Has anyone had a look at some of these interviews, just amazing, they are very long but if you only watch one watch the Donna Laframboise one on the IPCC, just mind blowing.




http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1379387772

IB, clearly your easily impressed.This project was established not to inquire into whether human caused global warming is real or whether it is realistically  possible to stop or mitigate it but rather it was established to refute the scientists claim that we can stop or mitigate the worse effects if we take immediate action. These are people who are overwhelmingly unqualified and more specifically this world belongs to me as much as to any capitalist who orders his/her priorities in terms of money.  If you think you can trash my world on the basis that its cheaper to do otherwise you better start preparing for WW3. 

ImSpartacus2 wrote on Oct 2^nd, 2013 at 11:48am:

IB, clearly your easily impressed.This project was established not to inquire into whether human caused global warming is real or whether it is realistically  possible to stop or mitigate it but rather it was established to refute the scientists claim that we can stop or mitigate the worse effects if we take immediate action. These are people who are overwhelmingly unqualified and more specifically this world belongs to me as much as to any capitalist who orders his/her priorities in terms of money.  If you think you can trash my world on the basis that its cheaper to do otherwise you better start preparing for WW3.

I think you may have misinterpreted the data  ;D

Innocent bystander wrote on Oct 1^st, 2013 at 7:51pm:

Has anyone had a look at some of these interviews, just amazing, they are very long but if you only watch one watch the Donna Laframboise one on the IPCC, just mind blowing. http://topher.com.au/50-to-1-video-project/

yeah I have and it proves how stupid and costly it would be for us to try and curbe our measly CO2 emissions based on the IPCC's opinion of a 95% certainty.

We want science fact not opinion.

If the sun arcs up and gets a few measles the amount of natural CO2 that might go up into our atmosphere could over shadow anything man has sent up....!!!!

If we had a major stratospheric volcano, that could result in a short term dip, but nobody can predict that. It would be very nice to have one in the next 5 years to buy us more time.

Ajax wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 10:41am:

yeah I have and it proves how stupid and costly it would be for us to try and curbe our measly CO2 emissions based on the IPCC's opinion of a 95% certainty. We want science fact not opinion.

95% is pretty certain. If you knew with 95% certainty that a certain stock would fall within the next week, would you hold on to it?

Remember getting advice from a brain surgeon versus the a First Aid assistant for a malignant brain tumour? Around 95% again.

95% is as close as fact that you're going to get.

muso wrote on Oct 4^th, 2013 at 7:47pm:

Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 10:41am: yeah I have and it proves how stupid and costly it would be for us to try and curbe our measly CO2 emissions based on the IPCC's opinion of a 95% certainty. We want science fact not opinion. 95% is pretty certain. If you knew with 95% certainty that a certain stock would fall within the next week, would you hold on to it? Remember getting advice from a brain surgeon versus the a First Aid assistant for a malignant brain tumour? Around 95% again. 95% is as close as fact that you're going to get.

Standard & Poors, Moodies and Fitch gave the credit default swaps a AAA rating with 100% confidence.

Later when the 2008 GFC came crashing down because of the credit default swaps.

Standard & Poors, Moodies and Fitch all stated that they only give their opinion and nothing more.

So I say to you guys with the IPCC's track record of continuously producing predictions that are way out.

How can I have any confidence that their OPINION that's OPINION even though it may be with 95%-100% confidence according to them (IPCC) is any good.

Ajax wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:18am:

muso wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 7:47pm: Ajax wrote on Oct 4th, 2013 at 10:41am: yeah I have and it proves how stupid and costly it would be for us to try and curbe our measly CO2 emissions based on the IPCC's opinion of a 95% certainty. We want science fact not opinion. 95% is pretty certain. If you knew with 95% certainty that a certain stock would fall within the next week, would you hold on to it? Remember getting advice from a brain surgeon versus the a First Aid assistant for a malignant brain tumour? Around 95% again. 95% is as close as fact that you're going to get. Standard & Poors, Moodies and Fitch gave the credit default swaps a AAA rating with 100% confidence. Later when the 2008 GFC came crashing down because of the credit default swaps. Standard & Poors, Moodies and Fitch all stated that they only give their opinion and nothing more. So I say to you guys with the IPCC's track record of continuously producing predictions that are way out. How can I have any confidence that their OPINION that's OPINION even though it may be with 95%-100% confidence according to them (IPCC) is any good.

Experimental particle physicists can't claim a 100% certainty for the existence of sub atomic particles. They use the 5 sigma level of confidence, which equates to 99.977% or better.

Economists and financial planners are the last clowns to issue out certainties of 100% and they rarely do.

Can you cite the source where a 100% certainty figure was given?

Even if the actual figure was 50% that humans are driving global warming, (which it isn't) WHY WOULD ANYBODY FLIP A COIN IN RELATION TO THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY?

Only a psychopathic sociopath would do that

Chimp_Logic wrote on Oct 5^th, 2013 at 10:25am:

Experimental particle physicists can't claim a 100% certainty for the existence of sub atomic particles. They use the 5 sigma level of confidence, which equates to 99.977% or better.

If they haven't got experiments that verify their findings, how can such a claim be made.......???

They have obviously done their homework...I don't know...??


Quote:

Economists and financial planners are the last clowns to issue out certainties of 100% and they rarely do. Can you cite the source where a 100% certainty figure was given?

If these clowns gave the credit default swaps a AAA rating what does that mean..................??????


Quote:

Even if the actual figure was 50% that humans are driving global warming, (which it isn't) WHY WOULD ANYBODY FLIP A COIN IN RELATION TO THE FUTURE OF HUMANITY?

If you think like that....!!!.... why is it that you cannot see once the credit default derivatives market is up and running.

Manmade CO2 emissions will no longer be as important as they are right now when they're pushing for all countries to jump on board.

In fact the health of the carbon credit derivatives market will depend on manmade CO2 emissions increasing.....???