Global Warming. Please Back Up Your PH Claims.

[i'm no superhero]

Morning all.

I have been a lurker on the forum for a while now, reading it for a few months.

Yet I do not understand the PH attitude towards climate change and specifically global warming.

There is insurmountable evidence showing that there is a significant relastionship between the increase in CO2 emissions and an increase in the average world temperature in the last 200 years.

This increase in CO2 can be assumed to have come from increased industrialisation. In accordance with the accepted theory that, as greenhouse gas levels rise, so too does the tempereatire of our planet, evidence shows that over the past 200 years there has been a large rise in the average world temperature as CO2 levels rise.

Almost all climate scientists accept this. They have no vested interest: it is based on evidence.

I am not interested if you care about the consequences, or take the Jeremy Clarkson line that "I want more hot weather" etc. Whether you care about the effect of rising sea levels, etc, is irrelevant.

But why deny the scientific consensus that man made changes are causing a rise int he average world temperature? I don't understand...

(See the Stern report for a decent and unbiased report, or the ICCC study.)

[s2art]

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

[i'm no superhero]

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

[s2art]

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

[eharding]

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

You read the entire 167 pages in 3 minutes flat?

Typical lentilist abbreviation of the available data to suit your fantasist agenda.

[i'm no superhero]

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

What s2art and the rest of PH is thinking:

Controversial topic - check.
New member with low post count - check.
Troll - check.

"LOL" is not a response to my question. Provide some well backed up, peer assessed evidence which disproves the current theory accepted by most climate scientists. Ideally in a nicely summarised post with a few links.

[s2art]

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

What s2art and the rest of PH is thinking:

Controversial topic - check.
New member with low post count - check.
Troll - check.

"LOL" is not a response to my question. Provide some well backed up, peer assessed evidence which disproves the current theory accepted by most climate scientists. Ideally in a nicely summarised post with a few links.

All in the thread I provided a link to. Read it and educate yourself. There is no need for a parallel thread on the same subject.

[i'm no superhero]

eharding said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

You read the entire 167 pages in 3 minutes flat?

Typical lentilist abbreviation of the available data to suit your fantasist agenda.

I didn't read all of it. Mainly because I don't regard any of the "science" put forward by the posters in high regard as it hasn't been published or peer reviewed... unlike what most of the scientific community manages to do fairly well.

Is it all a conspiracy?

[s2art]

i'm no superhero said:

eharding said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

You read the entire 167 pages in 3 minutes flat?

Typical lentilist abbreviation of the available data to suit your fantasist agenda.

I didn't read all of it. Mainly because I don't regard any of the "science" put forward by the posters in high regard as it hasn't been published or peer reviewed... unlike what most of the scientific community manages to do fairly well.

Is it all a conspiracy?

If you didnt read all of it (did you read any?) then how do you know it doesnt contain published and/or peer reviewed science? Hint; it does. (or links to them)

[i'm no superhero]

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

What s2art and the rest of PH is thinking:

Controversial topic - check.
New member with low post count - check.
Troll - check.

"LOL" is not a response to my question. Provide some well backed up, peer assessed evidence which disproves the current theory accepted by most climate scientists. Ideally in a nicely summarised post with a few links.

All in the thread I provided a link to. Read it and educate yourself. There is no need for a parallel thread on the same subject.

When one of the first posts is this:

"The planet has been heating up for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice age. "

I stopped reading.

There is so, so much wrong with his claim, and his following arguments it isn't worth debating.

Your Essenhigh post made me chuckle too.

[s2art]

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

What s2art and the rest of PH is thinking:

Controversial topic - check.
New member with low post count - check.
Troll - check.

"LOL" is not a response to my question. Provide some well backed up, peer assessed evidence which disproves the current theory accepted by most climate scientists. Ideally in a nicely summarised post with a few links.

All in the thread I provided a link to. Read it and educate yourself. There is no need for a parallel thread on the same subject.

When one of the first posts is this:

"The planet has been heating up for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice age. "

I stopped reading.

There is so, so much wrong with his claim, and his following arguments it isn't worth debating.

Your Essenhigh post made me chuckle too.

Then get over to the thread and give us the benefit of your insights.

[Road Pest]

http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...

No conspiracy, just the rules of the game. Ironically the rules were originally made up by big oil, big carbon then tweeked it a bit. If this shocks you then you are very sweet, to coin a science teacher friend of mine's phrase on the subject.

362 pages should keep you occupied for a bit.

[T89 Callan]

I'm no Superhero..... you're no super brain either.

There is already a topic running with plenty of debate and data, if you can't be bothered to read it then you shouldn't start a new thread of exactly the same debate.

[Jovial Joe]

i'm no superhero said:

There is insurmountable evidence showing that there is a significant relastionship between the increase in CO2 emissions and an increase in the average world temperature in the last 200 years.

Really?
Where is this insurmountable evidence?
Please.

Thanks in advance.

[davidspooner]

http://community.evo.co.uk/forums/thread.cfm?threa...

Are you also this person?

[FraserLFA]

davidspooner said:

http://community.evo.co.uk/forums/thread.cfm?threa...

Are you also this person?

That is excellent.

"You're buying cars based on personal pleasure, without looking at the bigger picture"

Duh!

[i'm no superhero]

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

i'm no superhero said:

s2art said:

Troll alert! But just in case the OP is serious,


Start here;



http://pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f...

Armchair science at its very, very best.

LOL!

What s2art and the rest of PH is thinking:

Controversial topic - check.
New member with low post count - check.
Troll - check.

"LOL" is not a response to my question. Provide some well backed up, peer assessed evidence which disproves the current theory accepted by most climate scientists. Ideally in a nicely summarised post with a few links.

All in the thread I provided a link to. Read it and educate yourself. There is no need for a parallel thread on the same subject.

When one of the first posts is this:

"The planet has been heating up for tens of thousands of years since the last Ice age. "

I stopped reading.

There is so, so much wrong with his claim, and his following arguments it isn't worth debating.

Your Essenhigh post made me chuckle too.

Then get over to the thread and give us the benefit of your insights.

I will do tomorrow when less tired so I can form a relatively coherent and decent response.

What position are you in to comment on climate change (more specifically GW) out of interest? I am not in a solid position to comment (well, I hold a place to read Geography at UCL next year, so I hope to increase my knowledge further) however, as far as I am concerned, scientists are in a position to comment.

I feel like I have read a huge amount on the topic and the evidence does appear to be insurmountable. Scientists cannot be 100% correct, but most evidence does back up their original claims. I just don't see why people are denying it.

The IPCC website is all the evidence you need. People who are denying it make me draw parallels with creationists: it just angers me that people pounce on tiny bits of "science" and use it to their own benefit when what they claim is so trite.

[Pesty]

Ludo?

[eharding]

i'm no superhero said:

I didn't read all of it. Mainly because I don't regard any of the "science" put forward by the posters in high regard as it hasn't been published or peer reviewed... unlike what most of the scientific community manages to do fairly well.

The pure essence of the lento-surrealist, captured doing what it does best - ignoring anything that doesn't agree with its warped world view.

Wake up. You've been rumbled. You need an alternative career, because the funding is about to dry up.

Learn how to make coffee, or flip burgers.

[s2art]

PH admin. Please close this thread, we already have at least two active threads on the same topic.