The premise of this whole thread is questionable anyway, since it is surely the skeptics who are the bullies. How else would you describe Sarah Palin’s antics? And the powers that be have so far prevented any action being taken, and the press, who you call uneducated but I suspect are more educated than yourself, feel bullied into giving equal weight to the skeptics.

As for needing more debate, this has been discussed for over 150 years now, and quite intensely for the past 30 or so. Time to act!

Report this

00

So many decent sceptics cope with humiliation, are sidelined by the ‘bought’ scientific community, ignored by the uneducated media, have meagre funding, and are simply standing up for the rights we once supposed were integral to our democracy.

If this manufactured ‘disaster’ is as important as to be a threat to our survival, then we the people deserve and should demand a thorough debate and investigation. Not a Gore spin-fest.

Report this

00

Report this

00

Certainly is true.

When you begin reading this book, which can be downloaded in pdf format, you will just be sick. I promise you, even the first account had me shaking my head in disgust because it IS happening. Just thinking about it makes me shake my head . It is TRULY a MUST read. If you want REAL history, or even an analysis of our masses throughout history by an independent, you must search for it via many sources and most will NOT be found in KEVIN JENNINGS reading material.

READ the book listed above, or just peruse it. It is quite a read.

Report this

10

You assert:

Fortunately these business interests have finally been forced by the weight of evidence to accept that AGW is real.

Wonderful! I have been studying AGW thr three decades (yes, 30 years), and I have published both popular and peer reviewed papers on the subject. But I have never found or been given any evidence of any kind for the existence of AGW. But you say there is cogent evidence for AGW.

So, please tell me the “evidence … that AGW is real”. I realy want to know it.

Richard

Report this

10

Report this

00

Aristotle (384-322 BC) also proposed a spherical earth on geometric grounds, but backed up his assertion with physical evidence (described in his On the Heavens of 350BC[4.1])
Persons living in southern lands see southern constellations higher above the horizon than those living in northern lands.

The shadow of the Earth on the Moon during a lunar eclipse is round.

The fact that objects fall to Earth towards its center means that if it were constructed of small bits of matter originally, these parts would naturally settle into a spherical shape.
source: http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast161/Unit2/measearth.html

Report this

00

” But in any case, the temperature of space does not figure in any explanation of climate change I have ever seen or heard. And neither does the speed of light. (It’s actually 300,000 kph btw, not 216,000.) Not sure why you raised that. ”

And therein lies your problem in trying to understand climate science.
1) Our planet RADIATES heat according to it’s temperature in space. Which IS temperature “neutral”.
2) Photons move at what speed…….?

Sometime after considering these “small” issues Tony you may well ask yourself,
” WHY have I also NEVER seen the “speed” of the greenhouse (supposed) effect mentioned in CONsensus climate science. ”

Please excuse my liberty in adding “(supposed)” and “CONsensus” to your thoughts above…

Happy Xmas to all.

yours,
Derek.

Report this

10

Report this

00

It is hard to see why anyone would care enough about what [James Randi] thinks to bully him.

James Randi is the founder of the James Randi Educational Foundation which sponsors The One Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge offering a prize of US $1,000,000 to anyone who can demonstrate evidence of any paranormal, supernatural or occult power or event, under test conditions agreed to by both parties. He is a father-figure of sorts to sceptics around the world, including the Australian Skeptics. The point is that arch-sceptics on sceptical blogs are calling Randi a Denialist and insinuating that he might be senile because he expressed properly consistent, sceptical doubts about AGW.

Would you say a Geography department was “bullying” if it refused to hire a professor who believed the earth to be flat?

I should hope that any geographer would accept that the earth is an oblate spheroid, as (I expect) would any geography department; but a more appropriate hypothetical situation would be whether a Classics department should care about a prospective professor’s believing in a particular theory about the shape of the world. If a Classics department, or Mathematics department or Computer Science department told prospective staff that they had to repudiate their silly flat-earth beliefs publicly in order to be hired, I should indeed call that bullying.
(I do wish, by the way, that people would stop insisting that everyone before Columbus believed that the world was flat. Many of those who argued against the funding of Columbus’ expedition also accepted the notion of a spherical earth but disagreed with Columbus over his incorrect assessment on the distance between Spain and the Indies, and thought that Columbus would not be able to reach the Indies by travelling west and would surely run out of provisions ere that could happen—and they were right. Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the globe with remarkable accuracy in the time of Ptolemy II: this rather suggests that Eratosthenes, and all those who reported his measurements, realised that the world is not flat. In fact, most observant people in ancient times noticed the curvature of the horizon and other evidence against a flatearth theory.)

Fortunately these business interests have finally been forced by the weight of evidence to accept that AGW is real.

Tee hee, I mean, really?

Report this

00