IPCC & Consensus

One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. The idea that there is a consensus between ‘the world’s top scientists’ is used to brow beat politicians, to forestall media criticism of the global warming orthodoxy and to marginalise and ridicule those scientists who dare to speak out against the theory of man made global warming.

Until now, few people have explored the nature of this ‘consensus’. Who are these ‘top scientists’ and who says they all agree? As readers will see, from the few introductory links below, the ‘consensus’ is not all it seems. We urge readers to look at Professor Reiter’s testimony, for example, to the House of Lords

There are indeed many scientists, journalists and others who have built careers and staked their reputations on man made global warming. We should not accept their protestations that ‘the debate is over’, and ‘there is no more room for doubt’.

The implications on public policy of the global warming alarm (for all of us, in the developed world and even more the developing world) are enormous. We are being asked to turn the world upside down, to stifle industrial progress, in order to address this alleged problem. This is too big an issue for us to rubber-stamp the declarations of a semi-political body such as the IPCC.

Orthodox views have been proved wrong time and again. We were assured, you may remember, by a consensus of scientists in Britain, during the BSE ‘Mad Cow Disease’ alarm that, by now, as much as a third of the British population would be dead from eating contaminated hamburgers. The mad cow apocalypse singularly failed to materialise.

Sadly, we have no option, but to be grown up, to examine the question ourselves, and make up our own minds. Is this global warming alarm built on solid evidence?

On the wider political and economic implications of the global warming alarm we would recommend two excellent books:

“Adapt or Die” - ed. Kendra Okonski

“Sustainable Development” – ed. Julian Morris
**************************

And here are some quotes that the Global Warmists might want to take not of:


Apocalypse Then

The continued rapid cooling of the earth since WWII is in accord with the increase in global air pollution associated with industrialization, mechanization, urbanization and exploding population.

-- Reid Bryson, "Global Ecology; Readings towards a rational strategy for Man", (1971)
------------------------

The battle to feed humanity is over. In the 1970s, the world will undergo famines. Hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death in spite of any crash programs embarked upon now. Population control is the only answer

-- Paul Ehrlich - The Population Bomb (1968)
------------------

I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000

-- Paul Ehrlich in (1969)
---------------

In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.

-- Paul Ehrlich, Earth Day (1970)
-----------------

Before 1985, mankind will enter a genuine age of scarcity . . in which the accessible supplies of many key minerals will be facing depletion

-- Paul Ehrlich in (1976)
---------------

This [cooling] trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century

-- Peter Gwynne, Newsweek 1976
--------------

There are ominous signs that the earth's weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production - with serious political implications for just about every nation on earth. The drop in food production could begin quite soon... The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologist are hard-pressed to keep up with it.

-- Newsweek, April 28, (1975)
--------------

This cooling has already killed hundreds of thousands of people. If it continues and no strong action is taken, it will cause world famine, world chaos and world war, and this could all come about before the year 2000.

-- Lowell Ponte "The Cooling", 1976
---------------

If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder by the year 2000...This is about twice what it would take to put us in an ice age.

-- Kenneth E.F. Watt on air pollution and global cooling, Earth Day (1970)

Cofgod wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 10:59pm:

IPCC & Consensus One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. .... Orthodox views have been proved wrong time and again. We were assured, you may remember, by a consensus of scientists in Britain, during the BSE ‘Mad Cow Disease’ alarm that, by now, as much as a third of the British population would be dead from eating contaminated hamburgers.

That is a bare face lie. There was no consensus of scientists (or medics) saying 20 million poms would die of mad cow.

BOTTLENECKS ARE COMING FOR RENEWABLE ENERGY!

JUST SAYING!!

Doctor Jolly wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 11:06pm:

Cofgod wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 10:59pm: IPCC & Consensus One of the biggest barriers to a rational discussion about climatology, is the persistent and sinister use of the ‘consensus’ argument. .... Orthodox views have been proved wrong time and again. We were assured, you may remember, by a consensus of scientists in Britain, during the BSE ‘Mad Cow Disease’ alarm that, by now, as much as a third of the British population would be dead from eating contaminated hamburgers. That is a bare face lie. There was no consensus of scientists (or medics) saying 20 million poms would die of mad cow.

- and bringing up the Great Global Warming Swindle again is like flogging an eohippus. The horse is not only dead, but fossilised. Don't let the truth get in the way of a good story though  ;D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRc_9nNTZg0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzKgLVidLG4

I checked, it's still there today. :)

Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D

Gimme Gimme wrote on Sep 18^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

Spot on man! Who ever thought that australians would be applauding Alan bloody Jones as a climate change expert. Jezus christ. :D

THEY TALKED ABOUT PSYCHOPATHY AS A BUSINESS MODEL ON Q&A TONIGHT: don't tell me ya missed it!
Lol, they went off about American Health care and Greg Sheridan didn't say shite for backpressure regarding that!!!

Yeh, it was a good one for a change! I'd almost given up but I watched it anyway: what a glorious surprise it was!!!

 ;) ;)

I checked again today, it's still there. :)

Swagman wrote on Oct 3^rd, 2011 at 11:03pm:

Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D

I actually did suggest something like that on page one Swagman, however the doomsday squad seemed to think differently.
Get your crash helmet on kiddies, the skies gonna fall on us. ;D

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 6^th, 2011 at 11:56am:

Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 11:03pm: Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D I actually did suggest something like that on page one Swagman, however the doomsday squad seemed to think differently. Get your crash helmet on kiddies, the skies gonna fall on us. ;D

Don't ya know any scientists mate?  ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 1:08am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 11:03pm: Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D I actually did suggest something like that on page one Swagman, however the doomsday squad seemed to think differently. Get your crash helmet on kiddies, the skies gonna fall on us. ;D Don't ya know any scientists mate?  ;D

Yes, unfortunately they are not left wing approved.
Oh, by the way.
The Arctic ice is still there. ;)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 2:49pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 1:08am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 11:03pm: Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D I actually did suggest something like that on page one Swagman, however the doomsday squad seemed to think differently. Get your crash helmet on kiddies, the skies gonna fall on us. ;D Don't ya know any scientists mate?  ;D Yes, unfortunately they are not left wing approved. Oh, by the way. The Arctic ice is still there. ;)

momentum, lol!

 ;)

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10^th, 2011 at 5:05pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 2:49pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Oct 10th, 2011 at 1:08am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 6th, 2011 at 11:56am: Swagman wrote on Oct 3rd, 2011 at 11:03pm: Doh........It's the Northern Summer.  Winter is on its way.  The ice will stop shrinking Chicken Licken.... :D I actually did suggest something like that on page one Swagman, however the doomsday squad seemed to think differently. Get your crash helmet on kiddies, the skies gonna fall on us. ;D Don't ya know any scientists mate?  ;D Yes, unfortunately they are not left wing approved. Oh, by the way. The Arctic ice is still there. ;) momentum, lol!  ;)

I checked again death, guess what?
It's still there. :)

Oddly enough, it's still there. :)

Shock horror. :o
It's still there. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 25^th, 2011 at 8:53am:

Shock horror. :o It's still there. :)

But there is just a lot less of it.  :)

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 25^th, 2011 at 8:04pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:53am: Shock horror. :o It's still there. :) But there is just a lot less of it.  :)

It seems there always is in summer for some reason. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:04pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:53am: Shock horror. :o It's still there. :) But there is just a lot less of it.  :) It seems there always is in summer for some reason. :)

Yes it's the same reason that there is less ice in recent northern summers than there was in past northern summers. Its getting warmer.

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 26^th, 2011 at 6:50pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 7:49am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:04pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:53am: Shock horror. :o It's still there. :) But there is just a lot less of it.  :) It seems there always is in summer for some reason. :) Yes it's the same reason that there is less ice in recent northern summers than there was in past northern summers. Its getting warmer.

Mmmmm, and down the track it will then get cooler.

I checked again, it's still there.
This disappearing process seems to be taking it's time.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 10:11am:

I checked again, it's still there. This disappearing process seems to be taking it's time.

lol,
you make regular trips to the arctic to check the ice do you?
Must be a little difficult at the moment with 24 hrs of dark.
:D

I'm assuming that you do understand the concept of seasons.......

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 27^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 6:50pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 26th, 2011 at 7:49am: The_Barnacle wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:04pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Oct 25th, 2011 at 8:53am: Shock horror. :o It's still there. :) But there is just a lot less of it.  :) It seems there always is in summer for some reason. :) Yes it's the same reason that there is less ice in recent northern summers than there was in past northern summers. Its getting warmer. Mmmmm, and down the track it will then get cooler.

Correct.  The Earth has gone through many entirely natural warming and cooling phases throughout its 4 billion years of existence.

Ice Ages end through the Earth warming up, of course.

It's also a fact that, when the Romans were in Britain between 43AD and 410AD its climate was warmer than it is now.  That's why the Romans were able to plant vineyards over wide ranges of their province of Britannia.

Then, from the medieval times to the early 19th Century, Britain was in a period we now call the Little Ice Age, when winters were much colder than they are now.  In fact, during the Little Ice Age winters were so cold in Britain that the River Thames froze over almost every year allowing magnificent Frost Fairs to be held on the London section of the frozen river, the last of which was held in 1814.

But the Little Ice Age came to an end due to the natural warming of the Earth.

The Earth just goes through natural warming and cooling phases and has been doing so since long before humans came onto the scene.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 6:54pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:11am: I checked again, it's still there. This disappearing process seems to be taking it's time. lol, you make regular trips to the arctic to check the ice do you? Must be a little difficult at the moment with 24 hrs of dark. :D I'm assuming that you do understand the concept of seasons.......

There is still plenty of ice at the Arctic and Antarctic.

I know this because I've been watching David Attenborough's new BBC documentary series "Frozen Planet."  It's an amazing series showing the lives of penguins, polar bears, seals and other animals of the polar regions surrounded by vast areas of ice stretching as far as the eye can see.  And these animals are living on ice sheets which are several miles thick.  You don't need to go there to see all the ice.  Just watch Frozen Planet.

And here are some stats about Antarctica which the Global Warming Brigade wouldn't want to hear:

The temperature record for Antarctica goes back to the 1950s. The record consists of data from a sparse network. Four comprehensive studies were conducted in recent years, collecting temperature data over Antarctica for the period since the 1950s until the 2000s. All of these studies have found slight warming in the earliest portion of the record (circa 1957–1965). Since the mid-1960s, all major studies have reported cooling over most of Antarctica. The only place that exhibits strong warming for the entire record is the Antarctic Peninsula, which amounts to 0.5% of the land mass of Antarctica.

In a paper published in the journal Nature in 2002, Doran et al. reported overall cooling over Antarctica. This study concludes there has been "a net cooling on the Antarctic continent between 1966 and 2000, particularly during summer and autumn.

