Alex123 wrote:Kim O'Hara wrote:For the third time, don't go on saying what I do or don't believe! It's rude and it's very likely to be wrong.
This time, most of what you have put up is way out of date, most of it is not from scientists and most of it has also been taken out of context.
Don't know how misleading that can be? Here's an extreme example: Alex said, "390ppm [of CO2] is dangerously high."
You did say it!
I have NEVER said that 390ppm is dangerously high. You've said it. Now you are putting words in my mouth. It is dishonest, plain and simple. Considering what some AGW proponents have said, I am not surprised at all.
I'm sorry, but you did say it. You also said that CO2 significantly heats up the planet:
1)Prove that your apocalyptic scenario is true and 390ppm is dangerously high.
2) Prove that modern climate change is due to humans rather than nature. Climate was changing as much, if not more, long before modern humans even appeared. There is nothing extreme in the modern climate change.
3) Prove that CO2 significantly heats up the planet.
Yes, it is dishonest. So are many of the "quotations" you have put up here by way of casting doubt on good science.
Now you see just how dishonest it can be, perhaps you will be more cautious about accepting others' quotes.
Alex123 wrote:... You have also called my statements "junk science".Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex123 wrote: What crash are you talking about? CO2 levels being too high (at 390ppm)?
Yes. 390 is dangerously high for a whole human civilisation which developed with a lower level and is critically dependent on that lower level - not least because of sea levels. Temp goes up, ice melts, cities drown.
In quote below, you have called my statements to be junk science.Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex,
You have slipped back into trusting junk science ahead of the strong consensus of expert opinion...
I stand by all that.
Alex123 wrote:In another post you have asked me:Kim O'Hara wrote:Alex,
Why do you trust one set of people you don't know rather than another set of people you don't know?
That, to me, is the crucial question, because everything you believe about the climate is a consequence of that trust.
Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt.
“The data doesn’t matter. We’re not basing our recommendations on the data. We’re basing them on the climate models.”
- Prof. Chris Folland, Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research
“It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
- Paul Watson, co-founder of Greenpeace
“Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
- Sir John Houghton, first chairman of IPCC
Great! (I mean that, I'm not being sarcastic.) An answer to the crucial question I asked repeatedly and you failed to answer!
"Because of statements such as found at this post, I take what is said with grain of salt."
And that is an excellent policy, too - especially when you remember the dangers of misquotation we have just discovered.
But you still haven't really said why you believe one lot of people rather than the other lot. Do you take their statements with a grain (or bucket full) of salt too?
If not, why not?
The last point is what you've been saying yourself about "cities drowning".
That is appeal to emotion, not reason.
I am yet to read your rational reply to my post at: viewtopic.php?f=12&t=6963&p=118326#p118059 .
Is there a question there I haven't answered? If so, which?