Why dont you let people have their say on your website by allowing guests to comment without registering? You are clearly suppressing and moderating everything as you cant handle a little bit of common sense being thrown around! For f%&*sake man, breathe a bit of impartiality into this hopeless spin site, instead of clutching at the occasional straw of bogus dinosaur scientists who occasionally say something that supports your one eyed view. Pull your head out of the sand and look at some real science, actually read it, not just hang around with like minded sceptics whose insular, anti-communism/socialism views are laughable at best. and no, this isnt communism. its f*^*^* real s%* that history will not judge any of us kindly on, esp not close-minded fools like yourselves. Yes, I study this stuff, and I am trained to be sceptical of people like Gore, and Jones et al, I dont support the approach they have taken, though the tidal wave of science upon which they, and the IPCC base their work upon, is not just a bunch of unsupported junk like you guys throw around. Go have a look (I mean really have a LOOK) at http://www.skepticalscience.com/. See how they support their views and arguments with actual references and data?!? they are professional in their approach...unlike you bunch. Go and have a look at yourself in the mirror after and ask yourself "if I cant support anyhting I say with evidence from the field, then I shouldnt spread lies" because without some sort of backing, thats all they are mate, LIES!
Dodgy sceptics from social science backgrounds, mates who 'theorise' that the core of the earth is causing warming (note no evidence) should not be given the time of day by you or anyone else. Do yourself and everyone else a favour by putting supported evidence and views on this site, not rubbish.
James, all I can say your more then welcome to join in, there is no big deal in making a reg onto the site, unless you have something to hide!
I would be more than HAPPY to discuss climate issues with James . There is no Censoring at this site that I am aware of. The CULTISTS only need to put up with me and others independent thinkers who believe science should not be agenda driven and bent to support political goals.
The SPAM artists are the ones preventing James from posting without registering and the spammers still manage to sneak past the registration process. If James can mature enough to cease his/her/its GUTTER language then HE/SHE/IT would be welcome here. I can appreciate the occasional desire to insert an occasional #$%&*. However in a e-mail requesting permission to post that type of action seems in poor taste/ immature. Excessive displays of that sort provide support for the Eugenics Movement!
Hi guys, yes I am indeed a real person, believe myself to be level headed, and am not usually prone to expletives such as the type your kind moderator decided to use as a disussion point without asking me! I am happy to debate freely and dont want to get bogged down in personal attacks or anything resembling immature behaviour (apologies for initial one, though I wouldnt have used that language if starting a post). I am not a scientist, though feel I have an attention to detail and am currently doing post grad study so may not have time to repond to the onslaught I may receive on such a site! I recognise there are issues with a small part of the science involved in this debate, and that the behaviour of a small minority has not been in keeping with what society would deem as ethical or professional. I feel there are unjustified attacks on the whole of climate science and systematic attempts (mainly in the US) of brainwashing the public by using very strong language, lies and big business to ram home a message of "its all bogus, dont trust government, dont trust anyone, keep living the way you do and the perpetrators will all burn in hell and wont be able to spread their communism". Lord Monckton, Marc Morano, et al. This site I believe, rather than writing anything original and supporting it with facts, just links all the "extreme" news articles, which if read with a critical eye, provide very little of substance, and appeal to the lowest common denominator who (like we are all susceptible to now and then) take it all in word for word.
I know you guys have bigger fish to fry and dont necessarily sign up to all the sceptic arguments, though I would like to hear to what level you support the views of people like Lord Monckton and Marc Morano who have a host of loyal followers, do you support all their views and their approach? Please, don't simply snap back with a highly scientific question - we can get to that later! I would firstly like to discuss how all this is being played out and what your views are.
NB. yes, I believe Anthropogenic climate change is occurring, and am studying this at a basic level at the moment - we are not being brainwashed, rather taught to be critical of both sides and not simply take things at face value.
We WANT debate and you can put your case forward with Questioner, please use his section to do this.
And one more thing, please do not use the comment section for news articles, we have had this several times before with AGW supporters, this is a "AGW skeptic" site, each news article (apart from "you could not make it up") is against what you support, so it goes without saying the news items would be FULL with your view and not ours. If you want to debate an item of news, use the AGW forum.
I agree with you that there is no such thing as a typical climate sceptic. Even amongst working climate scientists sceptical of CAGW, there is a range of opinions. I think this is only to be expected in a relatively new and poorly understood scientific area.
I doubt I hold the same views on many issues as Monckton or Morano, but to the extent that they are very successfully highlighting the problems with the CAGW case and opening up the debate, I support them wholeheartedly.
There are a number of distinct debating areas that particularly interest me:
- The scientific evidence for CAGW. - The physical explanations for natural cycles in the climate. - The motivations behind the drive for green policies and their consequences. - The appropriate responses to climate changes and fossil fuel use.
I am not so interested in issues like Climategate, although this has certainly worked wonders to open up the discussion to contrary views. It is obvious to me that prior to that, there was enormous difficulty for scientists to put forward alternative ideas and I think that situation was bad for science and hence bad for society at large.
As Co2sceptic suggests, why not start up some threads on Questioner's area? I expect the answers will sometimes be sharp, but I reckon everyone here respects Q or we would not keep going back for more. This is one of only a few places I know where it is possible to have an open debate about the science with someone that knowledgeable.