Chapman and Walsh, (2007) in the paper published by Journal of Climate collected temperature in and around Antarctica from 460 locations including 19 manned surface observation stations located on the continent, 73 automated weather stations, and the 2° latitude by 2° longitude gridded sea surface temperature time series. They found little change in temperature over Antarctica in last 50 years (apart from the Peninsula). From the beginning of record until about 1965 they find slight warming, since 1965 slight cooling: "Trends computed using these analyses show considerable sensitivity to start and end dates with starting dates before 1965 producing overall warming and starting dates from 1966 to 1982 producing net cooling rates over the region."

Monaghan et al. (2008) in the paper published by Journal of Geophysical Research, similarly finds that "prior to 1965 the continent-wide annual trends (through 2002) are slightly positive, but after 1965 they are mainly negative (despite warming over the Antarctic Peninsula)."

Steig et al. 2009 in the paper published by Nature, unlike all other major works, find significant warming trend over Antarctica 1957–2006, of 0.1 C per decade, although Steig's reconstruction agree to greater extent with other studies in showing little temperature change since late 1960s

Cofgod wrote on Nov 10^th, 2011 at 11:19pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 6:54pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 10th, 2011 at 10:11am: I checked again, it's still there. This disappearing process seems to be taking it's time. lol, you make regular trips to the arctic to check the ice do you? Must be a little difficult at the moment with 24 hrs of dark. :D I'm assuming that you do understand the concept of seasons....... There is still plenty of ice at the Arctic and Antarctic. I know this because I've been watching David Attenborough's new BBC documentary series "Frozen Planet."  It's an amazing series showing the lives of penguins, polar bears, seals and other animals of the polar regions surrounded by vast areas of ice stretching as far as the eye can see.  And these animals are living on ice sheets which are several miles thick.  You don't need to go there to see all the ice.  Just watch Frozen Planet.

So you saw the first episode i suppose!

INTERESTING EPISODE THAT FIRST ONE....  :D

Frozen Planet was filmed over four years and is thought to have cost over 16 million pounds to produce.  I love watching the show and was interested to know what conclusions David Attenborough had come to during that time about global warming and our contribution to it.  Today I discover that America won’t see the last episode where Attenborough says he thinks we are responsible for the warming of the planet, they pulled it in case it hurt the sale of the series.  Not sure if the same applies to Oz.  Up to this point, he was a dedicated GW sceptic and what this respected icon thinks matters.

I'm not allowed to include the link but it's in The UK Telegraph and interesting reading.

toots wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Frozen Planet was filmed over four years and is thought to have cost over 16 million pounds to produce.  I love watching the show and was interested to know what conclusions David Attenborough had come to during that time about global warming and our contribution to it.  Today I discover that America won’t see the last episode where Attenborough says he thinks we are responsible for the warming of the planet, they pulled it in case it hurt the sale of the series.  Not sure if the same applies to Oz.  Up to this point, he was a dedicated GW sceptic and what this respected icon thinks matters. I'm not allowed to include the link but it's in The UK Telegraph and interesting reading.

WHAT DO YOU MEAN you're not allowed to include the link?

  :-?

When I tried to post with the link it said I wasn't allowed to until I had made 100 posts.

toots wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 4:01pm:

Frozen Planet was filmed over four years and is thought to have cost over 16 million pounds to produce.  I love watching the show and was interested to know what conclusions David Attenborough had come to during that time about global warming and our contribution to it.  Today I discover that America won’t see the last episode where Attenborough says he thinks we are responsible for the warming of the planet, they pulled it in case it hurt the sale of the series.  Not sure if the same applies to Oz.  Up to this point, he was a dedicated GW sceptic and what this respected icon thinks matters. I'm not allowed to include the link but it's in The UK Telegraph and interesting reading.

I imagine it's one of these...
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100117249/attenborough-sets-out-to-convince-the-world-that-the-frozen-planet-is-melting/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2061663/Frozen-Planet-Climate-change-episode-wont-shown-US.html

Yes that's the one, he's made me rethink my opinion, being a GW sceptic myself.

toots wrote on Nov 16^th, 2011 at 8:33pm:

Yes that's the one, he's made me rethink my opinion, being a GW sceptic myself.

Hmmm slightly maybe....but the fact that the melt rate is higher than previously observed can also be explained by natural causes.....

Just did a quick check on Geoffrey Lean who wrote the article, he's a dedicated GW supporter, so maybe......

The Conservative idiots in Greater West Sydney won't get flooded, so they need not care.

Here in Queensland, we've already witnessed what we're up against.

GoddyofOz wrote on Nov 17^th, 2011 at 1:36am:

The Conservative idiots in Greater West Sydney won't get flooded, so they need not care. Here in Queensland, we've already witnessed what we're up against.

That's possibly because here in Australia we tend to build our cities and towns on flood plains.....

Just got back.
Guess what???
Yup, you guessed it.
The arctic ice is still there.
Hmmm, funny that. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 10:18am:

Just got back. Guess what??? Yup, you guessed it. The arctic ice is still there. Hmmm, funny that. :)

Primary school students would give a more intelligent contribution to the debate.

::)

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 11:03am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 10:18am: Just got back. Guess what??? Yup, you guessed it. The arctic ice is still there. Hmmm, funny that. :) Primary school students would give a more intelligent contribution to the debate. ::)

Is that all you have to say?
Now is that your sole contribution to the debate then.
Great, well done, keep up the good work.
You forget that primary school students only parrot what their left wing hippie teacher told them to say in the first place.
And now all the little kiddies are coming home from primary school crying and terrified because they now believe the skies going to fall in and the planets going to melt away from underneath them.
Personally speaking, if I want the opinions of eight year olds, I'll give it to them. :)

"Overview of conditions
Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. "

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

"Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html

Only 310,000 square kilometers above the average gizmo. :-?
Doesn't seem to be much shrinkage in there does it. :o

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 1:12pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html Only 310,000 square kilometers above the average gizmo. :-? Doesn't seem to be much shrinkage in there does it. :o

Nope, and that was my reason for posting it....

Yes, the amount of ice is down from 1979 (when they started checking) but UP from 2007....

Pretty normal for a strong La Nina year. The other factor that you have to consider is the thickness.

You could say it was the La Nina from hell.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 2:10pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 1:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html Only 310,000 square kilometers above the average gizmo. :-? Doesn't seem to be much shrinkage in there does it. :o Nope, and that was my reason for posting it.... Yes, the amount of ice is down from 1979 (when they started checking) but UP from 2007....

Go dodgy LPMA's!!!! yeh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 11:50am:

"Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html

You must have missed this bit in my opening post


Quote:

The last five years (2007 to 2011) have been the five lowest extents in the continuous satellite record, which extends back to 1979. While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favored ice loss (including clearer skies, favorable wind patterns, and warm temperatures), this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic. This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin.

Don't you just love how global warming skeptics love to cherry pick their data to try and disprove it.

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 3:55pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html You must have missed this bit in my opening post Quote: The last five years (2007 to 2011) have been the five lowest extents in the continuous satellite record, which extends back to 1979. While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favored ice loss (including clearer skies, favorable wind patterns, and warm temperatures), this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic. This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin. Don't you just love how global warming skeptics love to cherry pick their data to try and disprove it.

Don't you just love how global warming proponents love to panic over short term data and try to blame man for nature.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 29^th, 2011 at 5:08pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 2:10pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 1:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html Only 310,000 square kilometers above the average gizmo. :-? Doesn't seem to be much shrinkage in there does it. :o Nope, and that was my reason for posting it.... Yes, the amount of ice is down from 1979 (when they started checking) but UP from 2007.... Go dodgy LPMA's!!!! yeh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh by the way.....what's LPMA stand for???....( I don't really speak teenage druggie anymore)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 5:26pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 5:08pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 2:10pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 1:12pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html Only 310,000 square kilometers above the average gizmo. :-? Doesn't seem to be much shrinkage in there does it. :o Nope, and that was my reason for posting it.... Yes, the amount of ice is down from 1979 (when they started checking) but UP from 2007.... Go dodgy LPMA's!!!! yeh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh by the way.....what's LPMA stand for???....( I don't really speak teenage druggie anymore)

Moving Averages!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 30^th, 2011 at 5:25pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Nov 30th, 2011 at 3:55pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Nov 29th, 2011 at 11:50am: "Overview of conditions Average ice extent for September 2011 was 4.61 million square kilometers (1.78 million square miles), 2.43 million square kilometers (938,000 square miles) below the 1979 to 2000 average. This was 310,000 square kilometers (120,000 square miles) above the average for September 2007, the lowest monthly extent in the satellite record. Ice extent was below the 1979 to 2000 average everywhere except in the East Greenland Sea, where conditions were near average. " http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2011/100411.html You must have missed this bit in my opening post Quote: The last five years (2007 to 2011) have been the five lowest extents in the continuous satellite record, which extends back to 1979. While the record low year of 2007 was marked by a combination of weather conditions that favored ice loss (including clearer skies, favorable wind patterns, and warm temperatures), this year has shown more typical weather patterns but continued warmth over the Arctic. This supports the idea that the Arctic sea ice cover is continuing to thin. Don't you just love how global warming skeptics love to cherry pick their data to try and disprove it. Don't you just love how global warming proponents love to panic over short term data and try to blame man for nature.

Not at all.
To me they are a lot of hysterical scare mongerers who make school children cry, and make me laugh at them.
They need to take some pills.

According to a new report from the Climate Institute called A Climate of Suffering, severe weather events will cause more depression, post-traumatic stress and other forms of mental illness.  Professor Hickie also says that 1 in 10 primary children had post-traumatic stress after cyclone Larry.  Haven't we been getting cyclones here in Oz since Adam was a boy?   I think this is an irresponsible scare tactic.

toots wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 7:41am:

According to a new report from the Climate Institute called A Climate of Suffering, severe weather events will cause more depression, post-traumatic stress and other forms of mental illness.  Professor Hickie also says that 1 in 10 primary children had post-traumatic stress after cyclone Larry.  Haven't we been getting cyclones here in Oz since Adam was a boy?   I think this is an irresponsible scare tactic.

Isn't that the mainstay of AGW???

toots wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 7:41am:

According to a new report from the Climate Institute called A Climate of Suffering, severe weather events will cause more depression, post-traumatic stress and other forms of mental illness.  Professor Hickie also says that 1 in 10 primary children had post-traumatic stress after cyclone Larry.  Haven't we been getting cyclones here in Oz since Adam was a boy?   I think this is an irresponsible scare tactic.

