Hey, here are some great videos by Peter Hadfield debunking those who would dare wade into the debate without having done their homework.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52KLGqDSAjo&list=PL82yk73N8eoX-Xobr_TfHsWPfAIyI7VAP
Well, it’s been 43 minutes, and no sign of Mr Smith.
It’s a bit late, but I’ll have a good look at these later. They start pretty well.
Here I am!!!
Anyway, I was trying to do some research (not peer-reviewed ho ho ho) on Peter Hadfield and I discovered that he is either a journalist or an Australian Olympic athlete… What I was unable to find, however, was anything indicating that he, himself, had produced any peer-reviewed research or that he was a (sing along with me) climate change expert. Now, given that we have been given such high standards by many on this forum for who (not whom) can and cannot have an opinion on climate change… I am afraid that we cannot listen to him or accept his opinion no matter how interesting and informative (cough cough) it is… Now, when you have a climatologist who has produced peer-reviewed research, well then, perhaps, we can listen a bit longer… before the sky falls and chicken little produces a youtube video of his/her own. :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
Yet again you fail to understand that challenging experts requires expertise, while agreeing with them and spreading what they say does not. Or do you really think you need a medical degree to take a pill your doctor prescribed?
[quote=“fred smith”]Here I am!!!
Anyway, I was trying to do some research (not peer-reviewed ho ho ho) on Peter Hadfield and I discovered that he is either a journalist or an Australian Olympic athlete… What I was unable to find, however, was anything indicating that he, himself, had produced any peer-reviewed research or that he was a (sing along with me) climate change expert. Now, given that we have been given such high standards by many on this forum for who (not whom) can and cannot have an opinion on climate change… I am afraid that we cannot listen to him or accept his opinion no matter how interesting and informative (cough cough) it is… Now, when you have a climatologist who has produced peer-reviewed research, well then, perhaps, we can listen a bit longer… before the sky falls and chicken little produces a youtube video of his/her own. :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
Hadfield is a journalist who has been following AGW issues fora long time. What he does is match statements made by AGW deniers or hysterics to their peer reviewed sources and show discrepancies. A very useful approach.
Okay, we have two on the record now who are saying IT IS OKAY not to be a climate change expert to discuss the issue and as long as one uses the opinions of climate change experts to challenge other climate change experts. Are we all in agreement here? Be careful now. You may wish to talk to CF Images and Vay first before signing on that statement. If and when you do, it is MUSIC to my EARS.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
[quote=“fred smith”]Okay, we have two on the record now who are saying IT IS OKAY not to be a climate change expert to discuss the issue and as long as one uses the opinions of climate change experts to challenge other climate change experts. Are we all in agreement here? Be careful now. You may wish to talk to CF Images and Vay first before signing on that statement. If and when you do, it is MUSIC to my EARS.
:roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
I am saying it is not only OK, but cool, when someone looks at the claims being made by people in the AGW debate and compares their statements to the sources they claim to be using. It’s called fact checking. It is NOT OK when an unqualified person offers his or her personal opinion on AGW as something which should be taken as seriously as a peer reviewed publication.
:eh: :s 
That TIME cover has the added bonus of liberal media telling us why we can’t beat the Soviets… 
Why are you attacking the IPCC? Gosh. You really ripped it a new a$$hole! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:
[quote=“Tigerman”]
:eh: :s
That TIME cover has the added bonus of liberal media telling us why we can’t beat the Soviets… [/quote]
An inconvenient truth? 
Just look at video number 3 to debunk the Time magazine story.
Why are you attacking the IPCC? Gosh. You really ripped it a new a$$hole! :roflmao: :roflmao: :roflmao:[/quote]
Actually Fred, despite what you may have felt in the moment, I am not a “new asshole” ripper. Sorry.
Hadfield has been equally disdainful of the IPCC, Al Gore and Christopher Monckton.
His whole point is: look at the science, and if someone is claiming to base their statements on the science, then check their sources.
I can hardly find any fault with that. How bout you?
Look at the science… okay, whose science? or is there SCIENCE along the likes of Climate Creedists?
Take the widely reviled Morner for example… he uses science to show no rising sea levels but is always attacked for his views on other matters.