James: pan sized fish of certain species taste the best fried while the larger fish are better baked, smoked, or prepared in some other way. Morano and Monckton learned to fight exaggeration with exaggeration and have attempted to debate the political activists claiming to be climate experts. I was probably a lot like you 40 years ago but life experienced tends to make a person sceptical of "Snake Oil" solutions for none existent problems. Climate changes and our goal should be finding better ways to adapt to the ever changing regional climates. To attempt to change climate or control some small portion of climate is a "Fool's Errand". I tend to separate from others in that I think we need to determine what is really happening before we attempt to find causes. Get the historical climate records in better shape on a regional basis then look for causes. At this time cause and effect are getting reversed and situations that did not happen are being blamed on guesstimates of magical physical properties.
P.S. I knew people who had to be deprogrammed before they realized they had been "Brainwashed". Cult indoctrination is not a new phenomena just better refined and some of the reprogramming was just another means of "Brainwashing".
I agree with your approach and I will endeavour to get onto the forum when time permits. I agree, there has been a healthy amount of inappropriate and unfounded support for AGW often blindly, however I feel the damage done by exaggerating that AGW is nonsense, on spurious sensationalised claims from figures such as Monckton et al, could be enormous. He doesn't encourage debate, or academic rigour, he simply tries to ram it down your throat, misses badly, then runs away going "woop woop woop". To be honest, people are wasting their time viewing Monckton et al, and the horrendously stupid news networks (who blindly spurt forth pro AGW garbage), particularly in America as fear from both sides is at fever pitch as each yells louder and more extreme views just to get heard...fortunately we get a more pleasant debate (still leaning far towards pro AGW) in my country with respected scientists and non scientists having moved on over the issue. We have our own problems that are expected to become extreme in the next 50+ years, and our political opposition leader unfortunately has his head in the sand, thank god the rest of his party don't, as he his seen as a complete clown across the board and unfit for office.
So you were reprogrammed since birth Mike? Isnt that a little like being born into religion? Cult implies an exclusive group of extreme views Mike, I don't believe the majority falls into that category. It also suggests an obsessive, or faddish, devotion to a principle. I admire your passion, but abhor your approach. I also am alarmed by your suggestion that "we need to figure out what is happening before we attempt to find the causes". This is both insular and disrespectful to tens of thousands of climate change and associated scientists etc working tirelessly to do this. They don't, despite what you may believe, all think the Science is Settled. Rather they are working to refine their output and answer important questions. As for the causes, these need to be investigated concurrently, not in a vacuum like you seem to believe. I am happy to debate this stuff, though preferably with some level-headed people like Philip, and sure, the Questioner too. I am not misled as you may believe. I am by trade charged with casting doubt, not brainwashed or under the delusion of a global conspiracy. It is one thing to doubt aspects of the science, another thing to refute everything and generate and deploy a conspiracy theory to make it plausible.
I too am a sceptic of some of the science, though hard as I might try, I must accept some of the higher level stuff and place trust in the peer review process. Don't lump me with the blind followers and I won't lump you with those who like conspiracy theories.
James: Having spent 40+ years analyzing technical issues as a trouble shooter/ adviser I learned the first order of business was to define if there was a problem. By viewing normal activity you can decide if abnormal activity is happening. Step one is to determine what is normal. For mechanical it as built or designed. If something does as built or as designed then a problem does not exist even if it does not do the desired thing. If historically X happens then when Y occurs then one would look for a cause for something outside of normal as Y would be abnormal. If our climate is within bounds of normal range then the position you have taken is "Much ado about Nothing". There is evidence that our understanding of historical climate is corrupted by mechanical and methodological problems. There is evidence that the environmental movement has been corrupted by cultist behavior as seen in the mindless faith the followers have.
Just claiming to believe in AGW sets off all sorts of detectors. study of religious philosophy was an interest and that included fanaticism. With time you provide evidence that you are not as you originally appeared. It appears that your primary lack is life experience and the ability to discriminate reality from myth! Conspiracies exist or people would not be convicted of conspiring to defraud or commit any other sort of crime against humanity! It is entirely possible there are a number of conspiracies within the Green /AGW /Cap-n-Trade movements.
The "myth" Mike is that the American public are permitted to think freely. The clamour of bells and whistles from big business, alarmists like yourselves, and the well founded fear that your government is trying to save society from itself, is a far cry from other developed countries who's citizens are more trusting of the large entities around them. No doubt I too would be more sceptical if I was living in the US of A as hyper inflated consumerism and lobbying has pushed many to the edge. Yes Mike, I have American friends who I have discussed this with and they are genuinely fearful for their country inlight of their time abroad. The rest of the developed world has moved past these issues Mike (you may not believe that if you spend your time in cyberspace amongst like-minded individuals), and the clamour of the past has fortunately faded for us. We now look towards the future (as grim as it looks) to tackle the bigger obstacles. There are questions that need answering, though not the ones you think, you can continue to argue the fundamentals and thrash about in the shallows arguing minor details, though my view (and that of the large majority - the group to which most scientists subscribe) is that we need to start learning to swim, rather than drown while waiting for someone to prove that humans cannot breathe underwater.
What I lack is patience. Patience for the loud and ignorant section of America to pull their finger out. By all predictions you will be long gone by the time you have left your legacy Mike. Sure, keep AGW supporters on their toes, but don't handicap our genuine desire to make sustainable moves for our grandchildren.