The Five Weakest Sceptical Arguments

[Saigon]

Frank -

I was saying that you do not understand the original comment.

When Edenhofer, who is an economist, says that this is not an environmental issue, he goes on to explain - "... with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

His point is fairly obvious if you read the entire statement - climate change is inextricably linked to wider economic policy, and in particular to the value of natural resources. It is no longer a simple environmental issue alone.

His comments are quite clumsy and deliberately provocative, but it's also fairly obvious that they do not mean what you think they mean.

 

[Abraham3]

but his image to me always smacked of the Hamptons and preppie fashion and rowing and martinis.

I assume you're aware he's from Tennessee.

 

[Abraham3]

The IPCC is on record that AGW is a scam to redistribute wealth and has little to do with the climate at all

No, Frank, they are not.

"But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy... One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore..." -- IPCC

That's EXACTLY what they said.

Flip on your Obama Context Filter and tell us why it says something differnt

Because that was not a statement by the IPCC.

God are you stupid.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

I was saying that you do not understand the original comment.

When Edenhofer, who is an economist, says that this is not an environmental issue, he goes on to explain - "... with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole."

His point is fairly obvious if you read the entire statement - climate change is inextricably linked to wider economic policy, and in particular to the value of natural resources. It is no longer a simple environmental issue alone.

His comments are quite clumsy and deliberately provocative, but it's also fairly obvious that they do not mean what you think they mean.

LOL

He didn't say "But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy."

LOL

OK what did he say instead?

 

[skookerasbil]

Al Gore is getting rich

I do think poor old Al Gore probably did more harm than good when it came to getting people up to speed on climate change.

He had the right idea, but came across as such a silver-spoon licking asswipe it was no wonder people lined up to ignore him.

Skooks -

PLEASE stick to the topic. NO SPAMMING.

Skooks - you are gay. Learn to accept it.

but winning

 

[Abraham3]

When you can be honest with yourself, you'll always be a winner ;-)

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Do you understand that the man you are quoting is an ECONOMIST, who was discussing the ECONOMIC aspects of climate policy?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank -

Do you understand that the man you are quoting is an ECONOMIST, who was discussing the ECONOMIC aspects of climate policy?

We already figured that out AGW was about economics

 

[Abraham3]

Have you figured out that HE is not the IPCC?

 

[percysunshine]

OP: " There are no natural cycles"

Really? So this stuff about the ice age and wooly mammoths and such is all a conspiracy?

 

[Abraham3]

The existence of change is not proof of a cyclical nature. Obviously we have several effects due to the vagaries of our orbital dynamics, but the climate, in and of itself, is not an oscillating system.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Let's review: IPCC scientists can't produce a single experiment showing how an 800 ppm CO2 atmosphere will raise temperature but that doesn't prevent IPCC economists from telling us they use climate change to redistribute wealth

 

[Abraham3]

Let's review: IPCC scientists can't produce a single experiment showing how an 800 ppm CO2 atmosphere will raise temperature but that doesn't prevent IPCC economists from telling us they use climate change to redistribute wealth

Let's review. Frank lies.

 

[Saigon]

OP: " There are no natural cycles"

Really? So this stuff about the ice age and wooly mammoths and such is all a conspiracy?

Of course not...please try and understand the basic point here, because it is something that you can confirm from any legitimate scientific source:

Some natural phenomena, such as bursts of sunspot activitiy, have caused the earth to warm in the past.

Some natural phenomena, such as bursts of volcanic activity, have caused the earth to warm in the past.

This is not a natural cycle, it is a pattern caused by particular and known events.

 

[bripat9643]

OP: " There are no natural cycles"

Really? So this stuff about the ice age and wooly mammoths and such is all a conspiracy?

Of course not...please try and understand the basic point here, because it is something that you can confirm from any legitimate scientific source:

Some natural phenomena, such as bursts of sunspot activitiy, have caused the earth to warm in the past.

Some natural phenomena, such as bursts of volcanic activity, have caused the earth to warm in the past.

This is not a natural cycle, it is a pattern caused by particular and known events.

Really?

There is a 22 year sun-spot cycle and an 11 year sun spot cycle. It has been shown that rainfall varies in conformation to these cycles.

Apparently, according to the brethren of the Holy Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming, these cycles aren't "natural."

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

Possibly, but rainfall isn't at issue here. At least, not unless you are suggesting the Ice Age was part of an 11-year sunspot cycle, and killed off all the mammoths.

As always - research the question from sources you trust, and come back when you have.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

Possibly, but rainfall isn't at issue here. At least, not unless you are suggesting the Ice Age was part of an 11-year sunspot cycle, and killed off all the mammoths.

As always - research the question from sources you trust, and come back when you have.

So you admit there are natural weather cycles? Is that what you're saying?

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

It is impossible to compare day-to-day weather patterns with what occurs over a millenium.

In terms of weather, of course we have day/night and seasonal cycles, but what we do not have - and what any decent sceptical source will confirm for you - is that we do not have the kind of cycles that suggest that weather has been cooling for 50 years, and thus suddenly needs to start warming to reset the balance. Climate does not work that way.

When the climate changes, it is because something causes it to do so. This is something both sceptics and non-sceptics can all agree on.