+ Reply to Thread
Page 12 of 26 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 260
  1. #111
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Haha, so cute Father. You mean Dr Bjorn Lomborg who has a PhD in Political Science, not climate science and has no peer reviewed articles in climate science. Crack. me. up

    http://www.lomborg-errors.dk/

    This is one of his ideas for reducing global warming;

    In one instance, Lomborg envisioned a fleet of 1900 robotic ships that will patrol the ocean while releasing spouts of ocean water to reflect the sun's rays in an attempt to reduce global warming.

    hahaha. Best idea ever!
    Yes. That is him. No, he is not a climate scientist - just as Al Gore isn't.
    He does, are you rightly mention, study politics. He is not saying that climate change isn't happening, as you would be well aware if you had read his article. He just doesn't think things like the carbon tax is the way to go.

    A climate scientist is not the expert at developing the most cost effective way to solve the problem. Dr Lomborg is more than qualified enough to read the scientific reports (ie. the summary for policy makers), and run some numbers from economic experts (ie. the Stern report) to determine what a government should do.

    I provided that article because SSP had said:

    What would be the harm in putting in place things to help protect the planet?
    It is a lot more complex than just panting a veggie patch in the backyard and recycling. When you are talking about trillions of dollars, you would want to be sure that money can provide the desired outcome. Lomborg suggests that there are much better ways to deal with the problem of climate change. It seems that you just don't want to hear them, and would rather think that the only solution is to tax people/businesses. That is not the only solution.

    I had not heard of the robotic ship idea. But from what I have read, it was not Lomborg's idea. It was a possible solution that was being developed by both British and American climate scientists. He just happened to write about it.

    For what it is worth, if you truly want the planet to not warm, that solution would most likely work. Clouds over the ocean would have a cooling effect as it would reflect sunlight from above, but not trap much terrestrial re-radiation. Feel free to laugh at it, but the science says that it is a valid idea. Also sounds quite cheap comparatively. The idea was, after all, developed by climate scientists.

    But the global warming agenda is not about keeping the global temperature at the current rate is it?

    Legitimate question. If there was a solution that would enable us to keep the planet at the current temperature, would you be happy?

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,900
    Thanks
    1,414
    Thanked
    7,529
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Are you a climate scientist?

  3. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (06-10-2013),beebs  (06-10-2013)

  4. #113
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    8,806
    Thanks
    7,267
    Thanked
    9,720
    Reviews
    5
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Are you a climate scientist?
    Or a politician??

  5. #114
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    Depends on the solution.

    Do I think we should be building robots to stop warming? No, I think we should stop being so bloody destructive, greedy, and disrespectful to the planet in the first place. We need to reign in the damage we do. That is what we need to do.

    "Dr Lomborg is more than qualified enough to read the scientific reports (ie. the summary for policy makers), and run some numbers from economic experts (ie. the Stern report) to determine what a government should do." - erm really? How do you know? Is that your expert opinion? Or are you getting that from somewhere/someone else. How do you know if he is qualified enough, or is this just the opinion of an unqualified person?

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Yes. That is him. No, he is not a climate scientist - just as Al Gore isn't.
    He does, are you rightly mention, study politics. He is not saying that climate change isn't happening, as you would be well aware if you had read his article. He just doesn't think things like the carbon tax is the way to go.

    A climate scientist is not the expert at developing the most cost effective way to solve the problem. Dr Lomborg is more than qualified enough to read the scientific reports (ie. the summary for policy makers), and run some numbers from economic experts (ie. the Stern report) to determine what a government should do.

    I provided that article because SSP had said:



    It is a lot more complex than just panting a veggie patch in the backyard and recycling. When you are talking about trillions of dollars, you would want to be sure that money can provide the desired outcome. Lomborg suggests that there are much better ways to deal with the problem of climate change. It seems that you just don't want to hear them, and would rather think that the only solution is to tax people/businesses. That is not the only solution.

    I had not heard of the robotic ship idea. But from what I have read, it was not Lomborg's idea. It was a possible solution that was being developed by both British and American climate scientists. He just happened to write about it.

    For what it is worth, if you truly want the planet to not warm, that solution would most likely work. Clouds over the ocean would have a cooling effect as it would reflect sunlight from above, but not trap much terrestrial re-radiation. Feel free to laugh at it, but the science says that it is a valid idea. Also sounds quite cheap comparatively. The idea was, after all, developed by climate scientists.

    But the global warming agenda is not about keeping the global temperature at the current rate is it?

    Legitimate question. If there was a solution that would enable us to keep the planet at the current temperature, would you be happy?

  6. #115
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Are you a climate scientist?
    Is Tim Flannery? Al Gore? David Suzuki? Or how about Skeptical Science's John Cook? (He is a "self-employed cartoonist and web programmer" by the way).

    You all seem to listen to them without question.

  7. #116
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,900
    Thanks
    1,414
    Thanked
    7,529
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Is Tim Flannery? Al Gore? David Suzuki? Or how about Skeptical Science's John Cook? (He is a "self-employed cartoonist and web programmer" by the way).

    You all seem to listen to them without question.
    I'm not asking about them, I'm asking about you. However, I do know what their credentials are (it's not that hard to find out) and given the fact you've avoided the question several times, and refuse to answer, I'll make my own assumptions. And I'll guess that they're probably more qualified than you on this subject.

  8. #117
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    That is because they listen to the 97% of climate scientist who are all coming to the same conclusion as each other.

    Unlike your skeptics who prefer to go down another path. If you are going to have such wildly different views, then you need to be able to back up your claims, your lot can't do it with science, but they can't even do it with any kind of qualified person either.
    Lord Monkton anyone

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    Atropos  (06-10-2013)

  10. #118
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    Depends on the solution.

    Do I think we should be building robots to stop warming? No, I think we should stop being so bloody destructive, greedy, and disrespectful to the planet in the first place. We need to reign in the damage we do. That is what we need to do.
    Ok. That is what I thought. I am happy with that viewpoint. But at least be honest about it. It is not about 'global warming', it is about your ideology.

    By the way, I wish climate scientists would focus their energy on such ideas like the robotic ships. If the science of climate change is settled, they should now be looking at the solutions. And the solutions do go beyond trying to reduce CO2 emissions, it is just that those other solutions don't fit with the ideological agenda.

  11. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    That is because they listen to the 97% of climate scientist who are all coming to the same conclusion as each other.

    Unlike your skeptics who prefer to go down another path. If you are going to have such wildly different views, then you need to be able to back up your claims, your lot can't do it with science, but they can't even do it with any kind of qualified person either.
    Lord Monkton anyone
    You do realise that the 97% figure is completely made up right? Which 97% were you referring? The John Cook study of journals with the made up results? Or the survey of scientists?

    Which claim of mine haven't I backed up with science?

  12. #120
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    My ideology is in line with actual science though. Something which you can't claim.
    You can post, and quote and put little graphs up. But you are not qualified, your ego is astounding. It is almost funny, that you think you know more about climate scientists than almost all climate scientists in the world.

    And I will listen to the majority of scientists on this one, because I don't believe your story any more than I believe in cults, or fairy stories about ogres. Is that honest enough for you

    I feel a bit sorry for you father at this point, who exactly are you trying to convince with all your cherry picking? Is it us? Or yourself?

    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    Ok. That is what I thought. I am happy with that viewpoint. But at least be honest about it. It is not about 'global warming', it is about your ideology.

    By the way, I wish climate scientists would focus their energy on such ideas like the robotic ships. If the science of climate change is settled, they should now be looking at the solutions. And the solutions do go beyond trying to reduce CO2 emissions, it is just that those other solutions don't fit with the ideological agenda.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to beebs For This Useful Post:

    BigRedV  (06-10-2013)


 

Similar Threads

  1. E Tax - Where am I going wrong??
    By Mokeybear in forum Family Finances
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 05-09-2013, 19:08

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
sales & new stuffsee all
Melbourne Natural Medicine Clinic
Specialist Naturopathy, Chiropractic & Massage Melbourne Natural Medicine Clinic
Leading natural health practitioners in fertility, preconception, pregnancy, and children's health. We take an integrative approach all health professionals and offer diagnostic testing and natural treatment options suitable for the whole family.
featured supporter
Billington Street
For stationery as unique as you are! ♥ Handmade, custom designed stationery for all of life's celebrations
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!