A irresponsible scare tactic is exactly what it is. >:(
I distinctly remember just over two years ago, an 'expert' called ABC radio and claimed that a thousand years ago, cyclones in northern Australia were small and infrequent, so clearly the category 4's & 5's were have been seeing in the Asiatic region is clear proof of climate change.
What he did not explain is how he obtained information like this from the 10th century, long before white man came to the region and 700 years before this countries discovery.
It was pure unadultered irresponsible alarmist crap designed to scare the gullable and the young.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 8:15am:

toots wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 7:41am: According to a new report from the Climate Institute called A Climate of Suffering, severe weather events will cause more depression, post-traumatic stress and other forms of mental illness.  Professor Hickie also says that 1 in 10 primary children had post-traumatic stress after cyclone Larry.  Haven't we been getting cyclones here in Oz since Adam was a boy?   I think this is an irresponsible scare tactic. A irresponsible scare tactic is exactly what it is. >:( I distinctly remember just over two years ago, an 'expert' called ABC radio and claimed that a thousand years ago, cyclones in northern Australia were small and infrequent, so clearly the category 4's & 5's were have been seeing in the Asiatic region is clear proof of climate change. What he did not explain is how he obtained information like this from the 10th century, long before white man came to the region and 700 years before this countries discovery. It was pure unadultered irrsponsible alarmist crap designed to scare the gullable and the young.

But if you can't get the sheep to panic, how can you make them stampede in the right direction???

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 8:19am:

But if you can't get the sheep to panic, how can you make them stampede in the right direction???

And right on cue the old conspiracy theories are brought out.
And of course the old chestnut "the media are reporting alarming predictions which I don't believe - therefore the whole science of global warming must be wrong"

Let me give you an example. Last year I saw a headline in a tabloid which read

"(The star) Betelgeuse may go super nova next year"

I was astonished that such a prediction could be made so I read the article. What the scientist actually said was that Betelgeuse could go supernova at any time, maybe in a thousand years or maybe next year.

But of course using the logic of the climate skeptics, if Betelgeuse doesn't go supernova next year then this proves that the whole science of Astronomy is a fraud.

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:14am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 8:19am: But if you can't get the sheep to panic, how can you make them stampede in the right direction??? And right on cue the old conspiracy theories are brought out. And of course the old chestnut "the media are reporting alarming predictions which I don't believe - therefore the whole science of global warming must be wrong"

Well I didn't say media...but basically correct otherwise...

Or are you going to sit there and tell me that the environmentalist segment of society doesn't use 'shock and awe' tactics to influence public opinion???

(And I'll bring it up before you do.....) Much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate.
YES smoking is bad for you, but the risks are NOT as severe as the cancer council ads make out.....The latest tv ads are a perfect example...

"Every cigarette brings cancer closer"....Now that is out and out loaded propaganda, there is no absolute one-to-one correlation between smoking and cancer, or heart disease or anything else........

It's an increase of risk, but not a certainty...

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:14am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 8:19am: But if you can't get the sheep to panic, how can you make them stampede in the right direction??? And right on cue the old conspiracy theories are brought out. And of course the old chestnut "the media are reporting alarming predictions which I don't believe - therefore the whole science of global warming must be wrong" Let me give you an example. Last year I saw a headline in a tabloid which read "(The star) Betelgeuse may go super nova next year" I was astonished that such a prediction could be made so I read the article. What the scientist actually said was that Betelgeuse could go supernova at any time, maybe in a thousand years or maybe next year. But of course using the logic of the climate skeptics, if Betelgeuse doesn't go supernova next year then this proves that the whole science of Astronomy is a fraud.

You missed a step or two in your theory.
You missed the part where the government decide to implement another tax to mitigate the obvious probable effects on Betelgeuse going supernova.
And where school teachers frighten little children that the earth could be vaporised next year and sends them home crying.
As for conspiracy theories, the only people actually peddling conspiracy theories are the alarmists themselves.
Because quite frankly, the rest of us are simply waiting for the arctic ice to disappear, the seas to rise, the islands to sink and the cat 5 cyclones to be coming by the dozen to blow us away along with all of Flannery's predictions that have come and gone over the years.

Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes.

Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself.

So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate  

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:46am:

Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate

Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter)....

So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 10:55am:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate...

But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion.

If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 11:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate... But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion. If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread

Yes, it is actually diversion!

They(the richies) are simply giving their fellow established richies the maximum time to adapt their business plans and retool so to speak!

They know the science is in and they simply have to adapt to a phase change! YOU CAN'T STOP PROGRESS BUT YOU CAN HARMONISE WITH IT!

It's all quite natural!!

Naturally it's going to take time to explain the facts: how economically illiterate are we for instance! GEORGE MEGALOGENIS WROTE AN ARTICLE THE OTHER DAY ON EXACTLY THAT TOPIC!

Muddy the waters a bit and sow a few seeds of doubt and whoah!,... behold!... you've got perfect science: skepticism is an absolute lynchpin for the scientific process to work correctly and you may say this aint skepticism it's propaganda  but then we are dealing with a world that lets it's media self regulate for buggerys sake so what do we expect!??!

"IT'S ALL GOOD IN THE END: IF IT'S NOT GOOD IT'S NOT THE END!"

For more pithy quotes just ask!!  :D

CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION IS CONSPICUOUS CONSUMPTION: THIS IS THE BEGINNING, MIDDLE AND END OF THE PROBLEM!

;)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 11:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate... But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion. If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread

Yes, but the problem is, the environmental side has just as big a political agenda....

Chick's posting isn't nonsense...the problem is, the Arctic ice thing is waaaay over blown, and largely irrelevant, just like most of the doom and gloom horror stories (i.e the glaciers melting).

The Arctic ice sheet has melted before, and will do so again....likewise the glaciers......none of this is 'indisputable proof' of anything very much...That's the problem that most skeptics have...not that the climate is warming (changing), but man's role in it...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 12:14pm:

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate... But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion. If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread Yes, but the problem is, the environmental side has just as big a political agenda.... Chick's posting isn't nonsense...the problem is, the Arctic ice thing is waaaay over blown, and largely irrelevant, just like most of the doom and gloom horror stories (i.e the glaciers melting). The Arctic ice sheet has melted before, and will do so again....likewise the glaciers......none of this is 'indisputable proof' of anything very much...That's the problem that most skeptics have...not that the climate is warming (changing), but man's role in it...

LIBS DON'T UNDERSTAND RATES OF CHANGE,.. WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT!  :o :o :o :o :D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 12:35pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 12:14pm: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 11:21am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate... But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion. If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread Yes, but the problem is, the environmental side has just as big a political agenda.... Chick's posting isn't nonsense...the problem is, the Arctic ice thing is waaaay over blown, and largely irrelevant, just like most of the doom and gloom horror stories (i.e the glaciers melting). The Arctic ice sheet has melted before, and will do so again....likewise the glaciers......none of this is 'indisputable proof' of anything very much...That's the problem that most skeptics have...not that the climate is warming (changing), but man's role in it... LIBS DON'T UNDERSTAND RATES OF CHANGE,.. WHEN IT'S CONVENIENT!  :o :o :o :o :D

Perhaps they don't...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C)

The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1^st, 2011 at 11:21am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:55am: The_Barnacle wrote on Dec 1st, 2011 at 10:46am: Yes gizmo, much the same tactics are used in the smoking debate and also in the road toll. It's all marketing and the media wanting quick 10 second sound bytes. Alarming and exaggerated claims about smoking dont change the fact that smoking is very bad for your health. You have to learn to separate the marketing and the media campaigns from the science itself. So if you ignore the exaggerated and inaccurate claims made, the science still says that smoking is bad for your health and the science still says that human actions are changing the climate   Yes but most people don't or won't ingnore the exaggerations, which is why there is such panic over 'huge' sea-level rises (which haven't happened) and increases in the power and frequency of cyclones (which is also a non-starter).... So, it's good you agree that teaching small children that the world will end in their life times (possibly before they grow up) is alarmist and inaccurate... But that is a completely different issue to the science of human induced global warming. It is actually a diversion. If climate deniers were only attacking some of the more outrageous claims that are being made then I wouldn't have an issue. But they don't, they continually attack scientists and they continually misrepresent data because they have a political agenda. You just have to look at the unscientific nonsense that chicken_lipsforme has posted on this thread

Do you prefer your nonsense scientific then do you?
If so, you've come to the wrong place. :)
Or would you prefer that we all become like test crash dummies and just nod when being told the Pacific islands are sinking, the Arctic is melting, the seas are rising and a thousand years ago Australia didn't have as many cyclones etc without a scrap of proof whatsoever.
And how is it possible that data can be misrepresented when that same data is information that has been interpreted and then extrapolated from a guess?
Let me know when Magnetic Island starts to go under will you.

^Of course we don't expect you to act like a crash test dummy. It would be much better if you investigated the scientific arguments yourself, something you have patently not done.

MOTR wrote on Dec 4^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

^Of course we don't expect you to act like a crash test dummy. It would be much better if you investigated the scientific arguments yourself, something you have patently not done.

Something I have done, and I've had a complete change of mind and I'm not even embarrassed about it.

The evidence is overwhelming, we should have taken action 40 years ago, hence the urgency.

What tires me is hearing the same flaccid arguments from people who claim to be skeptics, but accept fallacious arguments that don't even survive the most casual scrutiny. The problem is that the issue has become so politicised, people seem to be more worried about maintaining their political identity than rigorously exploring the truth.  

Quote:

The problem is that the issue has become so politicised, people seem to be more worried about maintaining their political identity than rigorously exploring the truth.

Have a proper read of this board and you'll find that is the case on almost every issue discussed.

No doubt. I'm sure I've been and will continue to be guilty of this. I do, however, respect sound arguments based on solid premises and can with enough persuasion be jolted out of my sympathetic tendencies. Although what rational soul doesn't believe this about themselves.

What is interesting is the stance of the Australian on this issue. In an editorial statement it clearly articulated it's position on AGW.

"And so it is in keeping with this newspaper's rationalist pedigree that we have long accepted the peer-reviewed science on anthropogenic climate change and supported a market mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. This is not a matter of belief or philosophy; rather it is a sensible position based on a commonsense analysis of the facts and scientific projections
as they stand."

Yet as a whole the paper seems to be clearly biased against this exact position and many it's headlines, articles and op-ed pieces guide their readership to an entirely different position.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Dec 4^th, 2011 at 7:28am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 4th, 2011 at 7:19am: ^Of course we don't expect you to act like a crash test dummy. It would be much better if you investigated the scientific arguments yourself, something you have patently not done. Something I have done, and I've had a complete change of mind and I'm not even embarrassed about it. The evidence is overwhelming, we should have taken action 40 years ago, hence the urgency.

what about the quote from gizmo?

"Perhaps they don't...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) "

^ you are going to ave to help me out with the name of the paper that this comes from. As I understand internal variability can only account for abput 0.3°C change in average global surface air temperature at most over periods of several decades. Over longer stretches of time, transient warming and cooling influences tend to cancel each other out.

