions, show little if any global warming since 1979, a period over which atmospheric CO2 has increased by 55 ppm (17 per cent).
Third, there are strong indications from solar studies that Earth's current temperature stasis will be followed by climatic cooling over the next few decades."



"As leading economist David Henderson has pointed out, it is extremely dangerous for an unelected and unaccountable body like the IPCC to have a monopoly on climate policy advice to governments. And even more so because, at heart, the IPCC is a political and not a scientific agency.
Australia does not ask the World Bank to set its annual budget and neither should it allow the notoriously alarmist IPCC to set its climate policy.


It is past time for those who have deceived governments and misled the public regarding dangerous human-caused global warming to be called to account. Aided by hysterical posturing by green NGOs, their actions have led to the cornering of government on the issue and the likely implementation of futile emission policies that will impose direct extra costs on every household and enterprise in Australia to no identifiable benefit."



Professor Bob Carter is an environmental scientist at James Cook University who studies ancient climate change


Hmmmm there goes that consensus again.
 
How come every time I refute your disingenuous arguments, you just cut-and-run from your own threads, then create another similar thread a few days later? Why not just stay and refute my points if you truly believe you're correct, or else concede that you were wrong?
 
I'm sure it has nothing to do with his opinions on climate change, but according to source watch:

Carter is a member of the right-wing think tank the Institute of Public Affairs [8], and a founding member of the Australian Environment Foundation, a front group set up by the Institute of Public Affairs.

Bob Carter - SourceWatch

The Institute of Public Affairs is and Australian conservative think tank funded by these companies:

Funding
The IPA has heavily relied on funding from a small number of conservative corporations. Those funders disclosed by the IPA to journalists and media organisations include:

Major mining companies - BHP-Billiton and Western Mining Corporation;
Pesticides/Genetically modified organisms: Monsanto; and
A range of other companies including communications company Telstra, Clough Engineering, Visy, and News Limited;
Tobacco companies - Philip Morris (Nahan) and British American Tobacco [6]
Oil and gas companies: Caltex, Esso Australia (a subsidiary of Exxon) and Shell [www.ips.org] and Woodside Petroleum; and fifteen major companies in the electricity industry; (Nahan 2)
Forestry: Gunns, the largest logging company in Tasmania; (Nahan 3)
Murray Irrigation Ltd - a major irrigation company contributed $40,000.[7]
However, financial support for the IPA has diminished over the seven years from 1995-96 when the IA received $1.4 million to just over $669,000 in 2001-2002 (figures unadjusted for inflation).


The fact that Carter's organization is funded by the likes of Exxon and Shell I'm sure has nothing to do with his opinions on global warming. He even said so:

He said the role of peer review in scientific literature was overstressed, and whether or not a scientist had been funded by the fossil fuel industry was irrelevant to the validity of research. "I don't think it is the point whether or not you are paid by the coal or petroleum industry," said Professor Carter. "I will address the evidence."

Good for him!
 
How come every time I refute your disingenuous arguments,

Not my arguments, I post from authoritative sources and they remain unrefutted

you just cut-and-run from your own threads,

You know if you are going to respond then you should at least be honest about it.

The last two threads I started in this section I AM THE MOST RECENT POSTER IN THEM. So if you are just going to go around flaming people at least be get it straight.

Since the original argument remains unrefuted what else is there to say?

then create another similar thread a few days later?

All my post are unique to themselves and from authoritative sources.

Why not just stay and refute my points if you truly believe you're correct, or else concede that you were wrong?

Why don't you refute what is posted so that then there might be something substantive to respond to, as usual you don't debate the subject but the poster, I'm not interested in responding to your nonsense.
 
The last two threads I started in this section I AM THE MOST RECENT POSTER IN THEM. So if you are just going to go around flaming people at least be get it straight.

It sure looks to me like I'm the last poster in this:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/Environment/21184-warming-plan-denver-crackdown-residents-2.html

You never bothered to respond, probably because A) the science goes right over your head, despite my best efforts to use simple words; B) you knew you couldn't refute any of it; or C) a little of both.

Stinger said:
Why don't you refute what is posted so that then there might be something substantive to respond to, as usual you don't debate the subject but the poster, I'm not interested in responding to your nonsense.

Every time I debate the subject, you ignore the posts, as proven in the thread I linked to above. Sadly, the only way to get your attention again is to call you out on your bullshit. And then you whine about *me* not debating the subject.
 
You never bothered to respond, probably because A) the science goes right over your head, despite my best efforts to use simple words; B) you knew you couldn't refute any of it; or C) a little of both.

The whole post went over you head and you went into your attack mode.

Debate the subject not the poster.
 
How come every time I refute your disingenuous arguments, you just cut-and-run from your own threads, then create another similar thread a few days later? Why not just stay and refute my points if you truly believe you're correct, or else concede that you were wrong?

Moderator's Warning:
If you have a problem with another member, please address it via PM and keep the thread on topic.
 
Not credible by a longshot.

The salient facts are these. First, the accepted global average temperature statistics used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change show that no ground-based warming has occurred since 1998.

He's wrong, those records show warming is continuing:
gat2005.png


That spike in 1998 was caused by a very strong El Nino event. See why he starts off in 1998? Is that an honest place to start the trend given that El Nino is a non-greenhouse effect?

Second, lower atmosphere satellite-based temperature measurements, if corrected for non-greenhouse influences such as El Nino events

Seems like he corrects for El Nino events only when it suits his argument.
 
The CRU record I posted is ground based, and that is the record he is talking about. The one the IPCC use, and the one he directly quoted when he made the same argument over a year ago (There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998 | St Opinion | Opinion | Telegraph). His whole argument is based on cherrypicking a start point of 1998, not adjusting for El Nino, and ignoring the long term trend which has been up since 1998 regardless of that particular year. It's an attempt at deceiving readers, pure and simple.
 
Just from a medical standpoint, I was not diagnosing tropical diseases in 1998 unless they were imported. I am seeing dengue fever now in patients who have not travelled outside the southern United States. The CDC has us on alert for this as an up and coming infection for those of us who practice in the southern United States. . Apparently this virus is responding to global warming as it extends its reach north of its usual equatorial, tropical territory. Interesting huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom