http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science

An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences.

Other fields of scientific study can have observational as well as experimental aspects. In high-energy physics, for example, some interactions involving energies higher than can be created in any experiment can be observed indirectly through astronomical observations.

To substitute for the inability to directly construct experiments as part of the scientific method, two main strategies are used. First, multivariate statistical techniques allow the approximation of experimental control with statistical control. Secondly, experimental observations of previously-unobserved phenomena can be used to suggest new hypotheses and test existing ones. This can be seen as making use of pre-existing "natural experiments".

In the social sciences, sociology and economics are generally held to be examples of observational sciences, because of the impracticality (not to mention dubious ethical status) of manipulating whole societies or economies for experimental purposes. However, microeconomics can be regarded as an experimental science, because it is possible to set up experimental micro-economies.

Sometimes fields of study can change from being observational to being experimental: for example, until the early 21st century, the study of comets was entirely observational -- it became experimental when the first man-made cometary collision was engineered in 2005.

This is meant for you to understand on some of the methodology used to come up with these so called "undeniable proof"

Facts are the IPCC is stacked with leftist environmentalist nuts or those who have a vested interest in supporting the ALP - therefore the IPCC is a sham!!

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 5:57pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences. Other fields of scientific study can have observational as well as experimental aspects. In high-energy physics, for example, some interactions involving energies higher than can be created in any experiment can be observed indirectly through astronomical observations. To substitute for the inability to directly construct experiments as part of the scientific method, two main strategies are used. First, multivariate statistical techniques allow the approximation of experimental control with statistical control. Secondly, experimental observations of previously-unobserved phenomena can be used to suggest new hypotheses and test existing ones. This can be seen as making use of pre-existing "natural experiments". In the social sciences, sociology and economics are generally held to be examples of observational sciences, because of the impracticality (not to mention dubious ethical status) of manipulating whole societies or economies for experimental purposes. However, microeconomics can be regarded as an experimental science, because it is possible to set up experimental micro-economies. Sometimes fields of study can change from being observational to being experimental: for example, until the early 21st century, the study of comets was entirely observational -- it became experimental when the first man-made cometary collision was engineered in 2005.

If the supposed science of Climate change had any semblance of ligitimacy, its observations, like other sciences, would create models far superior to what climate science can muster.

You have the self bestowed resident genius leftballtoosmall tell us the scientific evidence has been "peer reviewed"

I encourage you to read the link below about peer review.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Peer_review_failures

Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor.

Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud.

The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust. It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the author's work. Publication of incorrect results does not in itself indicate a peer review failure

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:02pm:

If the supposed science of Climate change had any semblance of ligitimacy, its observations, like other sciences, would create models far superior to what climate science can muster.

EXACTLY

How can they create a "Carbon Emissions" model when they don't know who the top 10 carbon emitting organisms are (including humans)

If they don't know this question then how do they know how much humans are contributing to the equation ie 1%, 10% or 50%

This is why peer review fails. The Observation might be correct but the assumptions are wrong therefore leads to wrong conclusions

For example if the assumption is humans contribute 50% to carbon emissions then we have to take action

But if humans only contribute 1% then actions will be futile

were either of you guys impressed with what we saw on todays news.. regarding CLIMATE CHANGE..

maybe I am so over the whole thing

but todays mantra...

" we must act in this next decade or else".....

all sounded familiar to me seems like I was listening to this during the first PANIC stage.. that all fell apart in Copenhagen...


I am sick of it to be honest I dont believe it.. I am if anything even less convinced than I was 3.5.years ago..

did these earstwhile looking after the planet people get paid for this???..

or are the soooo bloody generous they would do it for nothing because it is that important??????????????

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn.

You all deserve each other!