I'm not responsible for bringing the quote to the table: gizmo is!!  ;) ;) ;)

MOTR wrote on Dec 4^th, 2011 at 8:45am:

No doubt. I'm sure I've been and will continue to be guilty of this. I do, however, respect sound arguments based on solid premises and can with enough persuasion be jolted out of my sympathetic tendencies. Although what rational soul doesn't believe this about themselves. What is interesting is the stance of the Australian on this issue. In an editorial statement it clearly articulated it's position on AGW. "And so it is in keeping with this newspaper's rationalist pedigree that we have long accepted the peer-reviewed science on anthropogenic climate change and supported a market mechanism to reduce carbon emissions. This is not a matter of belief or philosophy; rather it is a sensible position based on a commonsense analysis of the facts and scientific projections as they stand." Yet as a whole the paper seems to be clearly biased against this exact position and many it's headlines, articles and op-ed pieces guide their readership to an entirely different position.

It's totally ridiculous, but not unprecedented. You just have to look at Fox in the US.

I don't think there is much hope left that we can avert  any serious consequences at this stage. Herding cats is probably an easier task.

The best we can do is to minimise the damage. Perhaps the solution will come with artificial photosynthesis. There might have to be a range of solutions though.

http://solarfuelshub.org/

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 12^th, 2011 at 7:12pm:

I'm not responsible for bringing the quote to the table: gizmo is!!  ;) ;) ;)

It's not from a paper, it's a synopis from various paelogeological and ice core sources

Where is your reference? Just asking.

MOTR wrote on Dec 13^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

Where is your reference? Just asking.

Ummm at least a dozen papers on the subject...

Search Robert Carter and Ian Plimer...for a start....AND a number of other highly qualified scientists...( although I will understand if you can't accept those guys..)

yes all planets in the solar system warms

they pay no tax to reverse this as it is

the nature al way for it is so and so it is

as the transformational >>>shift<<< continues

to manifest in the physical on all levels

so be it

namaste

-:)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 9:35pm: Where is your reference? Just asking. Ummm at least a dozen papers on the subject... Search Robert Carter and Ian Plimer...for a start....AND a number of other highly qualified scientists...( although I will understand if you can't accept those guys..)

Is that because
gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2011 at 6:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 9:35pm: Where is your reference? Just asking. Ummm at least a dozen papers on the subject... Search Robert Carter and Ian Plimer...for a start....AND a number of other highly qualified scientists...( although I will understand if you can't accept those guys..)

Is that because Professor Plimer has never written a peer-reviewed paper on climate change in his life, and Carter has written just the one on the influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature betwwen 1958 and 2008.

MOTR wrote on Dec 15^th, 2011 at 4:04am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2011 at 6:00pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 9:35pm: Where is your reference? Just asking. Ummm at least a dozen papers on the subject... Search Robert Carter and Ian Plimer...for a start....AND a number of other highly qualified scientists...( although I will understand if you can't accept those guys..) Is that because gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 14th, 2011 at 6:00pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 13th, 2011 at 9:35pm: Where is your reference? Just asking. Ummm at least a dozen papers on the subject... Search Robert Carter and Ian Plimer...for a start....AND a number of other highly qualified scientists...( although I will understand if you can't accept those guys..) Is that because Professor Plimer has never written a peer-reviewed paper on climate change in his life, and Carter has written just the one on the influence of the Southern Oscillation on tropospheric temperature betwwen 1958 and 2008.

Actually that's untrue...Bob Carter has contributed to 7 papers involving climate....and over 100 peer reviewed papers, which puts him in front of Tim Flannery with contributions to 90 papers..

However, don't make the mistake of judging a scientists knowledge, based solely on peer reviewed papers....Not every one publishes, sure it looks good on your resume when you're looking for a job, but teaching professors, like Ian Plimer, aren't really expected or required to do so....

You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact.

...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C)

I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples.

MOTR wrote on Dec 16^th, 2011 at 11:54am:

You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples.

It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure...

Ahh..I found it...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#!

Look at about 11 minutes in...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 11:54am: You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples. It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure... Ahh..I found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#! Look at about 11 minutes in...

= pts for accountability!!  ;) ;)

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16^th, 2011 at 12:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 11:54am: You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples. It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure... Ahh..I found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#! Look at about 11 minutes in...

Here Bob Carter claims that rate of temperature change per century over the last 5000 year lies somewhere between +/- 2.5C per century. I don't
believe he provides an average rate of temperature change or a standard deviation. The average rate of
change would be something like +0.1C per century, which has been the average rate of warming since the end of the last ice age. Our current rate of warming is 1.5C per century and rising. Which is well above average but well within Bob's "geological envelope of
change."

Bob's argument is that we have experienced this rate of change before and it is well within the natural envelope of change. If Bob is using Greenland ice cores as his proxy for global temperature, his envelope of change will be stretched, as regional changes can be more dramatic than global ones. He also ignores the huge body of scientific work that has been done identifying the drivers that have caused the increases in temperature that he identifies as being similar to our own. Currently the only driver that can satisfactorily explain our current period of global warming is the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is why 97% of climate scientists accept AGW.

I'm still interested in where your initial rate of change measure comes from. Bob may have quoted another study somewhere else? If it is a measure Bob has created, I'd be very worried of it's accuracy considering the flaws in his treatment of other data and the almost certain likelihood that it would not have been peer reviewed.

MOTR wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 12:09pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 11:54am: You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples. It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure... Ahh..I found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#! Look at about 11 minutes in... Here Bob Carter claims that rate of temperature change per century over the last 5000 year lies somewhere between +/- 2.5C per century. I don't believe he provides an average rate of temperature change or a standard deviation. The average rate of change would be something like +0.1C per century, which has been the average rate of warming since the end of the last ice age. Our current rate of warming is 1.5C per century and rising. Which is well above average but well within Bob's "geological envelope of change." Bob's argument is that we have experienced this rate of change before and it is well within the natural envelope of change. He chooses to disconnect the facts that it is warmer than it has ever been in the Holocene period (our current interglacial period) and the rate of change is statistically high. If Bob is using Greenland ice cores as his proxy for global temperature, his envelope of change will be stretched, as regional changes can be more dramatic than global ones. He also ignores the huge body of scientific work that has been done identifying the drivers that have caused the increases in temperature that he identifies as being similar to our own. Currently the only driver that can satisfactorily explain our current period of global warming is the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is why 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. I'm still interested in where your initial rate of change measure comes from. Bob may have quoted another study somewhere else? If it is a measure Bob has created, I'd be very worried of it's accuracy considering the flaws in his treatment of other data and the almost certain likelihood that it would not have been peer reviewed.

He chooses to disconnect the facts that it is warmer than it has ever been in the Holocene period (our current interglacial period)

But it isn't warmer now than it's ever been in the Holocene...
Even within 'recent' history (the last 2000 years) there have been times when it was warmer than now...
And there've been at least 4 or 5 other periods when the temperature was above the current temperatures in the last 10,000 years...

Should I mention the Roman Warm Period, and the Medieval Warm Period (when the Vikings grew crops in Greenland, which was ice free???)

You're right about there being warmer times during the holocene period. I realized I'd made that mistake when I was reading over my post. I think you'll find I edited that bit out of my post before you replied.

The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature.

Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years.

Our only hope is that a giant volcanic eruption will occur
& the resulting dust will blot the sun out for 10 years.
That will cause temperatures to drop but it may cause
starvation as plants need sun to grow.

MOTR wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:22am:

Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years.

Not here in North Queensland.
It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that.

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 3:03pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that.

HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C?

Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;)

MOTR wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 12:09pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 11:54am: You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples. It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure... Ahh..I found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#! Look at about 11 minutes in... Here Bob Carter claims that rate of temperature change per century over the last 5000 year lies somewhere between +/- 2.5C per century. I don't believe he provides an average rate of temperature change or a standard deviation. The average rate of change would be something like +0.1C per century, which has been the average rate of warming since the end of the last ice age. Our current rate of warming is 1.5C per century and rising. Which is well above average but well within Bob's "geological envelope of change." Bob's argument is that we have experienced this rate of change before and it is well within the natural envelope of change. If Bob is using Greenland ice cores as his proxy for global temperature, his envelope of change will be stretched, as regional changes can be more dramatic than global ones. He also ignores the huge body of scientific work that has been done identifying the drivers that have caused the increases in temperature that he identifies as being similar to our own. Currently the only driver that can satisfactorily explain our current period of global warming is the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is why 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. I'm still interested in where your initial rate of change measure comes from. Bob may have quoted another study somewhere else? If it is a measure Bob has created, I'd be very worried of it's accuracy considering the flaws in his treatment of other data and the almost certain likelihood that it would not have been peer reviewed.

MOVING AVERAGES AY!???!

LOL, THERE'S LIES DAMNED LIES AND STATISTICS BUT WE'RE NOT TELLING THE FREE-MARKET LIARS ANYTHING THEY DON'T ALREADY KNOW!

  ;D ;D

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

http://www.thefatcontroller.co.uk/portfolio/albums/userpics/homer-drool-spam_sandwich.jpg

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 3:56pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;)

It's called a thermometer. :)

MOTR wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:56am:

The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years.

I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University...

MOTR wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 12:09pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 16th, 2011 at 11:54am: You are missing my point, gizmo. I am interested in checking a statement you quoted as fact. ...but it doesn't really change the fact that the rate of change is still well within the normal range that's been found in geological and ice core samplings......it's usually between 0.5C and 1.5C per century.....(+/- 0.2C) I asked you where this was established and you referred me to Carter and Plimer. It obviously didnt come from Plimer and the only paper from Carter that relates to climate change, does not investigate ice core samples. It came from a talk Bob Carter made several years ago....It's on video somewhere on the net.....I might have a link to it, but I'm not sure... Ahh..I found it... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uh20cnLwCiw&feature=player_embedded#! Look at about 11 minutes in... Here Bob Carter claims that rate of temperature change per century over the last 5000 year lies somewhere between +/- 2.5C per century. I don't believe he provides an average rate of temperature change or a standard deviation. The average rate of change would be something like +0.1C per century, which has been the average rate of warming since the end of the last ice age. Our current rate of warming is 1.5C per century and rising. Which is well above average but well within Bob's "geological envelope of change." Bob's argument is that we have experienced this rate of change before and it is well within the natural envelope of change. If Bob is using Greenland ice cores as his proxy for global temperature, his envelope of change will be stretched, as regional changes can be more dramatic than global ones. He also ignores the huge body of scientific work that has been done identifying the drivers that have caused the increases in temperature that he identifies as being similar to our own. Currently the only driver that can satisfactorily explain our current period of global warming is the increase in atmospheric CO2. It is why 97% of climate scientists accept AGW. I'm still interested in where your initial rate of change measure comes from. Bob may have quoted another study somewhere else? If it is a measure Bob has created, I'd be very worried of it's accuracy considering the flaws in his treatment of other data and the almost certain likelihood that it would not have been peer reviewed.

