The world of Rugby League.

rleague.com

Bulldogs Debate Page

joeb

joeb

and the piece de resistance

Is the IPCC fit for purpose?

Many would argue not. It is a long, unwieldy process that is prone to political intervention in the final stages that sees governments bartering with scientists over the claims made in the reports.

A purely scientific assessment should not involve this kind of political influence, and in past reports many scientific authors have complained that evidence has been exaggerated or downplayed to fit governmental agendas.

For those of a more sceptical disposition, then the reports serve little purpose if they allow governments to base policies on evidence they themselves have influenced.

The IPCC also suffered severe credibility problems after its last report in 2007. It was found to have cited inaccurate claims about glaciers in the Himalayas melting by 2035.

The source was a report compiled by environmental campaign group WWF. The IPCC was also found to have used material in magazine articles and student PhD's rather than peer reviewed science.

In 2009 emails between scientists working for the IPCC seemed to show some that researchers had colluded to make data more clearly fit the theory that global warming is caused by humans.

The scandals have left many scientists disillusioned with the IPCC, while others believe it should focus its attentions on shorter reports aimed at addressing particular issues. 
NathanB

NathanB

What on earth is the point of posting these articles?

Name any position on any topic and I could plug it into Google and then copy and post articles.

It gives the impression that you form your position on something based on random articles by retired politicians rather than from the advice of the overwhelming advice of the experts?

I take it that the Earth was created 6000 years ago, immunisation is evil, and water fluoridation will destroy humanity.

 
Zef.

Zef.

Joe, have you changed your opinion on GW from your often repeated mantra that it's complete crap (or words to that effect)? Or did you just not bother to read what you posted past the headline?

From the first piece by Nigel Lawson... a politician:

"The truth is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the world’s atmosphere is indeed steadily increasing, as a result of the burning of fossil fuels, particularly in the faster-growing countries of the developing world, notably China. And it is also a scientific fact that, other things being equal, this will make the world a warmer place."

From the third piece by Richard Gray - a journalist. (... oh I should point out this is from the COMPLETE original article, a part that you didn't post for some reason, which surprises me seeing these are the first paragraphs of said article.)

"There are few scientists who now dispute the physics that underlies the greenhouse effect and indeed most sceptics accept the role carbon dioxide plays in this. Carbon dioxide essentially acts like a giant transparent blanket that allows sunlight though the atmosphere but then traps heat inside – hence the greenhouse analogy.

Sceptics instead argue that this heating effect is offset by a number of feedback loops which cool the planet

It is hard to argue that human activity has not led to an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Almost everything we do in the modern world increase the burden of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Simple chemistry tells us that burning fossil fuels like petrol in cars, gas in the boilers that control our central heating and coal in the power stations that provide us with electricity, all produce carbon dioxide."

Now the second piece is by Christopher Booker - a journalist and novelist. And I ain't even gonna bother giving him much oxygen as he's also a "intelligent design" believer (though not necessarily by God, or a god let me point out... maybe aliens?) and he thinks evolution is based on "nothing more than blind faith and unexamined a priori assumptions." So I'm a bit sceptical of his "expertise" on the matter.. or any other.

But back to the startling part - global warming is real and caused by human activity and you now accept that?

That's good, everything else after that is open to debate as far as I'm concerned and I hope you contribute. I'm certainly always willing to hear the views of those who caution on our response to it as much as those who believe the response should be with urgency. The important part is getting the debate started on what when and how by agreeing that it actually exists in the first place and with you at least it seems we've reached that point...

... or did you just not read beyond the headline? 
IanC

IanC

Zef you can normally tell the veracity of a cause by those who espouse it. By that criteria alone I refuse to accept that any planetary warning is due to man made carbon dioxide emissions. I have to admit to having far greater concerns in my life so I read far less on the subject than you do. But I have certainly read more than enough to believe that mother nature does whatever the hell she wants and we are giving ourselves far greater relevancy in the great scheme of things than we deserve to suggest that we can influence the weather patterns. Naturally I believe in industry being heavily regulated as far as pollution is concerned and, over the past few decades, massive inroads have been made in cleaning up problems created by a lack of regulation in the past. Rivers and lakes around the world that were basically dead, are thriving again with fish now prevalent. The ability of nature to heal such wounds is way beyond the capability of man. I consider myself a rational and intelligent human being and I do not believe one iota in man made climate change. 
joeb

joeb

100 reasons why climate change is natural
HERE are the 100 reasons, released in a dossier issued by the European Foundation, why climate change is natural and not man-made:

1) There is “no real scientific proof” that the current warming is caused by the rise of greenhouse gases from man’s activity. 
NathanB

NathanB

Do you only speak via article, joebee?

Anyway, thanks for posting the single most ridiculous article on climate change I have seen. A bunch of totally random points cobbled together in order to make each one seem far more credible that it really is. Take the tip: if one side of an argument is writing "100 reasons why..." articles, it is time to give up. 
joeb

joeb

2) Man-made carbon dioxide emissions throughout human history constitute less than 0.00022 percent of the total naturally emitted from the mantle of the earth during geological history. 
NathanB

NathanB

The lethal dose of cyanide is 0.2 grams. This represents 0.00022 percent of the weight of a 90kg person. Maybe we should get a 90 kilo person to try it and then tell us that small numbers do not matter.

