Flying Magazine Global Warning Article

AuntPeggy said:
Dr. Moore received an honours B.Sc. in forest biology from the University of British Columbia and a Ph.D. in ecology from the Institute of Animal Resource Ecology, University of British Columbia, in 1972.

Dr. Patrick Moore is the co-founder, chair, and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies, a Vancouver-based consulting firm that provides paid public relations efforts, lectures, lobbying, opinions, and committee participation to government and industry on a wide range of environmental and sustainability issues. He is a frequent public speaker at meetings of industry associations, universities, and policy groups.

Dr. Moore is not a climate scientist or a meteorologist.
Click to expand...

One thing you left out: Dr. Moore is right.
 
JOhnH said:
So do you think that the 3% of scientists that are brave enough to disagree should just sit down and shut up? Or should they just agree with the consensus because they are out numbered?

At what point may the scientists that disagree say so? Should they agree with the majority if it is only 90%? 75%?

Or, if only 1% disagree, does that make that 1% wrong? Do we decide major scientific events by a vote?

I sure hope that the climate change believers are wrong? But I'm not going to allow that hope to sway my opinion like so many other's do.
Click to expand...

Percentage-wise more Americans believe shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining power than climate scientists believe climate change is a hoax.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Q2 Do you believe Osama bin Laden is still alive,
or not?
Do 6% ...................................................................
Do not 83% .............................................................
Not sure 11%

Q7 Do you believe the moon landing was faked, or
not?
Do 7% ...................................................................
Do not 84% .............................................................
Not sure 9%

Q12 Do you believe the government adds fluoride to
our water supply, not for dental health reasons,
but for other, more sinister reasons, or not?
Do 9% ...................................................................
Do not 74% .............................................................
Not sure 17%

Q13 Do you believe that shape-shifting reptilian
people control our world by taking on human
form and gaining political power to manipulate
our societies, or not?
Do 4% ...................................................................
Do not 88% .............................................................
Not sure 7%

Q19 Do you believe Paul McCartney actually died in
a car crash in 1966 and was secretly replaced
by a lookalike so The Beatles could continue,
or not?
Do 5% ...................................................................
Do not 80% .............................................................
Not sure 14%

Q17 Do you believe that the exhaust seen in the sky
behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed
by the government for sinister reasons, or not?
Do 5% ...................................................................
Do not 87% .............................................................
Not sure 8%
 
cgrab said:
One thing you left out: Dr. Moore is right.
Click to expand...

I don't believe he has done any research at all. All he has is his opinion, which is not based upon study or research. He is, most likely, wrong.
 
MAKG1 said:
Mainstream media?

Since when are they a scientific journal?

Irrelevant.

You claim to be a scientific modeler. Never mind that economics is not a science, but list for us the pedigree of the data that goes into the model that says humans are not responsible.

You personally guarantee the data is flawed? What data do you have to back that up? And its your personal guarantee, so it has to be YOUR data or you're speaking out of your butt.
Click to expand...

You should tell that to IPCC. Several people in their 97% claim are PhD in Economics.
 
AuntPeggy said:
Percentage-wise more Americans believe shape-shifting reptilian people control our world by taking on human form and gaining power than climate scientists believe climate change is a hoax.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_National_ConspiracyTheories_040213.pdf
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Q2 Do you believe Osama bin Laden is still alive,
or not?
Do 6% ...................................................................
Do not 83% .............................................................
Not sure 11%

Q7 Do you believe the moon landing was faked, or
not?
Do 7% ...................................................................
Do not 84% .............................................................
Not sure 9%

Q12 Do you believe the government adds fluoride to
our water supply, not for dental health reasons,
but for other, more sinister reasons, or not?
Do 9% ...................................................................
Do not 74% .............................................................
Not sure 17%

Q13 Do you believe that shape-shifting reptilian
people control our world by taking on human
form and gaining political power to manipulate
our societies, or not?
Do 4% ...................................................................
Do not 88% .............................................................
Not sure 7%

Q19 Do you believe Paul McCartney actually died in
a car crash in 1966 and was secretly replaced
by a lookalike so The Beatles could continue,
or not?
Do 5% ...................................................................
Do not 80% .............................................................
Not sure 14%

Q17 Do you believe that the exhaust seen in the sky
behind airplanes is actually chemicals sprayed
by the government for sinister reasons, or not?
Do 5% ...................................................................
Do not 87% .............................................................
Not sure 8%
Click to expand...


a problem with putting trust in surveys: Assuming that people answer truthfully.
 
cgrab said:
And then there is this....