I'm still interested in where your initial rate of change measure comes from.

Our current rate of warming is 1.5C per century and rising

In answer to both questions.....From the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report...and incidently AR4 list the temperature increase in the last 100 years as 0.74 C...not 1.5C

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 10:11pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;) It's called a thermometer. :)

...how acurate was that thermometer? (Get ready for a very very big rabbit hole dood! JUST SAYING!!)  :-? :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:11pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;) It's called a thermometer. :) ...how acurate was that thermometer? (Get ready for a very very big rabbit hole dood! JUST SAYING!!)  :-? :-?

And get ready for a BIIIIG glass of 'coolaid'...

The increase in atmospheric CO2 has intensified over the century. Therefore the rate of change should have increased, which it has. To average out the impact over the whole century obviously pulls down the current rate of change. Don't disappoint me, Gizmo.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18^th, 2011 at 11:32pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University...

Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 9:00pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 8:53pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:11pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;) It's called a thermometer. :) ...how acurate was that thermometer? (Get ready for a very very big rabbit hole dood! JUST SAYING!!)  :-? :-? And get ready for a BIIIIG glass of 'coolaid'...

Does chickenlegs need your defense does he????  ;D ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 9:27pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 9:00pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 8:53pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:11pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;) It's called a thermometer. :) ...how acurate was that thermometer? (Get ready for a very very big rabbit hole dood! JUST SAYING!!)  :-? :-? And get ready for a BIIIIG glass of 'coolaid'... Does chickenlegs need your defense does he????  ;D ;D

probably not...but I just felt like doing it anyway....

Cause it's FUN..
and an anti 'spam sandwich' thing...

And, given the incredibly stupid statements you guys come out with...like 'Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years.'...it' almost necessary to put crap on you...

Reconstuctions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) and Ljungqvist (2010) tell us it is warmer today than anytime in the last two millennia.

“Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period” Ljugqvist 2010.

Why do you think climate scientists are so concerned about this recent warming.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 8:53pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:11pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:56pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 3:03pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:22am: Further, the Medieval warm period was certainly not warmer than it is today. If you focus on limited data sets you could naively conclude that global temperatures were warmer during this period. This type of conclusion does not survive scientific scrutiny but seems to have been well established in denialist literature. Mann(2009) Used more than 1000 tree-ring, ice core, coral, sediment and other assorted proxy records spanning both hemispheres to construct a global map of temperature change over the past 1500 years. If you were ever curious enough to look at the reconstructed surface temperature maps of the two periods you would see that the medieval warm period was not a global phenomenon like it is today. Global temperatures are higher today than any time in the last 1500 years. Not here in North Queensland. It's fine and 31c, and I don't need a proxy measurement to determine that. HOW DO YOU KNOW IT'S 31C? Did some authority tell you and you believed them?  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D  :o :D ;) It's called a thermometer. :) ...how acurate was that thermometer? (Get ready for a very very big rabbit hole dood! JUST SAYING!!)  :-? :-?

That's a question for the B.O.M eh. :)

MOTR wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion.

The problem with averaging out proxies is they are just so very average eh. :)
Damn lies and statistics.

MOTR wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 5:08am:

Reconstuctions by Moberg et al. (2005) and Mann et al. (2008) and Ljungqvist (2010) tell us it is warmer today than anytime in the last two millennia. “Since AD 1990, though, average temperatures in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere exceed those of any other warm decades the last two millennia, even the peak of the Medieval Warm Period” Ljugqvist 2010. Why do you think climate scientists are so concerned about this recent warming.

Because there's lots of research money around???

MOTR wrote on Dec 19^th, 2011 at 9:18pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion.

MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University..

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 7:31am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 9:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion. The problem with averaging out proxies is they are just so very average eh. :) Damn lies and statistics.

Measurement is always the problem with science!

What exactly are you measuring with your whacko-the-diddlio tools...

In economics the same...

Complex systems are complex, WOW!!  ;D ;D

THAT'S WHY IT AINT VERY HARD FOR THE SILVER SPOONERS TO RAISE DOUBT AND GIVE THE TRYHARD UPPER-MIDDLECLASS MAS TIME TO REASSESS THEIR VARIOUS SCAMS AS REGARDS THE IMPENDING NEW REGULATED ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT!!

IT'S ALL QUITE NATURAL AND HARMLESS!!! :D :D

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 7:49am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 9:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion. MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University..

In 2008 Huang et al. published a paper that explains why the data from their 97 paper cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th Century. They then integrate the datasets from their 97 and 2000 papers with 20th Century instrumental records into a reconstruction that is entirely consistent with the climate proxies summarized by the IPCC.

Their reconstruction shows "the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1K below the reference level and end of 20th Century temperatures about 0.5K above the reference level." Huang et al. 2008.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 20^th, 2011 at 7:58pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 20th, 2011 at 7:31am: MOTR wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 9:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion. The problem with averaging out proxies is they are just so very average eh. :) Damn lies and statistics. Measurement is always the problem with science! What exactly are you measuring with your whacko-the-diddlio tools... In economics the same... Complex systems are complex, WOW!!  ;D ;D THAT'S WHY IT AINT VERY HARD FOR THE SILVER SPOONERS TO RAISE DOUBT AND GIVE THE TRYHARD UPPER-MIDDLECLASS MAS TIME TO REASSESS THEIR VARIOUS SCAMS AS REGARDS THE IMPENDING NEW REGULATED ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT!! IT'S ALL QUITE NATURAL AND HARMLESS!!! :D :D

Particularly when you primarily base extrapolations on guesswork and call it a 'proxy' measurement.
Yes, it's all very problematic and complex particularly when the models don't pan out as initially forecast. :)

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 10:45am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 20th, 2011 at 7:49am: MOTR wrote on Dec 19th, 2011 at 9:18pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 11:32pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 18th, 2011 at 10:56am: The mid Holocene period, roughly 6,000 years ago, was generally warmer than today, but only in summer and only in the northern hemisphere. This astronomical climate forcing mechanism cannot be responsible for the warming over the last 100 years. I'm sorry, but that's also not correct, both the MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University... Did Huang and Pollack conclude that the MWP was worldwide. Averaging out the other proxies suggests an entirely different conclusion. MWP and the LIA were found to be worldwide in effect way back in 1997...as the result of a (published and peer reviewed) study by Shaopeng Huang and Henry Pollack of Michigan University.. In 2008 Huang et al. published a paper that explains why the data from their 97 paper cannot be used for comparing MWP warmth to the 20th Century. They then integrate the datasets from their 97 and 2000 papers with 20th Century instrumental records into a reconstruction that is entirely consistent with the climate proxies summarized by the IPCC. Their reconstruction shows "the maximum of the MWP at or slightly below the reference level, the minimum of the LIA about 1K below the reference level and end of 20th Century temperatures about 0.5K above the reference level." Huang et al. 2008.

And so???...It STILL shows that both the MWP and LIA existed and were worldwide in effect..

Which was the major reason I mentioned it in the first place...

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue. I accept that during the medieval period there were places in the Northern hemisphere that were as warm if not warmer than today. However, the global temperature was not as high as it is today. How is this possible if places elsewhere were not significantly cooler?

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 12:01pm:

I'm not entirely sure what you are trying to argue. I accept that during the medieval period there were places in the Northern hemisphere that were as warm if not warmer than today. However, the global temperature was not as high as it is today. How is this possible if places elsewhere were not significantly cooler?

Ok, I'll try again....
IF the world wide temperatures during the MWP were on average only 0.5 C cooler than now ( scientist use degrees K instead of degrees C but it means the same thing) and 'everyone' is talking about how much the temperatures have risen since the Industrial Revolution (you yourself claim +1.5C) then that means that at at least one point in history the temperatures where significantly higher than pre-Industrial levels....without human intervention...

And because of the way averaging works....while there may have been places cooler than today, there would have to have been places warmer, possible at lot warmer as well......ALL of this, without humans adding any Co2 (or any other CHG).

So, what caused it then, and why do you think Co2/CHG is causing it now????

There is some evidence that the medieval warming was caused by a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent.

The impact of CO2 has been proven in atmospheric physics. Paleoclimatology is being used to verify the physics.

The amplitude of the MWP supports the climate sensitivity levels adopted by the IPCC. as Wally Broecker puts it, "the paleoclimate record shouts out to us that, far from being self-stabilising, the Earth's climate system is an ornery beast which overreacts to even small nudges."

The theory of AGW has been around for a long time, the physics has been proven and now this little test tube is heating up.

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 1:02pm:

There is some evidence that the medieval warming was caused by a strongly positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) – the ocean current that drives winds from the Atlantic over Europe. The more positive the NAO is, the more warm air is blown towards the continent.

Which doesn't hold up, since the geo-cores show that it was world wide...which is my point....

At the risk of sounding trite....If you hear hoof-beats in a national park...expect horses, not zebras....

Or if you prefer, Occam's Razor...

What are you talking about "the geo-cores show it was worldwide".

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 1:02pm:

The theory of AGW has been around for a long time, the physics has been proven and now this little test tube is heating up.

Nope...I disagree..
Before the 1960's, AGW was very much a 'fringe' theory..Global Cooling was by far the more popular theory..

AGW didn't really start getting much support until the 'back to nature' philosphies of the flower child era in the mid to late 1960's and 1970's.....where everything wrong with the world became man's fault...

The physics haven't been proven....other than by the concept of 'something is happening, so let's assume it's mankinds fault'....

What we (man, and the science community) don't know about how the Universe and the Earth function would fill a football field, in very very small print....

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 1:13pm:

What are you talking about "the geo-cores show it was worldwide".

Pollack and Huang et al....
You really aren't very quick on the uptake, are you????

We've been through this. Huang et al. Conclude global temperatures were cooler during the MWP than now. If  regions in the northern hemisphere were as warm as today the southern hemisphere must have been cooler.

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 1:24pm:

We've been through this. Huang et al. Conclude global temperatures were cooler during the MWP than now. If  regions in the northern hemisphere were as warm as today the southern hemisphere must have been cooler.

Yes, but not as cool as you want to make out...and they also concluded that the rise in temperature was worldwide...

Huang and Pollack did NOT state (in the original paper) that only Northern Europe was the only place affected....no they state that ALL continents were affected...Even if the top temps were a little 'off', they weren't as low as Mann's Hockey Stick  claimed...

So, basically....the MWP AND the LIA did in fact exist, worldwide.....a 1/2 degree difference between 950AD-1250AD and 2008 is small potatoes on the scale of things...

