He misses all the parts.
Uh, no actually you didn't. There are no limited beliefs, or beliefs, by me here or elsewhere. Want to know why? Because I've never stated what they are. He's assuming, as per his usual M.O.
Conservative White Males Climate Skeptics
- Thread starter grainfedpraiboy
- Start date
He misses all the parts.
Uh, no actually you didn't. There are no limited beliefs, or beliefs, by me here or elsewhere. Want to know why? Because I've never stated what they are. He's assuming, as per his usual M.O.
Does reality not limit it your beliefs? We gotta go with what we are given or through experience.
I believe in reality, if that's what you're asking me. Not in some extreme, rhetoric filled, hyper-exaggerated ranting on either side of this, or any other, debate. Reality is always somewhere in the middle. The minute you politicize anything, reality has a nasty habit of going directly out the window.
Humans are NOT to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder, as he insists there is 'no scientific proof' climate change is manmade
Patrick Moore has poured cold water on manmade global warming theories
The Canadian said that a hotter earth would actually be better for humans
He said that there's 'no actual proof' of manmade global warming
Moore was a member of campaign group Greenpeace for 15 years
By Ted Thornhill
27 February 2014
Daily Mail
The assertion was made by Canadian ecologist Patrick Moore, a member of Greenpeace from 1971 to 1986, to U.S senators on Tuesday.
He told The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee: ‘There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.’
Heated debate: Patrick Moore, pictured here giving a speech in Montreal, has claimed that there's no scientific evidence for man-made global warming
Moore pointed out that there was an Ice Age 450million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher.
He said: ‘There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.’
Even if the earth does warm up, Moore claims that it will be to the advantage of humans and other forms of life, as ‘humans are a tropical species’.
He said: ‘It is extremely likely that a warmer temperature than today’s would be far better than a cooler one.’
Humans, he added, just aren’t capable of predicting global temperature changes.
Moore said that he left Greenpeace because it ‘took a sharp turn to the political left’.
PATRICK MOORE ON THE HOT TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING
'There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists.
'The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) states: “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century.” (My emphasis) “Extremely likely” is not a scientific term but rather a judgment, as in a court of law. The IPCC defines “extremely likely” as a “95-100% probability”.
'But upon further examination it is clear that these numbers are not the result of any mathematical calculation or statistical analysis. They have been “invented” as a construct within the IPCC report to express “expert judgment”, as determined by the IPCC contributors.
'When modern life evolved over 500 million years ago, CO2 was more than 10 times higher than today, yet life flourished at this time. Then an Ice Age occurred 450 million years ago when CO2 was 10 times higher than today.
'There is some correlation, but little evidence, to support a direct causal relationship between CO2 and global temperature through the millennia. The fact that we had both higher temperatures and an ice age at a time when CO2 emissions were 10 times higher than they are today fundamentally contradicts the certainty that human-caused CO2 emissions are the main cause of global warming.
'Today, we live in an unusually cold period in the history of life on earth and there is no reason to believe that a warmer climate would be anything but beneficial for humans and the majority of other species. There is ample reason to believe that a sharp cooling of the climate would bring disastrous results for human civilization.
'The IPCC states that humans are the dominant cause of warming “since the mid-20th century”, which is 1950. From 1910 to 1940 there was an increase in global average temperature of 0.5C over that 30-year period. Then there was a 30-year “pause” until 1970.
'This was followed by an increase of 0.57C during the 30-year period from 1970 to 2000. Since then there has been no increase, perhaps a slight decrease, in average global temperature. This in itself tends to negate the validity of the computer models, as CO2 emissions have continued to accelerate during this time.
'The increase in temperature between 1910-1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970-2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910-1940 to “human influence.”'
Read more: Humans not to blame for global warming, says Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore | Daily Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
It's also a place of unobstructed observation.
Such as the observation that your post responding to a rant against Blackleaf was summarily judged and interpreted by him as being a rebuttal of his position, hence your assertion he should re-read said post. My statement that he never reads let alone apologizes when he's misunderstood something is based on my continued observation that he never does this and was further misconstrued by him to assume my support of your position which he still mistakenly saw as antithetical to his own.
So yes, Petros, I enjoy reality because it's a place where Blackleaf never is.
There's a lot of people on this forum who really need to enter it. Like the Left in general, they just have no grasp of normal life.
You're not conservative though, you're just anti-liberal. And there is a difference, although not one that you'll ever see.
I'm anti-Liberal, anti-Left, anti-EU, pro-Commonwealth, anti-unchecked immigration, anti-feminism, anti-BBC, anti-Labour, anti-LibDems, anti-Greens, do not believe in man-made Global Warming, anti-"green" intiatives, in favour of a vast increase in military spending and a cut in our foreign aid budget, in favour of a repeal of the Climate Change Act 2008 which costs the economy £18bn a year, pro-fracking, pro-nuclear power station, pro-countryside, in favour of devolution for England, anti-Barnett Formula and I believe that the British state has become too large, too expensive and too dominant over civil society.
No. I, and everyone else, needs an apology from the Global Warmists and the Left in general for their lies and for them leaving Western society in the parlous state it's in today.
I shan't expect one, though, because the Left are too arrogant and condescending to admit their own failings.
You can always tell when a Lefty is losing an argument. The silly playground insults start being flung about without even one slight modicum of intelligence in them whatsoever.
You mean like the modicum of intelligence it takes not to comprehend when someone is actually supporting a position you posted instead of ranting against them because you don't take the time to read what they wrote? Is that the kind of "intelligence" you are referring to?
He doesn't like immigrants, kind of like the UK version of Durry that way.
Despite the fact that none of your post actually addressed the inconsistency between now and the past warming-greenhouse gas relationship, this sentence sticks out a bit. Why is the above supposed to be contradictory? When the Earth is covered in ice, the albedo is low, and it's very hard to get out of it. The rock is covered by ice, and consequently you have less weathering of the rocks, an important mechanism that draws down atmospheric CO2. So it just builds up over time, that's why the end of ice ages, such as those with tropical ice sheets are marked by high CO2. When it gets high enough, the radiative forcing from the gases is large enough to overcome the loss of heat due to low albedo.
Not really that complicated. Or controversial.
The difference between me and you is that I don't support unchecked immigration, which lets in every Tom, Dick and Abdul and places an intolerable burden on the country's education system, welfare system and health service, and you do.
Therein lies the difference between me and you.
I'll be voting Ukip in 2015 as only the UK's exit from the EUSSR can give the British proper, full control over their borders.
As the article points out, there has been up to ten times the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere in past ice ages as there is now. And that CO2 had always been there, not something which just builds up towards the end of the ice age.
When I was a kid we were all taught at school that it was CFCs that caused global warming (or "climate change" as it has been known since it was discovered that there is no warming) and that they are causing a hole in the ozone layer (what happened to that, by the way?!?!?!). Now we are told that it's carbon dioxide causing it. And now people are now saying that it isn't CO2 causing "climate change" but, yet again, it's CFCs. Even the bloody Warmists themselves, it seems, are confused over what's supposedly causing it.
Go back even further in time to the 1970s and everybody was told that the world is cooling and that within 20 years Earth will be a giant snowball.
Last edited:
Right, and once again you can easily find all the posts where I've stated that I do support unchecked immigration? No? Okay, how about even one?
Nobody cares how you vote.