How does one converse with a denier of human-induced climate change?

Thanks Springtide

In Conclusion

Climate change is happening now, is caused by people and will have catastrophic consequences. Those three assertions are backed by the most rigorous scientific undertaking in history. Indeed, as this report was being written, the UK Meteorological office published a review of 100 different science papers, concluding that it was ‘even more likely’ that climate change is happening and that we are causing it.

This briefing outlines the lengths to which the fossil fuel industry has been willing to go to prevent these conclusions from being accepted. It provides just a flavour – a few examples of some of the more virulent attacks aimed at undermining public confidence in the climate science, and preventing government action to fight the climate crisis.

All of which means, the correct response to attacks on climate science is scepticism.

Source: Baxter, C. (March 24, 2010) Dealing in Doubt. Greenpeace International, p. 24. Available at: https://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/reports/dealing-in-doubt

Thanks all. I really, really must move on to other work.

Hooroo, Marko.

 

History repeats...

A met book written way back in 1834 has this interesting observation about those who record the weather. Considering the neo-religious rantings of some now days ya gotta wonder if history aint repeating...

“… In the earliest stage, the authors are concise; they merely state “cold winter,” “dry year,” etc., without any subjective remarks. Later, the records become longer and more fanciful; often the chronicler breaks into verse. In the third stage, there is a certain amount of manipulation of facts, under the influence of religious or superstitious ideas, and it is not until the end of the eighteenth century that the reports again assume a concise and scientific character…”

Via the Meteorological Chronicle of Belgium, E. Vanderlinden, 1834






.

 

This does not make you a believer
In fact it makes you a sceptic because you don’t believe that CO2 is the cause of the warming.

Hold on, you believe that CO2 is one of many factors. You don’t believe it is the only factor and that if we stop CO2 we stop the warming? This means you don’t believe the consensus you don’t believe the peer reviewed papers that say CO2 is the cause of the warming. The whole Global Warming / Climate Change debate revolves around the fact that CO2 is causing the warming. It is not wether CO2 is a contributor it is if CO2 is the only contributor.

Eco, you are straying from the debate, you are starting to push the boundaries of what the peer reviewed papers believe is causing the warming. Yes we are starting to see papers that don’t have CO2 as the cause but the original debate was based around the fact that CO2 is the sole cause of the changing climate.

Do you deny that CO2 is the sole cause of the warming? From your points I think you do but can you just confirm either yes or no.

I don’t mean that it is part of the cause I want to know wether you believe that CO2 is the sole cause. That is what this whole debate is about. Wether CO2 is the sole cause.

 

Dear Dreamie

Please refer to post #1 in this thread:

As far as I am concerned, there is no debate, and
The best way to converse with a denier of human-induced climate change is to... walk away.

Goodbye, and good luck with your journey through life.

Marko

 

LOL... ecodharmamark starts an abusive thread up in a forum then says as far as he's concerned there's no debate and he will walk away ... Classic...




.

 

Eco I think you miss the point I am not debating climate change I am trying to advise you that your own views contradict that of the climate change faith of peer reviewed papers. Your view is that CO2 is one of many factors contributing to the changing climate yet you are following a group that believes CO2 is the sole contributor. Therefore you are a denier as you don’t believe CO2 is the main cause of the climate change (as this is what the debate is about) or you are denying that you actually a denier.

Maybe you are just denying that there is a debate.
Then again by walking away you are denying that this thread ever existed?

 

This thread has certainly been an education on the mind set of a climate hysteric...




.

 

Glad to hear you have learnt something Flying Binghy.

 

Congrats EcoD! you are one step closer to enlightenment!

No sarcasm intended.

 

Caint help meself, heres a quote from the ACME Climate Action book ah bought about a year ago during the height of the climate hysteria. It is a book of tasks that you go through to get the correct climate action mindset so as to attain enlightenment.

Having finnished task Number 28, step two, the book tells me that "You have achieved the state of Al-Gora, which is warm like a soft jumper. Your Al-Gorisms should show you that you're making a real difference" ....


....... a real difference to Al Gores bank account ...






.

 

An interesting look at the basics of the AGW issue -

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Every scientific theory involves assumptions. Global warming theory starts with the assumption that the Earth naturally maintains a constant average temperature, which is the result of a balance between (1) the amount of sunlight the Earth absorbs, and (2) the amount of emitted infrared (”IR”) radiation that the Earth continuously emits to outer space. In other words, energy in equals energy out. Averaged over the whole planet for 1 year, those energy flows in and out of the climate system are estimated to be around 235 or 240 watts per square meter.

Greenhouse components in the atmosphere (mostly water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and methane) exert strong controls over how fast the Earth loses IR energy to outer space. Mankind’s burning of fossil fuels creates more atmospheric carbon dioxide. As we add more CO2, more infrared energy is trapped, strengthing the Earth’s greenhouse effect. This causes a warming tendency in the lower atmosphere and at the surface. As of 2008, it is believed that we have enhanced the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect by about 1%...... continues via - https://www.climatechangefraud.com/temperate-facts/co2-and-gw-primers/global-warming-101






.

 

skeptical-leaning bloggers

"Another day, another smarmy accusation that people who are skeptical of climate change are being funded by a shadowy conspiracy connected in one manner or another to big oil, big coal, big tobacco or - horror of horrors - right-wing think tanks.

These accusations are tiresome. They're ugly. They're almost entirely unsubstantiated. Most of all, they're a waste of time. They amount to shooting the messenger rather than addressing the bleeping message.

So why do they keep getting repeated?..." ...continues - https://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2010/02/independent-bloggers-vs-corporate.html





.

 

GMO food safe ?

Here's a different way of looking at things -

"...genetically modified foods. The consensus that such foods are safe for humans, animals and the environment is extraordinarily broad-based. Indeed, one might argue that the list of scientific bodies that agree on this point is longer than the list of organizations that concur with global warming theory.

On June 28th, scientists at the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) joined this consensus. They ruled that there is no reason to forbid the planting of genetically-modified corn in the European Union..." continues -
https://nofrakkingconsensus.blogspot.com/2009/07/do-as-i-say-not-as-i-do.html





.

 

More corruption exposed ?.... what a surprise...

"Traders involved in Europe's flagship climate change programme, the Emissions Trading System - some of whom work at Germany's biggest banks and energy firms - were the focus of a series of raids and arrests by British and German prosecutors in part of a massive pan-European crackdown on CO2-credit VAT fraud. Fraud at the heart of the ETS has hurt the reputation of the EU's flagship climate programme. A total of 25 people were arrested amid a blitz by authorities on hundreds of company offices in the two countries, including Deutsche Bank and...." continues - https://euobserver.com/9/29996/?rk=1





.

 

..........:clap:





.

 

.

milifestyle, when abusive threads like this are alowed from a poster that has given me some of the vilest insults around, what exactly do you expect my replys to be like... ?





.

 

Your like a log to a fire though Binghy... You have no interest in Permaculture aside from a course some umteen years ago and your only interest in multiple forums on the WWW is to taunt people on their beliefs in Global Warming... if you want to shoot turkeys, go where turkeys live... we are quiet content in our own pond.

 

Good points on both sides.
Now .... back to the subject.

What effective action do you propose we do to ensure our food remains food and edible?
Anyone I talk to thinks GM food is not real and should not go anywhere anyones mouth.
So .....what do we do ?
(I dont know)

 

We could start by putting the carbon back in the ground, mischief...