To those who don't believe AGW is real

[EternalOptimist]

I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.

[Mailman]

Opps, more heresy guru

http://www.sepp.org/Archive/controv/ipcccont/Item05.htm
But more than 15 sections in Chapter 8 of the report--the key chapter setting out the scientific evidence for and against a human influence over climate--were changed or deleted after the scientists charged with examining this question had accepted the supposedly final text.

I guess this guy is a water witch as well?

Mailman

[Mailman]

Oh? How so?
I'm surprised you have the gall to post here after your last pathetic attempt

and Sir John Houghton FRS, [former] chair of Working Group I of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

Yeah, as I said...not like there is any bias in who wrote that report

Mind you, you remind me of the scene in Baron Munchausen when the christians were going over the end of the world and the muslims were wondering what the hell was going on

But thats ok guru, just dont question the dogma aye. Pity you didnt watch the Dorking fulla last night. You could have learnt something from his point of view of just showing the kids something different and hoping they could open their minds just enough to consider what he was saying

Mailman

[sasguru]

Opps, more heresy guru



I guess this guy is a water witch as well?

Mailman

"A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz' article. Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

In 1998, Seitz wrote and circulated a letter, asking scientists to sign a petition asking the Government to reject the Kyoto Protocol. Seitz signed the letter and identifed himself as a former president of the National Academy of Sciences. He also directed attention to a report by Dr. Arthur Robinson, which concluded that carbon dioxide posed no threat to climate. The report was not peer-reviewed, but was formatted to look like an NAS journal article. The NAS later issued a statement disassociating itself from the petition and the article."


Next!

PS Note to anti-AGW brigade, having the cretin Mailman on your side is tanatamount to admitting you're wrong

[EternalOptimist]

I wonder if this is the same Royal Society that held out for years claiming that Continental Drift was a fallacy before discovering they had been measuring the wrong thing

[sasguru]

I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.

Where does it say that?

[sasguru]

I wonder if this is the same Royal Society that held out for years claiming that Continental Drift was a fallacy before discovering they had been measuring the wrong thing

The National Science Academies of almost every major country (including those that have a lot to lose) agree with the Royal Society.
But perhaps it would be better judgement to believe Mailman's sources, eh?

[Diver]

Simple innit.

Those who pollute most, do so in order to increase income/profits.

Legislation to reduce pollution/emissions also reduces income/profits and increases costs.

It's not rocket science, shirley

There is only 1 valid question with 1 valid answer

Q. Who is paying for the published scientific "proof?"

A. The ones whose financial interest is served by publishing the "results?"

[sasguru]

There is only 1 valid question with 1 valid answer

Q. Who is paying for the published scientific "proof?"

A. The ones whose financial interest is served by publishing the "results?"

Certainly true for the oil companies. But most universities and science academies are nominally independent from their government.
Interestingly the US, Indian and Chinese Science academies have all signed up and published for AGW and therefore embarrrased their funders.

[NickFitz]

I got as far as point 8 before I fell about laughing. The idea that its difficult to measure sea level rises because the level of the land in southern England is moving has got to be a joke.

Where does it say that?

In the document you originally linked to - it's one of the idiotisms of the sceptics they set out to refute:

"Misleading arguments 8. There is little evidence of a rise in sea level due to global warming. There is no correlation between rises in climate temperature and sea levels. There has been no consistent trend this century, with sea level rising in some places but not in others. Even if sea level is rising it has nothing to do with global warming and is actually due to the fact that southern England is sinking due to the bending of the Earth’s crust."

It does sound like the spurious nonsense that the scientifically-illiterate bozos come up with

EDIT: Ah, was EO disagreeing with the science? The scientists don't say anywhere that it's "difficult to measure sea level rises" because of isostatic rebound, merely that this is one of the compensating factors that has to be considered. It's the sceptics' misleading argument which claims that it causes difficulty.