It STILL contradicts the Mann assertion that the temperatures never varied for over 2000 years and the 'suddenly' skyrocketed after 1880 or 1900

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 1:24pm:

We've been through this. Huang et al. Conclude global temperatures were cooler during the MWP than now. If  regions in the northern hemisphere were as warm as today the southern hemisphere must have been cooler.

Again..no that's not quite what they concluded...they concluded that the MWP temps were at or slightly below the 'base-line' which at the time was the 1990 temps (hottest decade on record, up until then)...which translates as....of dear, the warming isn't as great as we've been saying....

Aside from that....it blew a hole right through the concept that 20th century warming was 'unprecedented'......It'd happened before, at least once (and probably twice) within written human history....

Of course that's not the fun bit...
The 'fun' or ironic bit is listening to AGW supporters whine about Creationists refusing to accept 'scientific evidence' (like fossils, carbon dating, theoretical physics and the 'Big Bang' theory).....and then doing precisely the same thing (refusing to accept scientific theory) simply because it contradicts their belief structure.....

Now THAT is pure gold.....

And further on the subject, allow me to explain..

I've seen some incredibly stupid and unscientific statements made by pro-warming bloggers (and a few made by anti-warming bloggers too)....

One of the best was by a 'warmist' who said he had to log off (after commiting libel against a sceptic) because in his words 'it takes a lot of training to raise a child who will need to live in a 'warming world'.....Which is a complete load of twaddle...after all the blogger's parents managed it, as did his grandparents...(without any whiney complaints about the causes, incidently).....

Despite all the over emotional BS that exists.....a 'warming' of 1 or 2 degress Celcius will make almost NO difference to human existence....our children or grandchildren will barely notice....it'd take an increase of 15 or 20 degrees before there's any significant impact on our (human) life....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 2:15pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 1:24pm: We've been through this. Huang et al. Conclude global temperatures were cooler during the MWP than now. If  regions in the northern hemisphere were as warm as today the southern hemisphere must have been cooler. Yes, but not as cool as you want to make out...and they also concluded that the rise in temperature was worldwide... Huang and Pollack did NOT state (in the original paper) that only Northern Europe was the only place affected....no they state that ALL continents were affected...Even if the top temps were a little 'off', they weren't as low as Mann's Hockey Stick  claimed... So, basically....the MWP AND the LIA did in fact exist, worldwide.....a 1/2 degree difference between 950AD-1250AD and 2008 is small potatoes on the scale of things... It STILL contradicts the Mann assertion that the temperatures never varied for over 2000 years and the 'suddenly' skyrocketed after 1880 or 1900

Huang et al, is just one reconstruction using bore hole
proxies. There are numerous other proxies that show lower global temperatures during the MWP.

Since the hockey stick paper was published in 1998, there have been a number of proxy studies analysing a variety of different sources including corals, stalagmites, tree rings, boreholes and ice cores. They all confirm the original hockey stick conclusion: the 20th century is the warmest in the last 1000 years and that warming was most dramatic after 1920.

http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11648/dn11648-2_726.jpg

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 3:20pm:

And further on the subject, allow me to explain.. I've seen some incredibly stupid and unscientific statements made by pro-warming bloggers (and a few made by anti-warming bloggers too).... One of the best was by a 'warmist' who said he had to log off (after commiting libel against a sceptic) because in his words 'it takes a lot of training to raise a child who will need to live in a 'warming world'.....Which is a complete load of twaddle...after all the blogger's parents managed it, as did his grandparents...(without any whiney complaints about the causes, incidently)..... Despite all the over emotional BS that exists.....a 'warming' of 1 or 2 degress Celcius will make almost NO difference to human existence....our children or grandchildren will barely notice....it'd take an increase of 15 or 20 degrees before there's any significant impact on our (human) life....

We are pretty much committed to an increase of 2C. If it's business  as usual it's looking more like 4 to 6C. I'll take your last sentence as a joke. 2C is dangerous, 4C and we are definitely hitting tipping points.

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 4:41pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 3:20pm: And further on the subject, allow me to explain.. I've seen some incredibly stupid and unscientific statements made by pro-warming bloggers (and a few made by anti-warming bloggers too).... One of the best was by a 'warmist' who said he had to log off (after commiting libel against a sceptic) because in his words 'it takes a lot of training to raise a child who will need to live in a 'warming world'.....Which is a complete load of twaddle...after all the blogger's parents managed it, as did his grandparents...(without any whiney complaints about the causes, incidently)..... Despite all the over emotional BS that exists.....a 'warming' of 1 or 2 degress Celcius will make almost NO difference to human existence....our children or grandchildren will barely notice....it'd take an increase of 15 or 20 degrees before there's any significant impact on our (human) life.... We are pretty much committed to an increase of 2C. If it's business  as usual it's looking more like 4 to 6C. I'll take your last sentence as a joke. 2C is dangerous, 4C and we are definitely hitting tipping points.

Horse poo....2C isn't even worth worrying about...it simply takes us back to the temp human's evolved in....even 4C isn't all that 'dangerous'.....all that it requires is less clothing and a minor 'relocation' of living areas....

THAT is the whole problem....we aren't all that unadaptable.......

In all seriousness...do YOU really think that the difference between 34C and 36C in summer, is really that 'bad'???

Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things?

2C might not sound a lot to you, but scientific research points to some very costly outcomes.

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 6:10pm:

Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things? 2C might not sound a lot to you, but scientific research points to some very costly outcomes.

Aliens landing, and the Sun going out...dogs and cats living together...which other frightening things can we mention???...( Hint...there's no proof of any of the 'other' crap you mentioned...so why not panic about the stars going out???)

I'll make this fairly straight forward for you...

I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios.....
And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true....

So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)????

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 4:57pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 4:41pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 3:20pm: And further on the subject, allow me to explain.. I've seen some incredibly stupid and unscientific statements made by pro-warming bloggers (and a few made by anti-warming bloggers too).... One of the best was by a 'warmist' who said he had to log off (after commiting libel against a sceptic) because in his words 'it takes a lot of training to raise a child who will need to live in a 'warming world'.....Which is a complete load of twaddle...after all the blogger's parents managed it, as did his grandparents...(without any whiney complaints about the causes, incidently)..... Despite all the over emotional BS that exists.....a 'warming' of 1 or 2 degress Celcius will make almost NO difference to human existence....our children or grandchildren will barely notice....it'd take an increase of 15 or 20 degrees before there's any significant impact on our (human) life.... We are pretty much committed to an increase of 2C. If it's business  as usual it's looking more like 4 to 6C. I'll take your last sentence as a joke. 2C is dangerous, 4C and we are definitely hitting tipping points. Horse poo....2C isn't even worth worrying about...it simply takes us back to the temp human's evolved in....even 4C isn't all that 'dangerous'.....all that it requires is less clothing and a minor 'relocation' of living areas.... THAT is the whole problem....we aren't all that unadaptable....... In all seriousness...do YOU really think that the difference between 34C and 36C in summer, is really that 'bad'???

Gizmo is full of shite: let's do endless circles around the phrase RATES OF CHANGE!!!
   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ;D ;D

There has never been this sort of consensus within the scientific community. Back in the 1970s there were some scientists suggesting that we might be facing another ice age. This was not a consensus position. Peterson (2008) conducted a survey of 68 scientific studies on "global cooling" written between 1965 and 1979. 10% of these studies predicted cooling, 28% did not take a stance, while 62% predicted warming. 30 years on and with more reliable data, 97% of climate scientists support the concept of anthropogenic global warming.

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 7:14pm:

I'll make this fairly straight forward for you... I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios..... And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true.... So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)????

NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE!!

IF YOU CARED FOR YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDRENS CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM MIGHT CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT, I DARE SAY, NOT UNTIL!

;) ;)  :D   :)     ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 8:13pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 7:14pm: I'll make this fairly straight forward for you... I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios..... And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true.... So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)???? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE!! IF YOU CARED FOR YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDRENS CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM MIGHT CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT, I DARE SAY, NOT UNTIL! ;) ;)  :D   :)     ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D

Well I have children....and I'm pretty sure they, and their children can adapt to anything that comes up....
And if my children's grandchildren can't adapt to what ever is going to happen....then I'll disown them...for being as stupid as the current crop of warmists...(like YOU Horse...)

MOTR wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 6:10pm:

Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things?

You left out the return of Godzilla and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. :)

You are spectacularly ignorant.

MOTR wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 10:12am:

You are spectacularly ignorant.

Spectacularly not gullable actually. :)

Explain to me how you have come to the conclusion that rising global temperature is not a significant threat. Have you read any of the scientific literature?

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21^st, 2011 at 9:29pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 8:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 7:14pm: I'll make this fairly straight forward for you... I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios..... And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true.... So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)???? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE!! IF YOU CARED FOR YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDRENS CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM MIGHT CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT, I DARE SAY, NOT UNTIL! ;) ;)  :D   :)     ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D Well I have children....and I'm pretty sure they, and their children can adapt to anything that comes up.... And if my children's grandchildren can't adapt to what ever is going to happen....then I'll disown them...for being as stupid as the current crop of warmists...(like YOU Horse...)

Thats why you cant argue with people like Gizmo. They are quite prepared to disown their own children on a matter of principal.

Stubborn is stubborn ;D.

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 10:35am:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 9:29pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 8:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 7:14pm: I'll make this fairly straight forward for you... I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios..... And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true.... So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)???? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE!! IF YOU CARED FOR YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDRENS CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM MIGHT CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT, I DARE SAY, NOT UNTIL! ;) ;)  :D   :)     ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D Well I have children....and I'm pretty sure they, and their children can adapt to anything that comes up.... And if my children's grandchildren can't adapt to what ever is going to happen....then I'll disown them...for being as stupid as the current crop of warmists...(like YOU Horse...) Thats why you cant argue with people like Gizmo. They are quite prepared to disown their own children on a matter of principal. Stubborn is stubborn ;D.

Nope Doc...prepared to disown my children for being a waste of space.....

If my kids/grandkids can't manage something as simply as moving to higher elevations or further from the equator, then they'd be oxygen thieves....

I'm sorry Doc...but we 'only' disagree as to the causes of the current warming, not the fact that it IS warming....

So how would you 'describe' a person who stayed on the coast (during a sea level rise) or stayed in a 'tropical zone' (during an increase in tropical temperatures?)....

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 9:54am:

MOTR wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 6:10pm: Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things? You left out the return of Godzilla and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. :)

(head slap)....damn, so I did....Sorry, must have been blinded by the decloaking starship fleet....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 1:17pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 9:54am: MOTR wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 6:10pm: Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things? You left out the return of Godzilla and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. :) (head slap)....damn, so I did....Sorry, must have been blinded by the decloaking starship fleet....