If you lap this point number 2 up, joebee, then you really need to have a good hard luck at the reasons behind your thinking on this issue. You either just don't get it, or you're deep in denial. Be honest.
 
joeb

joeb

3) Warmer periods of the Earth’s history came around 800 years before rises in CO2 levels. 
joeb

joeb

4) After World War II, there was a huge surge in recorded CO2 emissions but global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. 
Balso

Balso

Blind Freddy can see we are polluting the planet . Regardless of the debate about climate change we are still spewing all sorts of rubbish into the atmosphere in quite large amounts . 
Zef.

Zef.

"I refuse to accept that any planetary warning is due to man made carbon dioxide emissions."

You can do that if you want, but the next time somebody calls you a "denialist" on the subject don't turn around and say you're a "sceptic". Because the above statement contains zero scepticism and is the very definition of denial.

As for Joe I don't know what you're onto now. I'll ask, you do know there's contradictions between your 100 reasons and two of the three earlier articles you posted? They can't all be right, so which one do you want us to take as your point. 
joeb

joeb

5) Throughout the Earth’s history, temperatures have often been warmer than now and CO2 levels have often been higher – more than ten times as high. 
Zef.

Zef.

FMD Joe, if you haven't the wit to make your own contribution at least don't spam us. This is nothing but trolling. And as I pointed out, contradicting to your earlier posts - so you're the one being trolled... by yourself. 
joeb

joeb

6) Significant changes in climate have continually occurred throughout geologic time. 
hounddog

hounddog

With 6) above Joe - is that why dinosaurs became extinct? It think we were rodents time.
Anything that happened prior to humans being settled in particular locations and owned real estate is not important. Also a 2 degree change over 50 years is harder to handle than a 2 degree change over 5000 years. ..... but please don't respond with more points. 
joeb

joeb

7) The 0.7C increase in the average global temperature over the last hundred years is entirely consistent with well-established, long-term, natural climate trends. 
joeb

joeb

Quick, better slap a carbon tax on Mt Etna as it is erupting and spewing out carbon willy nilly!!! 
Zef.

Zef.

I do note with no surprise you never answered my question Joe. I guess because you can't find your answer in British newspapers. 
NathanB

NathanB

One of the more interesting admissions of defeat I've seen.

Cue number 8... 
joeb

joeb

8) The IPCC theory is driven by just 60 scientists and favourable reviewers not the 4,000 usually cited. 
joeb

joeb

9) Leaked e-mails from British climate scientists – in a scandal known as “Climate-gate” - suggest that that has been manipulated to exaggerate global warming 
joeb

joeb

10) A large body of scientific research suggests that the sun is responsible for the greater share of climate change during the past hundred years. 
joeb

joeb

11) Politicians and activiists claim rising sea levels are a direct cause of global warming but sea levels rates have been increasing steadily since the last ice age 10,000 ago 

Recent Rugby League Posts

Fromthenest - Does anyone know how the Northern Quad series has gone? Or when it is on?
OutbackEyes - CAIRNS FAR NORTH QUEENSLAND 2014 Tassell Trophy Club Challenge Under 14’s Carnival will be held at Vico Oval, Irene St Mooroobool, Cairns...
ALX21 - RD 20 SquadsBulldogs15 D.MaroskeRaiders6 L.LewisBroncos5 E.Alick6 J.NikorimaCowboys6 T.Carucci7 C.Bambling11 C.Hess
Leblancboys - Carina have had a number of season ending injuries and a coaching crisis mid year which can hurt the boys. East have been struggling for ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
tarifsetu - Saturday 6 September 2014, Australia vs South Africa live rugby streaming online championship 2014 match watch HD TV broadcast Full Free ...
ALX21 - Cowboys should lock Marshall Hudson in for a few years. One to keep an eye on.

Game by Game Discussions

Table 'rleague.meeting' doesn't exist
SELECT m.SportID as CategoryID, 'SportID' as CategoryType, m.Name as MeetingName, e.Name as EventName, m.MeetingID, e.EventID, e.EventNumber, e.StartTime, e.ForumPosts as Posts FROM `event` e INNER JOIN meeting m ON m.MeetingID = e.MeetingID WHERE NOT e.`Status` = 'closed' AND e.EndTime > UTC_TIMESTAMP() AND (m.SportID = 4 AND m.Removed = 0) AND (ISNULL(OrderIndex) OR OrderIndex <= 100) GROUP BY e.EventID ORDER BY e.StartTime LIMIT 20
backtrace/var/www/html/core/master.php800mc/var/www/html/data/forumPosts.php737loadUpcomingEvents/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php160Process/var/www/html/api/v2/api.php75Run/var/www/html/core/master.php866renderSlats/var/www/html/rleague/Forum_Right.php52include_once/var/www/html/Forum.php168