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:08pm:

You have the self bestowed resident genius leftballtoosmall tell us the scientific evidence has been "peer reviewed" I encourage you to read the link below about peer review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review#Peer_review_failures Peer review failures occur when a peer-reviewed article contains obvious fundamental errors that undermine at least one of its main conclusions. Many journals have no procedure to deal with peer review failures beyond publishing letters to the editor. Peer review in scientific journals assumes that the article reviewed has been honestly written, and the process is not designed to detect fraud. The reviewers usually do not have full access to the data from which the paper has been written and some elements have to be taken on trust. It is not usually practical for the reviewer to reproduce the author's work. Publication of incorrect results does not in itself indicate a peer review failure

I was hoping the people in the cult would figure it out. They were so close. Would have been good self education. Now it is given to them they will just blow it off like any good fact.

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:35pm:

were either of you guys impressed with what we saw on todays news.. regarding CLIMATE CHANGE.. maybe I am so over the whole thing but todays mantra... " we must act in this next decade or else"..... all sounded familiar to me seems like I was listening to this during the first PANIC stage.. that all fell apart in Copenhagen... I am sick of it to be honest I dont believe it.. I am if anything even less convinced than I was 3.5.years ago.. did these earstwhile looking after the planet people get paid for this???.. or are the soooo bloody generous they would do it for nothing because it is that important??????????????

You saw it on the news with a fearmonger campaign because there is clear debate in Australia and Australians want what the science feels is proof of AGW. They dont have what the Australians need, so fearmonger away.

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:51pm:

Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. You all deserve each other!

And this is how 99% of lefties respond when faced with facts

cods wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:35pm:

were either of you guys impressed with what we saw on todays news.. regarding CLIMATE CHANGE.. maybe I am so over the whole thing but todays mantra... " we must act in this next decade or else"..... all sounded familiar to me seems like I was listening to this during the first PANIC stage.. that all fell apart in Copenhagen... I am sick of it to be honest I dont believe it.. I am if anything even less convinced than I was 3.5.years ago.. did these earstwhile looking after the planet people get paid for this???.. or are the soooo bloody generous they would do it for nothing because it is that important??????????????

It's all good cods

You'll notice how the lefties have not had the guts to post the articles you mentioned

They know if they mention Gillard's IPCC I would absolutely tear the argument a part because committee members are Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne, Oakshott and Windsor with their advisory group headed by Garnaut

Here's Observational Science and Peer Review in action

It won a freaking Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. To win this prize the report would have to pass panel of scientists who would have "checked" it for authenticity.

Yet the report was found to be false



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/un-says-sorry-for-glacier-error/story-e6frg6xf-1225822334349

THE UN's top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was "poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly," the panel said.

"The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance."

The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, which is already under fire over a separate scandal last year involving stolen emails that mentioned suppressing data to freeze out climate change sceptics.

The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high".

It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on melted water from Himalayan glaciers for their supplies during the dry seasons.

It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999.

That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now said he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with New Scientist.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:30pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:51pm: Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. You all deserve each other! And this is how 99% of lefties respond when faced with facts

Gee, name calling now, are you?

Pity your memory is fading with age and you can't recall all those ocassions where I have said clearly that 99% of all pollies are as useful as tits on a bull.

That should tell any sane person, that Ia m Pro no Political party!

But, you knew that already, didn't you, Mrs SPIN!

Btw, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse.

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 7:30pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:51pm: Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. You all deserve each other! And this is how 99% of lefties respond when faced with facts Gee, name calling now, are you? Pity your memory is fading with age and you can't recall all those ocassions where I have said clearly that 99% of all pollies are as useful as tits on a bull. That should tell any sane person, that Ia m Pro no Political party! But, you knew that already, didn't you, Mrs SPIN! Btw, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse.

name calling?

you are a lefty

if you know facts then you should have enough references to refute my claims

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:48pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 7:42pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 7:30pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:51pm: Frankly, my dears, I don't give a damn. You all deserve each other! And this is how 99% of lefties respond when faced with facts Gee, name calling now, are you? Pity your memory is fading with age and you can't recall all those ocassions where I have said clearly that 99% of all pollies are as useful as tits on a bull. That should tell any sane person, that Ia m Pro no Political party! But, you knew that already, didn't you, Mrs SPIN! Btw, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse. name calling? you are a lefty if you know facts then you should have enough references to refute my claims

Facts, you have no interest in facts, only SPIN!

