Critical Thinking on Climate Change: separating Skepticism from Denial by Dr Richard Milne

man made climate change is a scandalous hoax!!!

we go enter an iceage within few years now moron lol

cycle 25 will freeze us all up lol

by 2035 we will be covered by ice moron

1. please give me the precise reference for the article of this year April.
2. I find it quite amusing and sad at the same time that the editor of a
scientific journal actually resigned because he accepted a paper of Roy
Spencer (because his paper was so flawed!!)! Doesn’t shine a good light on
your source. Do you have another source showing that CO2 doesnt have a
warming effect?

the antarctic is expanding

“should be” so it fits the alarmists’ claim, when in reality it should be
whatever period is relevant. I say that the period during which people are
being forced to pay tyrannical carbon taxes to prevent global warming is
the period during which there has been cooling. The last 17 years & it’s
accelerating. By 2020 we will see the Thames frozen over like it was last
time the Sun was this inactive. It’s still snowing here & it’s only 5 weeks
until English summer begins on 1st May.

balance in&out TOA radiation (debate-neutral mid point of “best estimates”
skeptic Dr. Lindzen +1.6 & pro Dr. Hansen +2.8) then “Global Warming” will
stop when the oceans are ~+2.2 degrees C warmer than about 60 years ago.
It’ll take a few centuries to mix. Deepest 80% ocean is avge. ~4.4 and that
will rise to ~6.8 with my example.

XD LMFAO what are you? the replacement troll? How many more of you are
lined up for me to destroy?

For anybody interested in what “Global Warming” is (almost nobody knows
apparently) it’s an increase in the ocean heat content. Surface temperature
is a somewhat complex symptom that affects flora & fauna and it’s an
okayish proxy that depends on how the ocean is mixing, absorbing and
releasing its heat at any time, including any new heat, it isn’t “Global
Warming”. For example if “final” (exc. natural periodic vagaries) CO2x2
average surface temperature of +2.2 degrees C is required in order to

No fingerprint found for CO2 warming troposphere, measurements have been
done with satellite. Warming at sea level and on ground based thermometers
are showing increase, but in this part of the atmosphere, water vapor is
the predominant cause of greenhouse warming. Temp ‘rise’ in lower
troposphere is in the order +/-0,1C from 1979-2013, confirmed with
satellite and weather balloons. Thermometer rise in same period: +0,4C,
caused by water vapor, clouds and sunshine.

didn’t you watch this video? it talked about cherry picking data and that
the minimum sample size for climate today should be 30years. so even if the
earth was cooling for last 17 years (which it isnt, as we’ve had 12 of the
hottest years on record in that time), you need to look at what’s been
happening for 17 years before that as well.

they do know what caused ice ages. dr milne mentioned it briefly in this
talk. it’s usually caused by osilations in earth orbit and tilt. you can
investigate that further, as it wasn’t the main topic of this talk. i live
in australia and i’d like to know what this billion dollar industy is that
you talk about. i’d like a piece of that. we are suffering already from
global warming. my dad is a research scientist with tuna and has been aware
of this problem since the 70s.

Based on debates in comments I just realised something amazing.
Climate deniers are actually taking the side of big oil companies against the UN believing that oil is more trustworthy. O fuck. You guys just got a lot less funny. You hate the institution so
much that you think governments actually want to lose money in climate mitigation strategies, you think the scientists producing your cancer treatments want to lie to you… how do you justify following the wrong people so badly?

The problem isn’t with the experts, it’s with the lobbyist groups. Very
similar lobbyist groups that propel nations into war under the guise of
being experts on the matter. You keep citing the number of experts as
evidence of the events themselves, which is an appeal to authority, is it
not? It is the merits of the arguments that are to be attacked.

Consider the following: Big oil is setting on trillions of dollars of oil. They want to sell that oil. They are awash in money. They have a problem in that people don’t believe them when they try and attack the credibility of climate science (vested interest). They need a group to shill for them… Religious fundamentalists feel that science is undermining their religious beliefs. They want to discredit science… Wala – a marriage made in Heaven (actually, Hell would be a better description). The oil companies fund “conservative institutes” and all of a sudden religious organizations are opposing climate change.… Read more »

You forgot to insert the words “of non-scientific nonsense” between “lot:
and “to”.

“and most of the world population.. “. Are you ready to have a vote on this? -Like right now?

I mean chart

BAH!

Gov has experts who SHOULD handle such things based on evidence. That’s why
your water is clean. Voting is not relevant. But, you should know that
you’re in the minority, and that the minority is only as big as it is due
to MASSIVE propaganda.

Where are my science geeks? Check this guys out I think he’s my new hero.
Smart and funny.

Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh

http://youtu.be/gh9kDCuPuU8

Really good talk. Well in, Dr. Milne.

Very interesting (and relevant) talk on the difference between genuine
skepticism and denialism in the context of Global Warming.

Dr Richard Milne, School of Biological Sciences, presents Critical Thinking
on Climate Change: separating skepticism from denial.

Recorded on 11 October 2011.

A nice summary of the very often disingenuous tricks and claims of climate
change denialists.

That is exactly about I talking on daily basis on all of appropriate events
. We do not need politicians. We need smart people working for better live
on the Earth. For everyone .

Check out this video on YouTube:

1. Who has anointed climate research experts to be experts on establishing
the proper judgement on how we should handle the issue of climate change at
the level of public policy? 2. Are you sure you are not overblowing the
area of what is the”97%” climatologists actually agree on? “97%” may well
agree to the mundane fact that climate change is primarily man made, but
does that make you entitled you rubber stamp this as “97%” of experts
endorsing the policies you are advocating?

We live in a meritocracy. That’s how it is in EVERY facet of life in
America. Should I decide what a corporation does, or should the CEO, a
person expert in such things? Maybe I can browse on the net for a few hours
and then be an expert LOL.

US is a constitutional republic, I’m not sure that you understand what
meritocracy really means. Whether the society should act regarding climate
change more in the direction of prevention or more in direction of
adaptation, whether radical actions should be taken now regardless of the
costs or more conservative approach is to be taken, finally does “we the
people” wish to make any scarifies in their living standard in order to
prevent climate change – are all matters of public debate …. “lol”

USE YOUR BRAIN

Thank you!!! Great work.

Climate change is real, and man made. Therefore climate scientists can now
be laid off as their work is complete. We the public believe you, thank you
for your work and good luck in your new careers.

He lost me at what’s 463 * 132. Mathematics is not science, it’s a language, and a tool of thought. The answer to that question is arrived from complete logical deduction from a few axioms that are postulated (without evidence) to be true at the core of number theory. There is no need for consensus or empiricism among mathematicians, something is true if the demonstration is correct. This is completely and i do mean completely unlike the infinitely less precise process by which the “scientific questions” in his later table get their supposed factual answer. Clearly he wanted to make… Read more »

The rest of the world took also measures to deal with acid rain?

Fox Noise isn’t news. LOL! Most of us Americans make fun of Fox joke of a 24 hour GOP station. Even right wingers make fun of Fox. Its bunk news yellow journalism.

Denial isn’t a crime……yet.
As the costs rise, some are going to accountable.
Good conscience seeks to mitigate disaster. The preponderance of evidence was long since more than adequate and minimal predictions have been vastly exceeded.

At least the Climate Denier caricature is getting PAID for his
misinformation. You lot do it for FREE 🙁 #soldyourselfcheap

i wish you would all watch this