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...t-changes-natural-variability-says-study.html
Click to expand...

A single study compared temperature readings to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC -- and concluded that the most severe is less likely than the middle-of-the-road scenario. Cherry picking by The Daily Mail tabloid.

You probably ought to read beyond the headline. The actual study also concluded:
Under the IPCC’s middle-of-the-road scenario, there was a 70 percent likelihood that at least one hiatus lasting 11 years or longer would occur between 1993 and 2050, Brown said. “That matches up well with what we’re seeing.”
Click to expand...
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
A single study compared temperature readings to the most severe emissions scenarios by the IPCC -- and concluded that the most severe is less likely than the middle-of-the-road scenario. Cherry picking by The Daily Mail tabloid.

You probably ought to read beyond the headline. The actual study also concluded:
https://nicholas.duke.edu/news/global-warming-more-moderate-worst-case-models
Click to expand...

Now "they" are saying; "We new all along there would be global cooling before global warming kicks in again." :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Oh please! You buy their crapola?
 
There's effects of our carbon footprint beyond climate change. That's why scientists outside of climatology are involved. For example, ocean acidification is a very real, very measurable phenomena that is directly affecting sealife today. A collapse of oceanlife would be a global catastrophe in ecology, biology, economics, and countless other fields. The oceans are a giant sink absorbing all of the CO2 we're releasing, and it (along with warmer temperatures) is serious.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-is-Fatal-To-Fish-.html

You may believe it is "arrogant" to believe in climate change, but I see that as little more than sticking your head in the sand and saying "we can't ruin the Earth because I don't want to believe we can." Seven billion humans are absolutely capable of changing this planet. Killing it? Probably not without nuclear weapons, but we can make it awfully unpleasant for us to live here.

The thing I don't get is people's outright glee when they see a piece of evidence that contradicts global climate change or shows that serious consequences haven't happened yet. It seems to me a rational person would say "Wow, we got lucky so far. We've been polluting the Earth for centuries and have managed to stay clean enough to survive." Or "Maybe the scientists were wrong. What a relief." Instead it's "YES! Global warming is a hoax! Those scientists were just trying to con us out of our hard-earned money."

What the hell is wrong with people who act like that? It's like a smoker going to the doctor, learning that you have a spot on your lungs, and then getting a clean bill of health after further tests are run. Doesn't mean the first doctor was a con-artist or a quack. The fact that the world hasn't ended yet doesn't give us some kind of unlimited free pass to keep spewing out carbon forever.
 
Last edited:
dukeblue219 said:
You may believe it is "arrogant" to believe in climate change, but I see that as little more than sticking your head in the sand and saying "we can't ruin the Earth because I don't want to believe we can." Seven billion humans are absolutely capable of changing this planet. Killing it? Probably not without nuclear weapons, but we can make it awfully unpleasant for us to live here.
Click to expand...

The actions being called for to combat climate change will also make it awfully unpleasant for us to live here.
 
dukeblue219 said:
There's effects of our carbon footprint beyond climate change. That's why scientists outside of climatology are involved. For example, ocean acidification is a very real, very measurable phenomena that is directly affecting sealife today. A collapse of oceanlife would be a global catastrophe in ecology, biology, economics, and countless other fields. The oceans are a giant sink absorbing all of the CO2 we're releasing, and it (along with warmer temperatures) is serious.