If you want to allocate categories, then you are clearly far right, with Abbott-a-bad and I really don't care for any Politician of Party, so I would be non-political or centre, but certainly not Right or Left.

And certainly, neither you or the Liberals, have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics and Labor isn't far away from where you are!

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:03pm:

have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics

Supply and demand market forces mate.
As always is the case.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:08pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:03pm: have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics Supply and demand market forces mate. As always is the case.

What are the main factors involved in the Demand/Supply equation now & going forward?

And, what are they telling you about the overall direction of the Global Economy?

Btw, a hint, don't answer from past beliefs, look at what is happening now and look at what new factors are in play now & going forward!

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 5:57pm:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. [Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences.

Maqqa doesn't believe in heliocentrism, tectonic plates, dinosaurs or cancer either!

Maqqa really is a BIG smacking dimwit. Like a gibbering monkey. A BIG, one trick, gibbering monkey.  :D  :D  :D

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:37pm:

cods wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:35pm: were either of you guys impressed with what we saw on todays news.. regarding CLIMATE CHANGE.. maybe I am so over the whole thing but todays mantra... " we must act in this next decade or else"..... all sounded familiar to me seems like I was listening to this during the first PANIC stage.. that all fell apart in Copenhagen... I am sick of it to be honest I dont believe it.. I am if anything even less convinced than I was 3.5.years ago.. did these earstwhile looking after the planet people get paid for this???.. or are the soooo bloody generous they would do it for nothing because it is that important?????????????? It's all good cods You'll notice how the lefties have not had the guts to post the articles you mentioned They know if they mention Gillard's IPCC I would absolutely tear the argument a part because committee members are Gillard, Swan, Brown, Milne, Oakshott and Windsor with their advisory group headed by Garnaut

you know what would make sense to me.

first off close the coal mines.. not tomorrow now today..

this report says we have a decade... well we know we heard that 3.5.years ago but anyway we now have an extention on that...

a decade 10 years..

our scientists must think different from those advising the british PM>. he gets till 2050.. but wont go there..

we have 10 years... but our footprint is so large because we SELL the coal that is the main problem..

but at the same time we will be TAXED almighty untill we stop using coal fired power........am I right so far??????.

suddenly we are not so sure about petrol and the damage it causes... might not even CARBON TAX petrol all depends on the unions..

coal is the biggy..

and I presume we will continue mining coal but only to sell to overseas countries to keep their power stations going and keeping the price of power down for those people in those countries....

even though they are making the CARBON we will be striving to save.. by not using the power that uses coal...

I am lost.. gone it makes no sense to me whatever.

if we are going to sell the stuff why cant we use it.????

astro_surf wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 5:57pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. [Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences. Maqqa doesn't believe in heliocentrism, tectonic plates, dinosaurs or cancer either! Maqqa really is a BIG smacking dimwit. Like a gibbering monkey. A BIG, one trick, gibbering monkey.  :D  :D  :D

Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant.

This is like church of climatolgy fearmongering guesswork.

http://www.businessinsider.com/end-of-world-may-21-2011-4

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:45pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:19pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 5:57pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. [Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences. Maqqa doesn't believe in heliocentrism, tectonic plates, dinosaurs or cancer either! Maqqa really is a BIG smacking dimwit. Like a gibbering monkey. A BIG, one trick, gibbering monkey.  :D  :D  :D Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant.

Your crowd, being the Church of climatology!

