Or you have stated your opinion on it while avoiding discussion of actual empirical evidence.Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC's motives has already been addressed.....
Or you have stated your opinion on it while avoiding discussion of actual empirical evidence.Sorry, boys, but the reality of the IPCC's motives has already been addressed.....
How many times have I answered this already?And I am still waiting for an alternate theory. Science doesn't throw out a theory until they have a better one. This discussion can wait until you provide a better theory.
I see. You feel I've been "avoiding" discussion of the fact the IPCC's predictions of how man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate have been spectacularly wrong.Or you have stated your opinion on it while avoiding discussion of actual empirical evidence.
If you, did it's still clear you don't understand it if that's your take. To still call the predictions 'spectacularly' wrong even though they are well within range as shown in past post is again ignorance, wonted or not, or just stubbornness, I still can't tell for sure.I read it. Another attempt to suggest that predictions that were spectacularly wrong can be characterized as not having been "perfect."
Far from perfect, in this case. Very, very far.
The big difference is few, if any, were as drastic or at a time with as many humans on board affect the human race.How many times have I answered this already?
For billions of years, the Earth has experienced changes in its climate. The overwhelming majority of those changes occurred before the Industrial Revolution.
At this point, there is nothing to suggest that anything has occurred recently that is any different from what has taken place for billions of years.
Since you claim to have a background in science, I'm confident you're not asking me to try to prove a negative. Nor, I'm sure, would you expect me to buy in to the premise that something unusual has occurred recently until that premise is actually supported by evidence (real evidence, not alarming headlines in Mother Jones).
I see. You feel I've been "avoiding" discussion of the fact the IPCC's predictions of how man-made CO2 emissions would affect the climate have been spectacularly wrong.
I don't think I have been avoiding that.
So you're 'scientific' theory is that the world is doing it on it's own? Seriously? That's what your empirical evidence says? Do you believe in creation too?How many times have I answered this already?
For billions of years, the Earth has experienced changes in its climate. The overwhelming majority of those changes occurred before the Industrial Revolution.
....
Are you telling us that you don't believe there were ever any changes in the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.So you're 'scientific' theory is that the world is doing it on it's own? Seriously? That's what your empirical evidence says?
Do you understand the irony of using the man who made up the Gaia theory as someone to support your 'climate change is a religion' theory?I'm sorry, but there's nothing particularly "advanced" or magical about the IPCC's spin-doctoring and fear-mongering. Those kinds of activities go on all the time.
You're also a bit off when you falsely assert that it's only people on one side of the argument who think global warming has become a religion. In fact, one of Time Magazine's Heroes of the Environment shares that view.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/30/james-lovelock-environmentalism-religion
Ok, a small test for you.Are you telling us that you don't believe there were ever any changes in the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Careful MF2 might think you're insulting him.Do you understand the irony of using the man who made up the Gaia theory as someone to support your 'climate change is a religion' theory?
So far you've got Pat Sajak and the man who thinks the planet is a sentient being/god.
Your side isn't looking very swift so far.
But you have to way, way further back to find a time where the C02 levels are at our present 400ppm.Comparison of temperatures and CO2 levels for the last 10,000 years...
I'm afraid those must be misquotes.”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
I'm afraid those must be misquotes.
I've been assured that the individuals quoted above are only interested in pure science, and to suggest otherwise is a "conspiracy theory."
We have this; http://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-quote/”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
What a typically dishonest comment.Are you telling us that you don't believe there were ever any changes in the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Even worse, that you don't believe there is any evidence of changes to the climate prior to the Industrial Revolution.
Are you kidding?
Are you saying that using these partial quotes as criticism would be like calling Swift a monster for publishing A Modest Proposal?...
With the full quote, it’s easy to see that Dr Schneider was attacking, not supporting, the “sound-bite system”. But an attack editoral from the Detroit News selectively cut out parts of the above quote, publishing the following:...