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ocean-Acidification-is-Fatal-To-Fish-.html

You may believe it is "arrogant" to believe in climate change, but I see that as little more than sticking your head in the sand and saying "we can't ruin the Earth because I don't want to believe we can." Seven billion humans are absolutely capable of changing this planet. Killing it? Probably not without nuclear weapons, but we can make it awfully unpleasant for us to live here.

The thing I don't get is people's outright glee when they see a piece of evidence that contradicts global climate change or shows that serious consequences haven't happened yet. It seems to me a rational person would say "Wow, we got lucky so far. We've been polluting the Earth for centuries and have managed to stay clean enough to survive." Or "Maybe the scientists were wrong. What a relief." Instead it's "YES! Global warming is a hoax! Those scientists were just trying to con us out of our hard-earned money."

What the hell is wrong with people who act like that? It's like a smoker going to the doctor, learning that you have a spot on your lungs, and then getting a clean bill of health after further tests are run. Doesn't mean the first doctor was a con-artist or a quack. The fact that the world hasn't ended yet doesn't give us some kind of unlimited free pass to keep spewing out carbon forever.
Click to expand...


I thnk the AGW shrill alarmism has harmed the ablity for other issues that deserve the lime light. People like Gore, Hollywood actors or other shrill alarmists living large and screaming the rest of us should sacrifice or Florida will sink beneath the waves has severely damaged the abilty to spotlight other issues in a calm logical credible fashion.
 
roncachamp said:
The actions being called for to combat climate change will also make it awfully unpleasant for us to live here.
Click to expand...
But they will satisfy the wealth-redistribution goals of those advocating them. It's odd, no matter what the problem is, the same people always offer the same solution.

The thing that the AGW crowd *really* never wants to discuss is whether GW is actually a bad thing, and how bad. More arable land, longer growing seasons, and fewer weather-related deaths are just some of the benefits of climate change. Then there's all the other stuff we could spend all the global warming money on. Farming in Iceland could end world hunger. We could wipe out malaria world wide for a teensy tiny fraction of what Kyoto would cost and save many more lives than even the most dire predictions for GW. We could relocate all the people living in coastal areas subject to flooding for far, far less than the cost of preventing the flooding.
 
Bob Noel said:
a problem with putting trust in surveys: Assuming that people answer truthfully.
Click to expand...

No, it's in assuming that 100% of the responents know all about all of the issues in question. The "Don't know" percentage often indicates that the respondents don't follow current events and maybe even not-so-current events. For example, how many people under 40 can tell me in what years WWI and WWII happened? The American Civil War? The year of the first moon landing?

But they all know who the newest movie stars are...

Dan
 
Dan Thomas said:
No, it's in assuming that 100% of the responents know all about all of the issues in question. The "Don't know" percentage often indicates that the respondents don't follow current events and maybe even not-so-current events. For example, how many people under 40 can tell me in what years WWI and WWII happened? The American Civil War? The year of the first moon landing?

But they all know who the newest movie stars are...

Dan
Click to expand...

That's another problem with surveys.
 
Dan Thomas said:
No, it's in assuming that 100% of the responents know all about all of the issues in question. The "Don't know" percentage often indicates that the respondents don't follow current events and maybe even not-so-current events. For example, how many people under 40 can tell me in what years WWI and WWII happened? The American Civil War? The year of the first moon landing?

But they all know who the newest movie stars are...

Dan
Click to expand...

Sorry, Dan, I don't know who the newest movie stars are.
1914-1919 WWI
1939-1945 WWII
1861-1865 Civil War

How does knowing the exact years make one a follower of current events? Or even informed? Isn't it more important to know what the issues and outcomes were?

PS. The first moon landing was 1959.
170px-Luna_2_Soviet_moon_probe.jpg
 
Last edited:
AuntPeggy said:
Sorry, Dan, I don't know who the newest movie stars are.
1914-1919 WWI
1939-1945 WWII
1861-1865 Civil War

How does knowing the exact years make one a follower of current events? Or even informed? Isn't it more important to know what the issues and outcomes were?
Click to expand...

WWI ended in 1918.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top