Real Science, being the likes of CSIRO, NASA, NCDC etc

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:49pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:45pm: astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:19pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 5:57pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. [Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences. Maqqa doesn't believe in heliocentrism, tectonic plates, dinosaurs or cancer either! Maqqa really is a BIG smacking dimwit. Like a gibbering monkey. A BIG, one trick, gibbering monkey.  :D  :D  :D Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant. Your crowd, being the Church of climatology! Real Science, being the likes of CSIRO, NASA, NCDC etc

Like NASA cant even use temperature gauges to get temperature and apparently got it wrong. NASA getting it wrong makes them less than note worthy.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:45pm:

Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant.

Ah, deniers, all lies and very little substance.

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 8:03pm:

Facts, you have no interest in facts, only SPIN! If you want to allocate categories, then you are clearly far right, with Abbott-a-bad and I really don't care for any Politician of Party, so I would be non-political or centre, but certainly not Right or Left. And certainly, neither you or the Liberals, have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics and Labor isn't far away from where you are!

I just gave you facts - so refute it with facts

YOU CAN'T

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:22pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:03pm: Facts, you have no interest in facts, only SPIN! If you want to allocate categories, then you are clearly far right, with Abbott-a-bad and I really don't care for any Politician of Party, so I would be non-political or centre, but certainly not Right or Left. And certainly, neither you or the Liberals, have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics and Labor isn't far away from where you are! I just gave you facts - so refute it with facts YOU CAN'T

CPRS?

Like many others, I am OVER the spin about climate change.

I am OVER the calling for a carbon tax which will make NO difference to gases in the atmosphere, but will certainly plump up the government coffers. Why should we give this government ANOTHER tax, bringing many Australians to their knees, when we know that the current incumbents are so inept at good government and are so good at wasting the multiple taxes already imposed upon us.

Global warmists would be more credible if the Dutch were already deserting their below sea-level country for the mountains of Europe , people were being evacuated from Venice and Al Gore was putting his waterfront, nine bathroom, mansion on the market and heading for the hills. No-one seems to be even thinking of it, so why not?

People like Garnaut (who has no qualifications in climate science) do not instil confidence ....they are government pawns fawning to Gillard who got into power by lying.

Roll on the next election so we can throw this shame of a government out.

olive wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 11:09pm:

Like many others, I am OVER the spin about climate change. I am OVER the calling for a carbon tax which will make NO difference to gases in the atmosphere, but will certainly plump up the government coffers. Why should we give this government ANOTHER tax, bringing many Australians to their knees, when we know that the current incumbents are so inept at good government and are so good at wasting the multiple taxes already imposed upon us. Global warmists would be more credible if the Dutch were already deserting their below sea-level country for the mountains of Europe , people were being evacuated from Venice and Al Gore was putting his waterfront, nine bathroom, mansion on the market and heading for the hills. No-one seems to be even thinking of it, so why not? People like Garnaut (who has no qualifications in climate science) do not instil confidence ....they are government pawns fawning to Gillard who got into power by lying. Roll on the next election so we can throw this shame of a government out.

The people who want the tax are trying to give governments what they have always wanted and that is slaves.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:22pm:

perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:03pm: Facts, you have no interest in facts, only SPIN! If you want to allocate categories, then you are clearly far right, with Abbott-a-bad and I really don't care for any Politician of Party, so I would be non-political or centre, but certainly not Right or Left. And certainly, neither you or the Liberals, have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics and Labor isn't far away from where you are! I just gave you facts - so refute it with facts YOU CAN'T

As I have said previously, on a number of ocassions, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse!

perceptions_now wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 11:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 10:22pm: perceptions_now wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 8:03pm: Facts, you have no interest in facts, only SPIN! If you want to allocate categories, then you are clearly far right, with Abbott-a-bad and I really don't care for any Politician of Party, so I would be non-political or centre, but certainly not Right or Left. And certainly, neither you or the Liberals, have no idea about what is now driving Global Economics and Labor isn't far away from where you are! I just gave you facts - so refute it with facts YOU CAN'T As I have said previously, on a number of ocassions, you wouldn't know a fact, if it bit you on the arse!