Ah, no Gizmo.
That's a de-cloaking Klingon or Romulan fleet.
I see you haven't been keeping up. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 1:21pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 1:17pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 9:54am: MOTR wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 6:10pm: Droughts, flooding, the spread of mosquitos-born diseases, desertification, loss of biodiversity, ocean acidification, decline in rice yields, decline in global phytoplankton, declining fish populations, decreasing human water supplies. Why risk all these things? You left out the return of Godzilla and the four horsemen of the apocalypse. :) (head slap)....damn, so I did....Sorry, must have been blinded by the decloaking starship fleet.... Ah, no Gizmo. That's a de-cloaking Klingon or Romulan fleet. I see you haven't been keeping up. :)

Ahh sorry, my bad...

Sorry to interrupt this little love in, but I'm off on holidays. Thanks Gizmo for the debate, you've helped me delve a little deeper into the issue. Unfortunately, from your perspective, you've strengthen my belief that AGW is the greatest threat facing humankind. I'll try and get back and explain why, but access to the Internet will be limited.

Chicken_lipsforme, my advice to you is simple, dont separate your Internet presence from your own persona.

To the horse rider guy, being right means poo if you can't bring people with you.

To everyone, have a wonderful Christmas.

Seriously, we can't say poo.

MOTR wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2011 at 2:27am:

Sorry to interrupt this little love in, but I'm off on holidays. Thanks Gizmo for the debate, you've helped me delve a little deeper into the issue. Unfortunately, from your perspective, you've strengthen my belief that AGW is the greatest threat facing humankind. I'll try and get back and explain why, but access to the Internet will be limited. Chicken_lipsforme, my advice to you is simple, dont separate your Internet presence from your own persona. To the horse rider guy, being right means poo if you can't bring people with you. To everyone, have a wonderful Christmas.

It's hard to go past good advice, Merry Christmas to you too Motr. :)

Cheers, Chicken_lipsforme.

I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green.

MOTR wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2011 at 1:35pm:

Cheers, Chicken_lipsforme. I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green.

Bummer...Heading where???

And Merry Christmas incidently...

And in response to your post...I also believe GW (NOT Agw) is a serious problem for humans.....although I'd put it a little lower on the list, after starvation in Africa and the EU financial crisis....Both of these are somewhat more immediate than global warming..

Macksville, just south of Nambucca.

MOTR wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2011 at 1:54pm:

Macksville, just south of Nambucca.

Nice...My family holidayed at Nambucca Heads, long ago, and we spent most holidays in Forster (we had a 'kinda sorta' uncle in Forster)...And I had a timeshare in Port Mac...

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 22^nd, 2011 at 1:15pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 22nd, 2011 at 10:35am: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 9:29pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 8:13pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 21st, 2011 at 7:14pm: I'll make this fairly straight forward for you... I'm nearly a half a century old..And I've heard most of the 'end of the world' scenarios..... And pretty much the only thing they have in common is that NONE of them have ever come even close to being true.... So what's my incentive to believe this latest one (AGW)???? NO ONE CARES WHAT YOU THINK SO THAT IS WHY THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR YOU TO BELIEVE!! IF YOU CARED FOR YOUR CHILDRENS CHILDRENS CHILDREN THEN SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM MIGHT CARE WHAT YOU THINK BUT, I DARE SAY, NOT UNTIL! ;) ;)  :D   :)     ::) :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-* :'( :'( :'( :'( :'( ;D Well I have children....and I'm pretty sure they, and their children can adapt to anything that comes up.... And if my children's grandchildren can't adapt to what ever is going to happen....then I'll disown them...for being as stupid as the current crop of warmists...(like YOU Horse...) Thats why you cant argue with people like Gizmo. They are quite prepared to disown their own children on a matter of principal. Stubborn is stubborn ;D. Nope Doc...prepared to disown my children for being a waste of space..... If my kids/grandkids can't manage something as simply as moving to higher elevations or further from the equator, then they'd be oxygen thieves.... I'm sorry Doc...but we 'only' disagree as to the causes of the current warming, not the fact that it IS warming.... So how would you 'describe' a person who stayed on the coast (during a sea level rise) or stayed in a 'tropical zone' (during an increase in tropical temperatures?)....

geez, dood... you got some wicked compreshension problems!

EVERY ONE HATES MOVING,... LOL!

EVER HEARD OF LOGISTICS????

MY GAWWWWWWWWWD, THIS IS AN EMBARRASINGLY POOR PERFORMANCE IF YOU ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF ANYONE ELSES OPINION!!

LOL, ... JUST SO LOL!!!!  ::) ::) ::) :-[ :-[ :-/ :-/ :-/ :-/ :'(

THAT IS JUST WEAK WEAK WEAK STUFF, LOL!!  :o :o ::)

HEY GIZMO,(... BUDDY  ::) ::) ), JUST WHOS PANTS ARE YOU TRYING TO PUT YOUR HAND DOWN MATEY????
  :o :o :o ;D

LOL, JUST SOOOOOOOOOOOOOO LOLZALOT!  :-X ::) :-/ :'( :'(

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 23^rd, 2011 at 1:39pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: Cheers, Chicken_lipsforme. I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green. Bummer...Heading where??? And Merry Christmas incidently... And in response to your post...I also believe GW (NOT Agw) is a serious problem for humans.....although I'd put it a little lower on the list, after starvation in Africa and the EU financial crisis....Both of these are somewhat more immediate than global warming..

yOU'VE WRITTEN A FEW THREADS ON STARVING KIDS HAVE YA????   :o :o :o

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 5:20pm:

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:39pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: Cheers, Chicken_lipsforme. I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green. Bummer...Heading where??? And Merry Christmas incidently... And in response to your post...I also believe GW (NOT Agw) is a serious problem for humans.....although I'd put it a little lower on the list, after starvation in Africa and the EU financial crisis....Both of these are somewhat more immediate than global warming.. yOU'VE WRITTEN A FEW THREADS ON STARVING KIDS HAVE YA????   :o :o :o

No, but then I havent written one line retarded threads about politicians either....

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 26^th, 2011 at 6:02pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 26th, 2011 at 5:20pm: gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:39pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: Cheers, Chicken_lipsforme. I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green. Bummer...Heading where??? And Merry Christmas incidently... And in response to your post...I also believe GW (NOT Agw) is a serious problem for humans.....although I'd put it a little lower on the list, after starvation in Africa and the EU financial crisis....Both of these are somewhat more immediate than global warming.. yOU'VE WRITTEN A FEW THREADS ON STARVING KIDS HAVE YA????   :o :o :o No, but then I havent written one line retarded threads about politicians either....

gizmo is playing pause button politics by trying to chew up the entire internet address space!!

  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

It's very childish to whine about anyone who challenges you, you know....

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 9:06pm:

MOTR wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green.

I've missed a train out of Sydney. !!  what a f'n shxtfight.  Heading north from Vic maybe.?  Thats what happened to me.

Travelling by train from Vic to Qld can be a real p.i.t.a.!!  -------They're late.. -The lines being repaired. -------Due to delays - 1/2 hr late , out of Shep. !!  There's a huge coal train going the other way.... There has been a difficult passenger. ... Police had to be called. .... A child became ill, an ambulance is coming..soon,!!......The train into Syd was late, and missed the train to Qld , so all pile on a bus to try and catch it at Kempsey..............  MY GOD.!! the horror stories I could tell you about travelling Nth/sth by train.

It's a scandal.!!!!

Nevertheless MOTR  - hope you got there. Happy New Year.!!!!!!!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2011 at 10:12pm:

It's very childish to whine about anyone who challenges you, you know....

chew chew chew chew chew...

hey, giz, how much internet address space have you warmongering so called 'conservatives' got left to try and chew up?????  :D :D

::)

I just got back.
Guess what?
The Arctic is still there. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 8:56am:

I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :)

Only just. :)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 8:56am:

I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :)

LOL, chickenlips is in on the trying-to-chew-up-the-whole-of-the-internets-address-space plan!!!

  :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ::)

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 9:18am:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 8:56am: I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :) Only just. :)

Yes - back on topic- Thanks Doctor Jolly.......................

AND-as for twerps like Deathray and Gizmoid and Lipstosuk... shame on you for wasting  your efforts on this topic. To be sure someone somewhere might even appreciate what y'all seem to think so witty, rivetting.. whatever you imagine? .....
... yaw disrespect is wasteful and pathetic... ha ha ha   

-just 'cos you don't want to accept an obvious fact, doesn't give you and ur ilk a right to disrupt a topic.   I doubt anyone else but your own idiot selves will continue this if I shut up now.
But - if anyone does want to continue in spite of these ???hmm has to be something else to 'call' them..??

(How about  ....'voids'. !!!!  
Just thought of that. ;D :)

I LIKE IT. :) 8-))

yeah so if you want to go on with this topic  DO IT.

 

Emma wrote on Dec 28^th, 2011 at 1:28am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 27th, 2011 at 9:06pm: MOTR wrote on Dec 23rd, 2011 at 1:35pm: I missed my train out of Sydney, it's not easy being green. I've missed a train out of Sydney. !!  what a f'n shxtfight.  Heading north from Vic maybe.?  Thats what happened to me. Travelling by train from Vic to Qld can be a real p.i.t.a.!!  -------They're late.. -The lines being repaired. -------Due to delays - 1/2 hr late , out of Shep. !!  There's a huge coal train going the other way.... There has been a difficult passenger. ... Police had to be called. .... A child became ill, an ambulance is coming..soon,!!......The train into Syd was late, and missed the train to Qld , so all pile on a bus to try and catch it at Kempsey..............  MY GOD.!! the horror stories I could tell you about travelling Nth/sth by train. It's a scandal.!!!! Nevertheless MOTR  - hope you got there. Happy New Year.!!!!!!!

Never mind all that, there is no money to fix the trains because we now need to urgently send billions of dollars to third world backkwaters to 'buy' permits to actually run our lives here.

SO be glad, you have ben doing your bit for the planet. I hope you are glowing.

why TY Soren. :)

[i]Never mind all that, there is no money to fix the trains because we now need to urgently send billions of dollars to third world backkwaters to 'buy' permits to actually run our lives here.

SO be glad, you have ben doing your bit for the planet. I hope you are glowing.[/i] - Soren

Wish I understood what you were saying though. :-? :-?

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 4:33pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 8:56am: I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :) LOL, chickenlips is in on the trying-to-chew-up-the-whole-of-the-internets-address-space plan!!!   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ::)

Don't worry Death, your reputation is still intact. :)

Emma wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 8:18pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 9:18am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 8:56am: I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :) Only just. :) Yes - back on topic- Thanks Doctor Jolly....................... AND-as for twerps like Deathray and Gizmoid and Lipstosuk... shame on you for wasting  your efforts on this topic. To be sure someone somewhere might even appreciate what y'all seem to think so witty, rivetting.. whatever you imagine? ..... ... yaw disrespect is wasteful and pathetic... ha ha ha    -just 'cos you don't want to accept an obvious fact, doesn't give you and ur ilk a right to disrupt a topic.   I doubt anyone else but your own idiot selves will continue this if I shut up now. But - if anyone does want to continue in spite of these ???hmm has to be something else to 'call' them..?? (How about  ....'voids'. !!!!   Just thought of that. ;D :) I LIKE IT. :) 8-)) yeah so if you want to go on with this topic  DO IT.