I have not seen anyone successfully taking him on (certainly not these videos) regarding sea level rises.
Also, IF we are too look at the science… why does it require so much tweaking?
I have posted extensively (endlessly?) regarding models and tweaking and inexactitude… THIS is the problem.
Also, the view that scientists never said there was global cooling is an ingenuous one… no, not all, but some and the headlines…
well, the headlines and what sells is the issue. Were policy (government and society) measures proposed to deal with global cooling at the time?
You bet they were. THAT is the point. The point today is the catastrophic effects of global warming… whoops! climate change (no doubt another video about the nomenclature?)
have been used to ensure that certain people and their policy prescriptions and their funding are given the attention that they believe (even cynically) they deserve.
Again, why use 1979-1982 as a benchmark for Arctic ice measurements. Satellites came into use for measurements in 1979 BUT even more important this was the relatively
coldest point with the maximum ice extent and this can be used to show dramatic DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA that beguiles the weaker minds that populate society, but you
would already be most familiar with those circumstances, eh? 
[quote=“fred smith”]Look at the science… okay, whose science? or is there SCIENCE along the likes of Climate Creedists?
Take the widely reviled Morner for example… he uses science to show no rising sea levels but is always attacked for his views on other matters.
I have not seen anyone successfully taking him on (certainly not these videos) regarding sea level rises.
Also, IF we are too look at the science… why does it require so much tweaking?
I have posted extensively (endlessly?) regarding models and tweaking and inexactitude… THIS is the problem.
Also, the view that scientists never said there was global cooling is an ingenuous one… no, not all, but some and the headlines…
well, the headlines and what sells is the issue. Were policy (government and society) measures proposed to deal with global cooling at the time?
You bet they were. THAT is the point. The point today is the catastrophic effects of global warming… whoops! climate change (no doubt another video about the nomenclature?)
have been used to ensure that certain people and their policy prescriptions and their funding are given the attention that they believe (even cynically) they deserve.
Again, why use 1979-1982 as a benchmark for Arctic ice measurements. Satellites came into use for measurements in 1979 BUT even more important this was the relatively
coldest point with the maximum ice extent and this can be used to show dramatic DRAMA DRAMA DRAMA that beguiles the weaker minds that populate society, but you
would already be most familiar with those circumstances, eh? [/quote]
Fred, I am not trying to solve every issue in one post. I merely said here are some excellent videos debunking AGW skeptics.
They point out inconsistencies between statements about AGW by non-scientists and the sources they are purportedly based on.
Public policy is another matter.
Sorry Big John, but…
The site shows only discrepancies (alleged) for only one side… it (to my understanding) does not address issues regarding climate change models, sea level rises, Arctic ice from the longer perspective. It is political. It is biased. It is selective. What else is new/news to this debate?
Yeah!
And keep in mind that we have so many of these threads. The OP has shared a few vids of note. That is fine, but what is not fine is the goading of certain posters who are not even in the thread as of yet. As such, reference to a certain poster’s name have been removed.
Certain windbags might well grave their own dig, but I think the rest of us need not suffer more rides of the not so merry.
So, because the issue has been debated extensively before… we should not do what? continue to post? while in the open forum, we have no end of interesting debate on what exactly?
Eventually something happens and humanity dies, or Fred Smith wins because nothing happens.
I think I will pull for Fred Smith in this debate.
(this is my new rosier outlook stance, but for the record we need to change how we are living)
[quote=“fred smith”]Sorry Big John, but…
The site shows only discrepancies (alleged) for only one side… it (to my understanding) does not address issues regarding climate change models, sea level rises, Arctic ice from the longer perspective. It is political. It is biased. It is selective. What else is new/news to this debate?[/quote]
The guy is a long time journalist. Journalistic articles often focus on one side, theme or aspect of something. His theme is as I have said before: AGW skeptics or deniers often misinterpret the science they claim to base their assertions on.
The site is not in any obvious way political or biased. As to being selective, so what? He is trying to prove people act like idiots sometimes so he finds examples of people acting like idiots. That form of selection is reasonable. If he wanted to prove that somebody always acted like an idiot then he would of course need far more data.
[quote]The site is not in
any obvious way
political or biased. As to being
selective
, so what?[/quote]
Asked and answered. Thanks for your support.