Fact... your an idiot.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 7:42pm:

Here's Observational Science and Peer Review in action It won a freaking Nobel Peace Prize in 2007. To win this prize the report would have to pass panel of scientists who would have "checked" it for authenticity. Yet the report was found to be false http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/un-says-sorry-for-glacier-error/story-e6frg6xf-1225822334349 THE UN's top climate change body has issued an unprecedented apology over its flawed prediction that Himalayan glaciers were likely to disappear by 2035. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said yesterday the prediction in its landmark 2007 report was "poorly substantiated" and resulted from a lapse in standards. "In drafting the paragraph in question, the clear and well-established standards of evidence, required by the IPCC procedures, were not applied properly," the panel said. "The chair, vice-chair and co-chairs of the IPCC regret the poor application of IPCC procedures in this instance." The stunning admission is certain to embolden critics of the panel, which is already under fire over a separate scandal last year involving stolen emails that mentioned suppressing data to freeze out climate change sceptics. The 2007 report, which won the panel the Nobel Peace Prize, said the probability of Himalayan glaciers "disappearing by the year 2035 and perhaps sooner is very high". It caused shock in Asia, where about two billion people depend on melted water from Himalayan glaciers for their supplies during the dry seasons. It emerged last week that the prediction was based not on a consensus among climate change experts but on a media interview with a single Indian glaciologist in 1999. That scientist, Syed Hasnain, has now said he never made such a specific forecast in his interview with New Scientist.

Oops, and this is 'peer reviewed' data.

With that report getting a nobel prize, you can tell what nuts and hopeless scientific direction we have to contend with.

progressiveslol wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 9:45pm:

astro_surf wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:19pm: Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 5:57pm: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_science An observational science is a science where it is not possible to construct controlled experiments in the area under study. For example, in astronomy, it is not possible to create or manipulate stars or galaxies in order to observe what happens. [Other examples of necessarily observational sciences include geology, paleontology, epidemiology, and much of the social sciences. Maqqa doesn't believe in heliocentrism, tectonic plates, dinosaurs or cancer either! Maqqa really is a BIG smacking dimwit. Like a gibbering monkey. A BIG, one trick, gibbering monkey.  :D  :D  :D Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant.

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

;D :D ;) ;)

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

;D :D ;) ;)

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

;D :D ;) ;)

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

WHERE IS THE NEXT LEVEL 8 EARTHQUAKE GOING TO BE AND WHEN?

;D :D ;) ;)

... answer ploooooooooooooooooooooooooooise! LIKE NOW!!!  8-) 8-) :o :-[

astro_surf wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 10:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 9:45pm: Funny how real science manages to model their observations correctly. Church of climatology cant. Ah, deniers, all lies and very little substance.

PROPAGANDA MUST BE SPEEDY!

SUBSTANCE WILL SLOW IT DOWN!!

don't laugh, it's true!!!!  8-) 8-) 8-) Nothing beats speed but speed yet with no substance it equals out to being a momentumless nothingness.

To survive it must actually be delivering some substance: that's how it engages people, by twisting what is actually fact!

 ;) ;)

 **** COMMUNICATION BREAKDOWN IS ALWAYS THE SAME: LED ZEPPELIN TOLD THE WORLD THAT !!!  8-) ****

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 6:50am:

Oops, and this is 'peer reviewed' data.

Haha, no it wasn't! ;D Such ignorance yet such strong opinions. Why?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=international-science-panel-recommends-ipcc-reforms

astro_surf wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 7:03pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on May 24th, 2011 at 6:50am: Oops, and this is 'peer reviewed' data. Haha, no it wasn't! ;D Such ignorance yet such strong opinions. Why? http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=international-science-panel-recommends-ipcc-reforms

Funny enough, this mob will trot out any propaganda to keep the fearmongering going. They dont care where is came from as long as it says the world is DOOOOOMED.

IPCC, what a joke.