Sorry, lets get back on topic and discuss the shrinking Arctic that's still there. :)
At an inch a year, this is a thread my unborn great great great great great great grandchildren could contribute to eh if Ozpolitics lasts that long?

Sorry, lets get back on topic and discuss the shrinking Arctic that's still there.
At an inch a year, this is a thread my unborn great great great great great great grandchildren could contribute to eh if Ozpolitics lasts that long?

Hey void... ;)
had no idea you were such an unrealistic optimist.  Dream on Lips. 8-)

Emma wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 6:23pm:

Sorry, lets get back on topic and discuss the shrinking Arctic that's still there. At an inch a year, this is a thread my unborn great great great great great great grandchildren could contribute to eh if Ozpolitics lasts that long? Hey void... ;) had no idea you were such an unrealistic optimist.  Dream on Lips. 8-)

In truth..ONLY if the Environmentalists are correct....
IF they aren't correct, then the Arctic Ice will recover....which is the entire point of the argument...

Given the cyclical nature of the Universe,  there is no real doubt that the 'Ice' will return.

Just when - is the question.  Likely long after our generation has gone to 'mud'. :)

Emma wrote on Dec 29^th, 2011 at 8:18pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 9:18am: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 8:56am: I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :) Only just. :) Yes - back on topic- Thanks Doctor Jolly....................... AND-as for twerps like Deathray and Gizmoid and Lipstosuk... shame on you for wasting  your efforts on this topic. To be sure someone somewhere might even appreciate what y'all seem to think so witty, rivetting.. whatever you imagine? ..... ... yaw disrespect is wasteful and pathetic... ha ha ha    -just 'cos you don't want to accept an obvious fact, doesn't give you and ur ilk a right to disrupt a topic.   I doubt anyone else but your own idiot selves will continue this if I shut up now. But - if anyone does want to continue in spite of these ???hmm has to be something else to 'call' them..?? (How about  ....'voids'. !!!!   Just thought of that. ;D :) I LIKE IT. :) 8-)) yeah so if you want to go on with this topic  DO IT.

Trolls rule the world mate: what do else do you honestly think motivates societies to go to war!!??!

  :o :o :o

Get a grip,.. you can't roll over and let people just say what they want without a little backpressure!

You can avoid them, for sure,... but can you really!???!

Like i said: they're a part of life, like weeds growing through cracks in the pavement!

Call me a troll if you want... just words dood and you might realise you don't know all the answers to all the questions!

STRIVE TOWARDS THE LIGHT SIDE AND THE POWER OF THE FLOW KEEPS THEM IN HARMONY!

CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERS!!  ;) ;)

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 8:20am:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 4:33pm: chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 29th, 2011 at 8:56am: I just got back. Guess what? The Arctic is still there. :) LOL, chickenlips is in on the trying-to-chew-up-the-whole-of-the-internets-address-space plan!!!   :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o :o ::) Don't worry Death, your reputation is still intact. :)

YOU DON'T LIKE ME MUCH DO YA!!

WAIT, HOW CAN PROPAGANDA DISLIKE SOMEONE??

  :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

  [/quote]
Trolls rule the world mate: what do else do you honestly think motivates societies to go to war!!??!

  :o :o :o

Get a grip,.. you can't roll over and let people just say what they want without a little backpressure!

You can avoid them, for sure,... but can you really!???!

Like i said: they're a part of life, like weeds growing through cracks in the pavement!

Call me a troll if you want... just words dood and you might realise you don't know all the answers to all the questions!

STRIVE TOWARDS THE LIGHT SIDE AND THE POWER OF THE FLOW KEEPS THEM IN HARMONY!

CHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERS!!  ;) ;)[/quote]

ROLL OVER?? Hmmmph!!

You think I roll over?? Thats not how I see it.  (assuming you are talking to me)I'll give a bit of slack..., if it seems good, but...I
Don't think I call people trolls.. :-?.  trolls aren't people.  :)
People may be voids -- that is - empty space, wasted space.  I suspect we (people) often work at cross-purposes, ... because we don't realise...we are all on the same side.!!! :D

IE?   Pro-survival......Balance.   :)
Yeah :) -  Balance = on-going endless interruptions to stasis... continuous challenge to certainty,.... positive and negative actions reflecting positive and negative outcomes - no null void.
Strewth - it isn't even NY Eve !!

Cheers
heres bloody well hoping 2012 is better than 2011 was. :-/

S'truth!

!!!!!!!!!

See  ::).. humans have such a powerful impact on the 'natural world' ... our actions are SO extreme with regard to 'balance' that  OUR EARTH is forced to drastic measures. Our overall behaviour is psychotic..unfit.!  Our ability and technology outstrip our ethics.!!

I simply suspect that if WE don't lift our game, BIG TIME, our mother , the Earth, will be forced to take measures... BIG TIME.!!  Recently, we have been shown just a small sample of her power.... but have we SEEN it?  Some have. Some have not.!!

But in the whole scheme of things, our presence is but a flicker of time....soon forgotten,.......  so who gaf.? .... Just a 'Mote in God's Eye'.   

  No plagiarism here, thats a title of a book, ...just can't remember if it was an old Larry Niven collaboration, or an old Piers Anthony, before his Xanth days. :-? :)

Cheeeeers

Emma wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 12:30am:

S'truth! !!!!!!!!! See  ::).. humans have such a powerful impact on the 'natural world' ... our actions are SO extreme with regard to 'balance' that  OUR EARTH is forced to drastic measures. Our overall behaviour is psychotic..unfit.!  Our ability and technology outstrip our ethics.!! I simply suspect that if WE don't lift our game, BIG TIME, our mother , the Earth, will be forced to take measures... BIG TIME.!!  Recently, we have been shown just a small sample of her power.... but have we SEEN it?  Some have. Some have not.!! But in the whole scheme of things, our presence is but a flicker of time....soon forgotten,.......  so who gaf.? .... Just a 'Mote in God's Eye'.      No plagiarism here, thats a title of a book, ...just can't remember if it was an old Larry Niven collaboration, or an old Piers Anthony, before his Xanth days. :-? :) Cheeeeers

Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle...

Although it's very interesting that you chose 'A Mote in God's Eye'....since a mote is a tiny. insiginificant speck...Which is really a good parallel to human impact on the planet...

Emma wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 12:30am:

S'truth! !!!!!!!!! See  ::).. humans have such a powerful impact on the 'natural world' ... our actions are SO extreme with regard to 'balance' that  OUR EARTH is forced to drastic measures. Our overall behaviour is psychotic..unfit.!  Our ability and technology outstrip our ethics.!! I simply suspect that if WE don't lift our game, BIG TIME, our mother , the Earth, will be forced to take measures... BIG TIME.!!  Recently, we have been shown just a small sample of her power.... but have we SEEN it?  Some have. Some have not.!!

Mmmmmmmm, I'm sure I've seen this epic Hollywood blockbuster movie already.  :)

Cant seem to reply to Gizmoid - the page will not come up - I get a net fail message everytime.  And had a great wee reply too.

Have to de-re-construct.!!

So thanks for that - Niven and Pournelle.

As you point out a mote is very tiny .  But get a small gritty bit in your eye, and you soon realise it affects most of the rest of your being as well.!!  Not so bad a comparison after all yeah??
Jeez cant remember what else- just my point is that long after we are gone Mother will remain, regardless of how insane we are, fouling our own beds, we are only really hurting ourselves, and the life that shares this earth with us NOW.  Life will continue,, just not our era's life.
Sad, stupid, insane,suicidal,,, says it all. :(

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 10:39am:

Emma wrote on Dec 31st, 2011 at 12:30am: S'truth! !!!!!!!!! See  ::).. humans have such a powerful impact on the 'natural world' ... our actions are SO extreme with regard to 'balance' that  OUR EARTH is forced to drastic measures. Our overall behaviour is psychotic..unfit.!  Our ability and technology outstrip our ethics.!! I simply suspect that if WE don't lift our game, BIG TIME, our mother , the Earth, will be forced to take measures... BIG TIME.!!  Recently, we have been shown just a small sample of her power.... but have we SEEN it?  Some have. Some have not.!! Mmmmmmmm, I'm sure I've seen this epic Hollywood blockbuster movie already.  :)

Yeah a few times no doubt.  But .here a couple of real-life examples,  historically speaking. :) Look at  -  Easter Island... whose people destroyed their own habitat to make bigger and better statues to >>???

Look at -  the disappearance of the Anasazi - a rich culture all gone - no-one left, ... except perhaps a few survivors who managed to find a home somewhere else, and became part of their saviours culture.  And thats still debatable.

Emma wrote on Dec 31^st, 2011 at 7:48pm:

chicken_lipsforme wrote on Dec 31st, 2011 at 10:39am: Emma wrote on Dec 31st, 2011 at 12:30am: S'truth! !!!!!!!!! See  ::).. humans have such a powerful impact on the 'natural world' ... our actions are SO extreme with regard to 'balance' that  OUR EARTH is forced to drastic measures. Our overall behaviour is psychotic..unfit.!  Our ability and technology outstrip our ethics.!! I simply suspect that if WE don't lift our game, BIG TIME, our mother , the Earth, will be forced to take measures... BIG TIME.!!  Recently, we have been shown just a small sample of her power.... but have we SEEN it?  Some have. Some have not.!! Mmmmmmmm, I'm sure I've seen this epic Hollywood blockbuster movie already.  :) Yeah a few times no doubt.  But .here a couple of real-life examples,  historically speaking. :) Look at  -  Easter Island... whose people destroyed their own habitat to make bigger and better statues to >>??? Look at -  the disappearance of the Anasazi - a rich culture all gone - no-one left, ... except perhaps a few survivors who managed to find a home somewhere else, and became part of their saviours culture.  And thats still debatable.

Whos losses can be explained by war eh.
Not man made 'climate change' and deadly Co2.

Emma wrote on Dec 30^th, 2011 at 7:18pm:

Given the cyclical nature of the Universe,  there is no real doubt that the 'Ice' will return. Just when - is the question.  Likely long after our generation has gone to 'mud'. :)

Tell that to the martians.  They are still waiting for the climate change cycle to be over.

;D

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/ArcticSeaIceMinimumCoverage.jpg

http://learner.org/courses/envsci/visual/img_med/sea_ice.jpg

http://chriscolose.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/arctic-sea-ice-decline.gif