Maqqa wrote on May 23^rd, 2011 at 6:02pm:

This is meant for you to understand on some of the methodology used to come up with these so called "undeniable proof" Facts are the IPCC is stacked with leftist environmentalist nuts or those who have a vested interest in supporting the ALP - therefore the IPCC is a sham!!

Yes, the ICCP use simple 'models' and they are based on the assumption that water vapour does not lead to clouds!

What the!!!

As the ICCP claim that Co2 results in increased water vapour (from the earth heating the water) but then claim that that water vapour does not in kind lead to increased cloud cover.
Then where's the water vapour go?????????????/



The reason that the ICCP claim that the increased water vapour doesnt result in increased clouds is because the ICCP and their house full of global warmists admit that more clouds will destroy the global warming claim.


So...simply remove from the model the fact of increased water vapour results in an increase in cloud cover and now thats how you get global warming!


So what happens to the increased water vapour that the ICCP advises does happen, where's the increased water vapour go again???????????

creep wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

Yes, the ICCP use simple 'models' and they are based on the assumption that water vapour does not lead to clouds!

You're a big, lying, ignorant fool.

http://www.google.com.au/search?rlz=1C1CHKB_en-GBAU430AU431&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=ipcc+cloud+forcing

creep wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 7:40pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 23rd, 2011 at 6:02pm: This is meant for you to understand on some of the methodology used to come up with these so called "undeniable proof" Facts are the IPCC is stacked with leftist environmentalist nuts or those who have a vested interest in supporting the ALP - therefore the IPCC is a sham!! Yes, the ICCP use simple 'models' and they are based on the assumption that water vapour does not lead to clouds! What the!!! As the ICCP claim that Co2 results in increased water vapour (from the earth heating the water) but then claim that that water vapour does not in kind lead to increased cloud cover. Then where's the water vapour go?????????????/ The reason that the ICCP claim that the increased water vapour doesnt result in increased clouds is because the ICCP and their house full of global warmists admit that more clouds will destroy the global warming claim. So...simply remove from the model the fact of increased water vapour results in an increase in cloud cover and now thats how you get global warming! So what happens to the increased water vapour that the ICCP advises does happen, where's the increased water vapour go again???????????

The IPCC being The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is a scientific intergovernmental body tasked with reviewing and assessing the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It provides the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic consequences, notably the risk of climate change caused by human activity.

The panel was first established in 1988 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), two organizations of the United Nations—an action confirmed on 6 December 1988 by the United Nations General Assembly through Resolution 43/53. The IPCC shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President of the United States Al Gore.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change

The ICCP being an International group of companies, with vested interests, which is fronted by one Lord Monckton who isn't really a lord, at all.
http://www.iccp.net/membership.html

Who members include -
  3M Company
  Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute
  Alliance for Responsible Atmospheric Policy
  Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers
  Association of International Automobile Manufacturers
  Arkema
  Boeing
  Carrier
  CH2M Hill
  Dow Chemical
  DuPont
  General Electric
  General Motors
  Hewlett Packard
  Honeywell
  Intel Corporation
  Japan Fluorocarbon Manufacturers Association
  Kodak
  Natsource
  United Technologies
  World Energy
  York International

This is no Scientific organisation, it is a simple front, which is pretty much what Monckton is!
==============================

What we've got here, is failure to communicate (honestly)!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fuDDqU6n4o

First, Maqqa suggests by association that the IPCC is a Greens/ALP front and a sham, when it is actually an organisation established by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and the United Nations, which collates the views of reputable scientists, worldwide!

Then, the Creep turns IPCC into ICCP, pretends they are the same and goes of on another insane & incorrect tangent!

Lies & misdirection, should be noted!

reputable

The scare campaign mantra "reputable". There is nothing reputable about the science that still says, deep down, if we are wrong, because we may be, then we have still done the right thing, because if we are right, because we may be, then the earth will get a bit hotter (or is that the earth will burn in flames) and to have fruit loops on here and many other places, try to tell us it is fact about the AGW.